UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Stigma at work : the consequence of disability and gender inequality Grenon, Gordon Lee 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 G74.pdf [ 6.3MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098772.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098772-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098772-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098772-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098772-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098772-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098772-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098772-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098772.ris

Full Text

STIGMA AT WORK: THE CONSEQUENCE OF DISABILITY AND GENDER INEQUALITY by GORDON LEE GRENON B.A., The University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 Copyright Gordon Lee Grenon, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date Apr.') 2<? f?<7 1 DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This t h e s i s presents research conducted on work, income, and educational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of disabled people i n Canada. This research i s s p e c i f i c a l l y concerned with the comparison of gender ine q u a l i t y between the disabled population and the non-disabled population. The research question i s 'what i s the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender inequality?'. Using survey data from the 1986 Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations Survey (HALS) a series of s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons where made between the non-disabled and disabled populations across a wide range of s o c i a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The s t a t i s t i c a l research presented includes both cross tabulations and regression analyses. The research concludes that the extent of gender inequality - 'the gender gap' - i s comparable between the non-disabled and disabled populations. The stigma of d i s a b i l i t y does not appear to eith e r diminish nor exacerbate gender inequality i n paid work. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 The Significance of Work i n Social Relations 3 Research on Gender and D i s a b i l i t y 5 CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION 9 D i s a b i l i t y 10 Stigma 12 RESEARCH QUESTION 16 Less Differences by Gender 16 The Master Status of D i s a b i l i t y 17 The Consequences of Master Status 19 Greater Differences by Gender 2 0 The Consequences of Multiple Minority Status 21 The Gender Divi s i o n of Resources 22 Comparable Differences by Gender 2 3 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS 24 Objectives of the HALS 26 Development and Implementation of the HALS 26 Data C o l l e c t i o n of the HALS 28 Processin and Estimation of the HALS Data 28 HALS Data Limitations 29 HALS QUESTIONS 31 Screening Questions 31 Special Aids 31 Soci a l Services 32 Employment 3 3 Education 33 Transportation 3 3 Accommodation 3 3 Recreation and L i f e s t y l e s 33 Economic Characteristics 34 Census Linked Characteristics 34 MEASUREMENT 34 D i s a b i l i t y 35 i i i Impairments 35 A g i l i t y Impairments 38 Hearing Impairments 38 Mobility Impairments 38 'Other' Impairments 38 Seeing Impairments 39 Speaking Impairments 39 'Unknown' Impairments 39 Severity of Impairment 39 Work Limitations 42 Age Groups 43 Demographic Location 43 Ethnic Origins 43 Highest Level of Schooling 44 Elementary and Secondary Only 44 Other Non-university Education Only 44 University Education 44 Labour Force 45 Hours Worked 46 Weeks Worked 47 Occupational Status 48 Employment and Total Income 48 Low Income Status 49 ANALYSIS 50 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS 53 GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 53 Total Population 53 Pro v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n 55 Impairment Status 55 Mobility and A g i l i t y Impairments 55 Psychological, Cognitive, and Speaking Impairments 57 Hearing Impairments 57 Seeing Impairments 58 Category of Unknown Nature of Impairment 58 Summary 58 Multiple D i s a b i l i t i e s 58 Severity Status 60 Work Limitations 60 Age Groups 61 Urban and Rural Status 62 Marital Status 62 COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES IN WORK, AND INCOME BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS 64 Labour Force Status 68 Work Limitations 71 Hours and Weeks Worked 72 Occupational Status 73 Summary of Work Characteristics 76 i v COMPARATIVE DIFFERENCES OF GENDER INEQUALITY BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS 77 Educational Attainment 79 Employment Income 80 Total Income 82 Work Limitations and Income 84 Income Differences Reconsidered 84 Low-Income Status 87 Summary of Comparative Analyses of Gender Inequality Between Disabled and Non-Disabled Populations 87 ANALYSES OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN DISABILITY AND GENDER 89 Interpreting the Regression Analysis Tables 90 Employment Income 92 Total Income 95 Educational Attainment 98 Reconsidering the Interaction 98 ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE DISABLED POPULATION 100 Employment Income 100 Educational Attainment 104 Summary of Regression Analyses 107 CONCLUSION 108 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 111 Conclusion of Research 111 The Significance of Social Science 113 Directions for Further Research 116 APPENDIX TABLES 119 GLOSSARY 130 REFERENCES 133 V LIST OF TABLES Table 1 IMPAIRMENT STATUS IN THE DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 56 Table 2 MULTIPLE DISABILITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 59 Table 3 SEVERITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 59 Table 4 URBAN AND RURAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULUTION 63 Table 5 CENTRAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN THE DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 66 Table 6 LABOUR FORCE STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 69 Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 74 Table 8 LOW INCOME STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 86 Table 9 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 93 Table 10 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 96 Table 11 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 99 Table 12 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 101 Table 13 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 105 V I LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table A l AGE GROUPINGS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 119 Table A2 MARITAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 120 Table A3 HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 121 Table A4 1985 EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 123 Table A5 1985 TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 125 Table A6 1985 CENSUS FAMILY INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 127 Table A7 TENURE OF DWELLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 129 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis has been f a c i l i t a t e d by, and benefited from, a number of in d i v i d u a l s . I would f i r s t l i k e to thank N e i l Guppy for hi s i n s i g h t f u l comments, and his generous and enthusiastic support i n conducting the research. Access to the HALS public use microdata was made possible by Adele Furrie of S t a t i s t i c s Canada. I am g r a t e f u l for her assistance i n accessing t h i s data. I am greatly indebted to the Charles Crane Memorial Library s t a f f and volunteers who have for many years transcribed massive volumes of printed material into t a l k i n g book format. I can not overstate my gratitude to a l l the s t a f f and volunteers at Crane Library. I would l i k e to p a r t i c u l a r l y thank Judy and Paul Thiele, E l o i s a , Concetta, Clay, Catherine, Kerry, and Chris. A l l have made the un i v e r s i t y a more accessible place f o r people with v i s u a l impairments or blindness. I have also benefited from the i n s i g h t f u l comments of G i l l i a n Creese and William McKellin, and many other friends. Any ommissions, errors, or weaknesses i n t h i s work of course are f u l l y my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . v i i i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION In recent years the volume and character of research on persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s has changed considerably. Research on the s o c i a l consequences of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s i s increasingly challenging the t r a d i t i o n a l research focus on f u n c t i o n - l i m i t a t i o n s i n d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . This challenge proposes a s h i f t i n research from changing the i n d i v i d u a l through r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or an 'adapted' l i f e s t y l e toward c r i t i c a l analysis of the place of disabled people i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l l y segmented s o c i e t y . R ather than examining f a c t o r s l i m i t i n g the r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or adaption process, c r i t i c a l s o c i a l researchers are i n v e s t i g a t i n g practices of segregation, discrimination, and degradation of people with d i s a b i l i t i e s . The emergence of c r i t i c a l s o c i a l research i s implicated i n the dramatic changes which have occurred i n the l i v e s of disabled persons. Programs of d e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , integration into schools and work places, and c i v i l r i g h t s l e g i s l a t i o n r e f l e c t t h i s s h i f t i n concern from changing the i n d i v i d u a l to changing s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . The l i t e r a t u r e of c r i t i c a l s o c i a l research i s a wide m u l t i d i s c i p l i n a r y e f f o r t which has incorporated methods and theories from the s o c i a l sciences, education, and humanities. Consequently, the d i v e r s i t y of experience among disabled persons i s increasingly being acknowledged. Feminist research methods and t h e o r i e s are p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n the c r i t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the experiences of disabled persons. 1 Women with d i s a b i l i t i e s have t y p i c a l l y been absent from the dominant r e s e a r c h programs conducted to am e l i o r a t e the consequences of d i s a b i l i t y . For example, i n the health sciences a considerable volume of research exists on the e f f e c t s of renal disease, diabetes, and hypertension medication on the sexuality of men, while no such l i t e r a t u r e addresses these e f f e c t s on the sexuality of women (Kutner and Gray, 1985: 105-117). S i m i l a r l y , there i s an absence of medical research on pregnancy among women with s p e c i f i c d i s a b i l i t i e s (Shaul et a l , 1985: 133-142). In the s o c i a l services l i t e r a t u r e , women are also notably absent from the discussion. Service planners and evaluators conducting research on the economic needs of disabled persons r a r e l y examine the unique experiences and position of women with d i s a b i l i t i e s i n the family, school, and work place (Kutza, 1985: 68-86). A c e n t r a l problem raised i n the emerging l i t e r a t u r e on women with d i s a b i l i t i e s i s 'what i s the consequence of multiple minority status i n a population?'. S p e c i f i c a l l y , what i s the consequence of being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y (Deegan and Brooks, 1985; Fine and Asch, 1988; Kallen, 1989; and Lonsdale, 1990) . The research here addresses t h i s problem both empirically and t h e o r e t i c a l l y . The research question developed and analyzed i n the following Chapters i s 'what i s the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender inequality i n work?' The research examines differences within the disabled population, but i s primarily concerned with the general e f f e c t of d i s a b i l i t y on gender inequality i n work, education, and income. 2 The investigation of the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y may seem to some a peripheral area of s o c i a l research. However, the study of stigma and status are i n fact central to s o c i a l science. Everyone i n d i f f e r i n g instances has experienced being d i s c r e d i t e d by a stigma, or a 'spoiled' i d e n t i t y (Goffman, 1963). Thus, the study of how such situations are experienced and t h e i r consequences i s of s i g n i f i c a n c e to s o c i a l researchers and t h e o r i s t s (Giddens, 1987). As the research presented here demonstrates, some people experience considerably greater stigmatization than do others, and the consequences of such stigmatization can be severe. A review of the l i t e r a t u r e addressing the problem of stigma and s t a t u s i s presented i n Chapter Two. An e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the s o c i a l and economic consequences of coincidin g minority statuses i s presented i n Chapter Four. This empirical evidence was obtained from the 1986 Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations Survey. A discussion of the HALS methodology i s presented i n Chapter Three. Chapter Five i s a concluding discussion of the research and theories presented here, and the si g n i f i c a n c e of the findings for s o c i a l p o l i c y and research. The remainder of t h i s introductory Chapter provides a general context as background to the th e o r e t i c a l and empirical work which follows, i n subsequent Chapters. The Significance of Work i n Social Relations The research reported here i s p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with the experiences of women r e l a t i v e to men, both with and without d i s a b i l i t i e s , i n the labour market, and the rela t e d consequences 3 of these experiences. Whether an ind i v i d u a l has employment or i s excluded from paid work, and i f employed whether the in d i v i d u a l has the opportunity for career promotion or i s segregated i n a 'dead end' job, has severe consequences on the l i f e chances of the i n d i v i d u a l . This research begins with the understanding that important linkages ex i s t between an indiv i d u a l ' s work and her or his s o c i a l relationships, status, and i d e n t i t y . Thus, a vari e t y of s o c i a l , educational, work, and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are examined i n t h i s research. Work i s understood by many community leaders, researchers and others as among the fundamental forms of human a c t i v i t y . For most people, work i s necessary for s u r v i v a l , and provides at leas t some personal f u l f i l l m e n t . The cumulative work of m i l l i o n s of women and men pursuing t h e i r own l i v e l i h o o d produces the form of economy and country i n Canada today. Work i s both a central l i f e a c t i v i t y and, thus, a fundamental s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n i n modern society. The r e s e a r c h presented here i s concerned with the differences i n paid work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between the disabled and non-disabled populations, and women and men i n each of these populations. Central to the study of these differences i s the analysis of the consequences a r i s i n g from these differences. An inv e s t i g a t i o n of the consequences of d i s a b i l i t y and gender for an ind i v i d u a l ' s working l i f e can be conducted from a myriad of f i e l d s and methods. This research i s a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the national adult population l i v i n g i n households, that i s 4 persons 15 to 64 years of age not res i d i n g i n a penal or medical i n s t i t u t i o n . Research on Gender and D i s a b i l i t y The experiences of women and men with d i s a b i l i t i e s has been investigated from an array of methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l approaches. The research here examines these experiences through s t a t i s t i c a l survey data. The analysis of t h i s data was conducted with a s p e c i f i c focus, and has revealed general indications of the experiences of disabled persons throughout Canada. The evidence used i s from the Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations Survey conducted by S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n 1986 as a post-censal survey of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s . The HALS i s part of the national database program on d i s a b i l i t y i n i t i a t e d by S t a t i s t i c s Canada on the recommendation from the Parliamentary Committee on the Disabled (Canada, 1981: 131). The HALS q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were conducted f o r three populations: children, adults, and i n s t i t u t i o n a l residents with d i s a b i l i t i e s . The survey i s a random and representative s e l e c t i o n of the national population. Over 130,000 persons were interviewed i n t o t a l from a l l three populations. The r e s u l t s reported here r e l y on the data for the largest of these populations - 127,000 adults (15 years of age or older) i n households. The analyses conducted on t h i s data were limited to the working-age population (15 to 64 years of age). The HALS f a c i l i t a t e s d i r e c t s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons between the non-disabled and disabled populations over a v a r i e t y of 5 selected census c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The comparability of the non-disabled and disabled populations, and the large national representative sample used, make the HALS the most comprehensive survey of disabled persons i n Canada, and c e r t a i n l y one of the most impressive s t a t i s t i c a l data sets on disabled persons a v a i l a b l e anywhere i n the world. T y p i c a l l y , national data on disabled persons has been col l e c t e d through health i n s t i t u t i o n records (thus not randomly selected), and have not provided a sample of non-disabled persons to permit d i r e c t comparative analyses. The HALS process of i d e n t i f y i n g an i n d i v i d u a l as having a d i s a b i l i t y conforms with the f u n c t i o n a l - l i m i t a t i o n s screening questionnaire method used by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D., 1982). These screening questions i d e n t i f y a range of d i f f e r e n t physical, sensory, cognitive, and psychological l i m i t a t i o n s i n performing d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . The OECD has been the leading international organization i n developing s t a t i s t i c a l research programs on disabled persons. This conformity allows for some international comparability, but more importantly demonstrates the international acceptance of t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y . Again other national surveys of disabled persons have used widely varying and often problematic d e f i n i t i o n s of d i s a b i l i t y . In general, the Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations Survey provides randomly selected n a t i o n a l - l e v e l data which allows for 6 comparative analyses with the non-disabled population over a range of census c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As well, the d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y , and screening c r i t e r i a have a h i s t o r y of demonstrated success at the international l e v e l . However, the HALS, l i k e other census surveys, must be seen for what i t i s - quantitative measures of human experience. Quantitative methodology has generally been portrayed as an objective means of c o l l e c t i n g evidence which i s free of the subjective 'contamination' inherent i n q u a l i t a t i v e methods. In response, to t h i s claim of o b j e c t i v i t y and 'given f a c t s ' , some authors have rejected s t a t i s t i c a l research as being i n t e r e s t i n g mathematics used to legitimize a p o s i t i v i s t i c s o c i a l science which i n f a c t i s neither objective nor value-free. This claim to o b j e c t i v i t y i s seen as inherently suspect as a means of avoiding problems of s u b j e c t i v i t y (Doyal and Harris, 1986). Neither the u n c r i t i c a l acceptance of claims to o b j e c t i v i t y nor the complete r e j e c t i o n of s t a t i s t i c a l analyses as numerical 'smoke and mirrors' i s an appropriate response to s t a t i s t i c a l methodology. Rather, l i k e other s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c practices, s t a t i s t i c a l analyses are best situated i n i t s s o c i a l context. Irvine and h i s colleagues (1979) understand s t a t i s t i c a l practices as being s o c i a l i n nature. This means the orientation, concepts, te c h n i c a l instruments, and uses of s t a t i s t i c a l research need to be understood as s o c i a l practices. The HALS methodology was chosen and developed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada within a structure encompassing the i n t e r e s t s of both the 7 federal government and S t a t i s t i c s Canada i t s e l f . Beyond the i n s t i t u t i o n a l interests, are the i n d i v i d u a l commitments of professionals and researchers at a l l stages of the research process from design through to publication. The complex s t a t i s t i c a l findings r e s u l t i n g i n t h i s research are thus not merely an a r b i t r a r y creation, but rather are more i n need of being understood i n i t s s o c i a l context than being taken for granted or completely dismissed. S t a t i s t i c a l measures for a national population are generally regarded as providing information on the patterns i n , and consequences of, human action. Clearly, such a methodology i s i n e f f e c t i v e for examining the subtle s o c i a l actions r e s u l t i n g i n the measured pattern or consequence. However, the research presented here does indicate patterns of common experiences across very large populations. Obtaining evidence from t h i s size of a random population sample can not be achieved through q u a l i t a t i v e methods. Thus, the research presented here can p r o v i d e a c r i t i c a l assessment of the hypotheses on the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender inequality, but should not be understood as being the only means of t e s t i n g these hypotheses. 8 CHAPTER TWO INTRODUCTION This research examines the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender inequality i n work. Much of the research on disabled persons t r e a t s d i s a b i l i t y as having a common l e v e l of consequence for a l l persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s . However, such a p o s i t i o n i s not necessarily j u s t i f i a b l e , and requires examination. Research i n the area of d i s a b i l i t y and work discussed here shows women to be disadvantaged i n r e l a t i o n to men through lower educational/training le v e l s , greater occupational concentration i n lower l e v e l positions, and lower incomes. Where research remains to be extended i s with regard to the character of gender ine q u a l i t y among disabled persons as compared to the non-disabled population. Is the gender gap d i f f e r e n t or comparable between the d i s a b l e d and non-disabled populations? This question i s complicated by the extraordinary disadvantage encountered by disabled women, and yet the capacity of many disabled persons to deal with disadvantage through an array of inventive s t r a t e g i e s . This Chapter discusses the l i t e r a t u r e most relevant to t h i s r e s e a r c h , and develops the research question within t h i s l i t e r a t u r e . The following discussion r e f l e c t s the general concern i n t h i s research with s i t u a t i n g d i s a b i l i t y within gender r e l a t i o n s . Thus, the discussion i s not as concerned with analyzing differences i n the disabled population as i t i s i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the significance of gender as compared to other major c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n the disabled population, such as nature 9 of d i s a b i l i t y . An examination of differences i n educational attainment and employment income within the disabled population i s conducted i n Chapter Four to i d e n t i f y the s i g n i f i c a n c e of gender as a status within the disabled population. This Chapter begins with a discussion of d i s a b i l i t y and gender as research concepts. S p e c i f i c attention i s f i r s t given to how d i s a b i l i t y i s conceptualized and operationalized i n the research l i t e r a t u r e . A discussion of the t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on d i s a b i l i t y follows i n the section on stigma. The discussion of d i s a b i l i t y i s then complemented with a b r i e f review of the t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on gender. The second section discusses the research question and situates i t s related hypotheses i n the l i t e r a t u r e on d i s a b i l i t y and gender. This section examines why the statuses of d i s a b i l i t y and gender may be expected, or not, to i n t e r a c t i n terms of a l t e r i n g gender inequality i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. The f i n a l section of t h i s Chapter discusses the consequences of status differences i n terms of inequality i n education, work, and income. This section examines the methodological and t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e on segregation and inequality i n work, and the linkages between in e q u a l i t i e s i n education, work, and income. D i s a b i l i t y The d e f i n i t i o n s of d i s a b i l i t y commonly used i n the s o c i a l and health sciences are based upon a bio-medical model of disease and impairments, or 'abnormalities' i n physical or cognitive 10 function. The science of b i o l o g i c a l medicine i d e n t i f i e s a l l s i g n i f i c a n t components of d e f i n i t i o n s and meaning within an organic pathological context. Thus, the bio-medical perspective claims to remove s o c i a l meanings from any understanding of d i s a b i l i t y . While the purpose of t h i s research i s not to investigate the creation and consequences of such medical concepts, i t should nevertheless be understood that those concepts derived from modern pathology influence our understanding of human health, i l l n e s s and impairment (Foucault, 1973). The d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y used here follows the d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y used by S t a t i s t i c s Canada for the national data base on d i s a b i l i t y . This i s the same d e f i n i t i o n developed by the World Health Organization to measure the consequences of disease and impairments. In the context of health experience, a d i s a b i l i t y i s any r e s t r i c t i o n or lack (resulting from an impairment 1) of a b i l i t y to perform an a c t i v i t y i n the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being (W.H.O., 1980, p.143) . This ' d i s a b i l i t y ' concept was operationalized through a series of questions which have come to be known as " A c t i v i t i e s of Daily L i v i n g " (O.E.C.D., 1982). This functional l i m i t a t i o n s approach i s used i n the national data base for adults (15 years of age and older) with two modifications of the A c t i v i t i e s of Daily L i v i n g s c r e e n i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1988). F i r s t , 1 The World Health Organization's d e f i n i t i o n of an impairment i s provided i n the Glossary. 11 i n d i v i d u a l s are not considered disabled i f they use a technical aid which completely eliminates the l i m i t a t i o n . For example, an in d i v i d u a l who uses a hearing aid and states there i s no l i m i t a t i o n when using the aid would not be regarded as disabled. Second, the concept of time has been included as an addit i o n a l parameter, and so the l i m i t a t i o n has to span a period of at least s i x months (or to be expected to l a s t that long). A f i n a l comment on the usage of 'disabled' as a category i s necessary. Briesenden (1986: 175) and Sutherland (1981: 15) argue that 'disabled' i s a pejorative and generalizing term which i s used to r e f e r to a population of people who have l i t t l e i n common beyond not functioning as people who are c a l l e d 'normal' or 'able-bodied'. From t h i s perspective, concepts such as 'disabled' suggest p a s s i v i t y or a general lacking i n an area such as competence or i n t e l l i g e n c e . S a f i l i o s - R o t h s c h i l d (1970) and Oliver (1986) accept that 'disabled' may have demeaning connotations; however, they consider 'disabled people' to be an accurate de s c r i p t i o n of a s o c i a l minority. In t h i s context, 'disabled people' and 'disabled person' recognize a population of people whose disparate physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are uniformly used to oppress them. Disabled people and person(s) are used i n t h i s l a t t e r context i n t h i s research. Stigma Research into the experiences of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s has developed along two l i n e s of emphases - functional and s o c i a l . The l i t e r a t u r e on the functional o r i g i n s (disease, 12 injury) and consequences (limitations) of impairment i s concerned with e l i m i n a t i n g p h y s i c a l b a r r i e r s to performing d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s . In contrast, the l i t e r a t u r e on the s o c i a l o r i g i n s ( l a b e l l i n g , s t i g m a t i z a t i o n ) and consequences (segregation, d e g r a d a t i o n ) of p e o p l e i s concerned with c h a l l e n g i n g discriminatory attitudes and practices. Around these differences i n focus, have emerged differences i n concepts. While d i s a b i l i t y t y p i c a l l y r e f e r s to the functional consequences of an impairment, handicap t y p i c a l l y refers to the s o c i a l consequences of an impairment. The research presented i s concerned with the s o c i a l consequence of d i s a b i l i t y . However, stigma i s used i n preference to handicap 2 because of the greater t h e o r e t i c a l content of the stigma concept. There i s a two f o l d examination of stigma presented here which i s r e f l e c t e d i n the t i t l e - 'Stigma at Work'. The research reported here examines both 'stigma i n the work place', and 'the workings, or process, of stigma'. Stigma i s used here as i t was f i r s t conceptualized by Goffman (1963). For Goffman a l l indi v i d u a l ' s can possess a stigma, and thus a l l individual's are p o t e n t i a l l y d i s c r e d i t a b l e . An i n d i v i d u a l becomes discredited when others take into account an i n d i v i d u a l ' s stigma during the course of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . Stigma i s a 'spoiled' i d e n t i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l which i s commonly recognized by s e l f and others. The d i s c r e d i t i n g a t t r i b u t e s 2 The World Health Organization's d e f i n i t i o n of handicap i s presented i n the Glossary. 13 c o n s t i t u t i n g a stigma are s o c i a l l y i d e n t i f i e d , or marked, through i n t e r a c t i o n . That i s , stigma i s s o c i a l l y produced and reproduced. Stigma i s applied to any condition, a t t r i b u t e , t r a i t , or act that symbolically marks the bearer o f f as s o c i a l l y 'unacceptable' or ' i n f e r i o r ' , and has as i t s subjective referent the notion of shame or disgrace. Goffman (1963) distinguishes three types of stigma: (1) bodily stigma, such as blemishes or deformities; (2) stigma of character, such as p s y c h i a t r i c patients, persons with a homosexual orientation, and criminals, and; (3) stigma of s o c i a l c o l l e c t i v i t i e s , such as ethnic and t r i b a l groups. The 'spoiled' i d e n t i t y r e s u l t i n g from stigma can constitute a master status (Hughes, 1971) which may diminish c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g individuals with a common master status. The consequence of a master status i s thus to emphasize a stigma to such an extent that other distinguishing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s cease to be recognized i n the individual's i d e n t i t y . For example persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s may possess such a stigmatized master status that otherwise important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as gender, are diminished i n t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e . Goffman does recognize that a l l stigma i s subject to h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l v a r i a b i l i t y by the nature of s o c i a l action. Stigma i s implicated with gender and handicaps to the extent that femininity and d i s a b i l i t y are commonly understood as 'spoiled' i d e n t i t i e s within s p e c i f i c h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l 14 contexts. Goffman (1963) also discusses at length the strategies through which individuals deal with stigma, and more importantly deal with the disadvantage which i s a consequence of stigma. Thus, stigma as conceived by Goffman refe r s more to a process (stigmatization) than to s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s . Stigma i s not embodied i n any physical attribute but rather i s a s o c i a l i d e n t i t y associated with s p e c i f i c a t t r i b u t e s . This s o c i a l i d e n t i t y , or status, i s chronically produced and reproduced i n s o c i a l action. S i m i l a r l y , Connell (1987) also conceptualizes gender as process, rather than o r i g i n a t i n g i n male or female physiology. Stigma brings serious disadvantages to disabled persons, and p a r t i c u l a r l y disabled women. However, i n dealing with such disadvantage, individuals may develop a sense of s o l i d a r i t y with other s i m i l a r l y stigmatized persons, or gain greater insight, through d a i l y encounters, of how people act i n s t r e s s f u l or d i s c o m f o r t i n g s i t u a t i o n s (Lonsdale, 1990) . Deegan (1985) emphasizes the empowerment of individuals through p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s e l f - h e l p and consumer advocacy organizations. This form of empowerment Deegan argues i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t for 'multiple' minority groups, such as women with d i s a b i l i t i e s and women of colour. Thus, stigma should not be understood s o l e l y as conferring disadvantage. Consequently, while the concept of a master status i s useful i t requires cautious a p p l i c a t i o n i n theories of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . 15 RESEARCH QUESTION D i s a b i l i t y and gender are each a powerful s o c i a l status with severe consequences f o r the l i f e chances of stigmatized i n d i v i d u a l s . Understanding the consequence of the i n t e r a c t i o n of these statuses on the individual's l i f e chances i s important both t h e o r e t i c a l l y and empirically. The general problem i n t h i s research i s whether or not the gender i n e q u a l i t i e s among the disabled population are more or less severe than, or comparable to, gender i n e q u a l i t i e s among the non-disabled population. The s p e c i f i c question i n t h i s research project i s 'what i s the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on gender i n e q u a l i t y i n work?'. Given the s i g n i f i c a n t linkages of differences i n education and income to differences i n work, t h i s research compares gender inequality i n each of these three areas between the non-disabled and disabled populations. Such a comparison of the extent of gender inequality could reveal (1) less differences, (2) greater differences, or (3) comparable differences between the non-disabled and disabled populations. Less Differences By Gender Less s i g n i f i c a n t differences by gender among disabled people as compared to non-disabled people i s expected by a 'master status' thesis i n which d i s a b i l i t y status diminishes other s o c i a l stigmas. Goffman's (1963) discussion of 'spoiled' i d e n t i t y demonstrates how certain s o c i a l stigmas can 'overwhelm' an i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y , and r e s u l t i n the creation of a master s t a t u s . Such master s t a t u s i d e n t i t i e s can have severe 16 consequences for rel a t i o n s between i n d i v i d u a l s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , such r e l a t i o n s lead to chronic reproduction of s o c i a l inequality along l i n e s defined by the master status. The following two sections extend t h i s discussion of master status. The f i r s t section review some of the l i t e r a t u r e on the production and reproduction of a master status. The following section investigates some of the consequences a r i s i n g from the production and reproduction of a master status. The Master Status of D i s a b i l i t y Medical and other health care professionals and i n s t i t u t i o n s have had a central position i n the production and reproduction of master statuses of d i s a b i l i t y . Conrad (1976) studied the medicalization of c h i l d behaviour into conditions such as hyperactivity. Health and education professionals i n using categories such as hyperkinetic disorder have stigmatized and segregated children i n t h e i r families, neighbourhoods, and schools. The stigma of being a 'disturbed' c h i l d has profound consequences for the ch i l d ' s i d e n t i t y ; an i d e n t i t y which incorporates a status of ' p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y impaired'. Medical d e f i n i t i o n s of cognitive impairment also have serious consequences for people so diagnosed. Mercer (197 3) c r i t i c i z e d the use of d e f i n i t i o n s such as 'minimal brain dysfunction' used to categorize children showing a low score on an ' i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t ' but not showing any pathological o r i g i n s . 3 3 Langness and Levine (1986) estimate that between 75% to 85% of a l l diagnoses of 'mental d i s a b i l i t y ' are made with no evidence of pathological o r i g i n . 17 C h i l d r e n diagnosed as having minimal b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n experienced stigmatization and segregation comparable to the experiences of children diagnosed as hyperactive. In each of these s i t u a t i o n s children were stigmatized as 'abnormal', and developed within t h e i r neighbourhoods and schools a master status which lead to severe segregation. Each of these studies found ch i l d r e n i d e n t i f i e d as 'abnormal' were placed into 'remedial' classes or segregated schools, and r a r e l y were re-integrated, at le a s t successfully, into t h e i r o r i g i n a l c lass or school. Other i n s t i t u t i o n s c e n t r a l to the p r o d u c t i o n and reproduction of a master status of d i s a b i l i t y are community s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Scott (1969) through studying the s o c i a l i z a t i o n of people with v i s u a l impairments concluded that the r o l e of being 'blind' was highly developed i n the context of segregated schools and service organizations. In t h i s segregated context, the population was c l e a r l y divided between b l i n d students or c l i e n t s and service providers. The stigma of 'blindness' was observed to form a very pervasive s o c i a l r o l e . Hannon (1980) found t h i s stigmatized r o l e of 'being disabled' posed great l i m i t a t i o n s on the a c t i v i t i e s i n which disabled people could p a r t i c i p a t e . Hannon's study of homosexual a c t i v i t y of disabled people revealed the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y imposed an asexual i d e n t i t y upon in d i v i d u a l s . Some of Hannon's informants reported being denied service on the basis of t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y i n several of Toronto's night clubs f o r homosexual people. 18 The above research on the master status of d i s a b i l i t y has emphasized the e f f e c t a dominant status has on diminishing other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . This model of master status anticipates a gen e r a l diminishing of gender inequality i n the disabled population. While Tudor and colleagues (1977) and Rushing (1979) agree with the anticipated general diminishing e f f e c t on gender inequality, they disagree s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the process. Tudor (et a l , 1977) and Rushing (1979) argue the stigma from having a p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t y lowers the s t a t u s of high-status i n d i v i d u a l s (men) more than for low-status i n d i v i d u a l s (women). This i s a 'reverse discrimination' thesis i n which men experience greater stigmatization than do women. Research i n t h i s area has been li m i t e d , and contradicts the considerable volume of research conducted on multiple minority statuses discussed below. The Consequences of Master Status Master status r e l a t i o n s i n the work place can lead to segregation of stigmatized populations into a li m i t e d range of less e r occupations or subordinate positions or exclusion from employment altogether (Hughes, 1971). McCharen and Earp (1985), i n a study of employer's h i r i n g practices towards women with a his t o r y of breast cancer, found that a good prognosis from a physician was not as important as the employer's perceptions of breast cancer patients i n the decision whether to h i r e . This i s a dramatic demonstration of the e f f e c t stigma has on an ind i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y . Employer's generally perceived breast 19 cancer patients as having poor su r v i v a l rates, and requiring extensive periods of medical related absence. Beyond the concern of medical absenteeism, many employers have serious concerns regarding the competence of disabled people i n t h e i r work place. Edgerton (1967) found that people i d e n t i f i e d as 'mentally retarded' encountered mistrust of t h e i r competence from p o t e n t i a l employers, regardless of t h e i r work experiences and supportive references from former employers. The 'cloak of competence' presented by disabled people to employers can be e a s i l y d i s c r e d i t e d by stigmatizing physical a t t r i b u t e s or actions, or association with sheltered workshops or other s p e c i a l i z e d employment organizations for disabled people. In summary, the master status of being disabled as demonstrated i n the research l i t e r a t u r e i s recognized by s e l f and others i n such a way that other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or rol e s are diminished i n t h e i r significance i n both immediate encounters and long term r e l a t i o n s . Although having multiple minority statuses may s h i f t the degree of stigma i n d i f f e r i n g s i t u a t i o n s , as for a Black woman with a d i s a b i l i t y , there remains a predominant master status. From t h i s perspective, gender inequality i n the disabled population i s expected to be less severe as compared to the non-disabled population. Greater Differences By Gender Greater gender inequality between women and men with d i s a b i l i t i e s as compared to the non-disabled population would indicate the consequence of being stigmatized as disabled i s more 20 severe for women than for men. I n i t i a l research i n t h i s area of multiple minority statuses was conducted by Scheff (1966) who argued i n d i v i d u a l s i n lower status groups were reacted to more s e v e r e l y than were i n d i v i d u a l s with higher status as a consequence of being lab e l l e d deviant. Research i n multiple minority statuses has sh i f t e d i n focus from 'deviance' to 'stigma' and the 'double standard' thesis, or as Deegan and Brooks (1985: 2) refe r to i t , the 'double jeopardy' t h e s i s . The m a j o r i t y of l i t e r a t u r e on stigma emphasizes the consequences of master status, rather than multiple minority statuses. However, research on stigma i s increasingly becoming c r i t i c a l of the master status thesis. As Kallen (1989: 52-6) explains, the l a b e l l i n g and deviance t h e o r e t i c a l models of master status need to become responsive to s h i f t s i n status i n d i f f e r i n g s i t u a t i o n s where an indi v i d u a l has multiple minority statuses, such as being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y . Double standards or jeopardy are explained by differences i n stigmatization of a d i s a b i l i t y by gender. That i s to say, women experience greater stigmatization from a d i s a b i l i t y than men with the same d i s a b i l i t y - a double standard - and thus experience more severe consequences - double jeopardy. The Consequences of Multiple Minority Status Fine and Asch (1985) conceptualize the stigmatized i d e n t i t y of d i s a b l e d women as being ' r o l e l e s s ' . The negative and del i m i t i n g attributes associated with the i d e n t i t i e s of being female and being disabled are exacerbated when coincidi n g i n the same i n d i v i d u a l ' s i d e n t i t y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y presents greater impediments to the female gender i d e n t i t y as compared to the male gender i d e n t i t y . E s t r o f f (1981) observed the stigmatization process was d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by gender, and thus had d i f f e r i n g consequences by gender as well. She found gender to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n the diagnoses made of patients admitted to a community mental health f a c i l i t y . Whereas men were t y p i c a l l y admitted f o r acting i n unacceptable ways, women were generally admitted f o r not being able to 'cope' with situations. While, the stigma of being a 'psychi a t r i c patient' i s degrading for both women and men, the ch a r a c t e r of the stigmatization i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by the diagnoses and treatments common to women and those common to men. The Gender Di v i s i o n of Resources Gender inequality i n the disabled population may also be exacerbated by the unequitable d i s t r i b u t i o n of scarce resources. Kutza (1985) argues the government and community resources made ava i l a b l e f or disabled persons are allocated on the basis of a p a t r i a r c h i c a l conception of work. Whereas women generally receive stigmatized and low-benefit resources through 'welfare' services, men tend to receive greater resources through vocational r e h a b i l i t a t i o n or worker's compensation services. E s t r o f f (1981) s i m i l a r l y observed that women and men receive d i f f e r e n t services as psychiatric outpatients. While men were encouraged to pursue s k i l l t r a i n i n g programs and occupations, 22 women were encouraged to look for domestic work opportunities, or to seek support from family members. Comparable Differences By Gender Comparable differences i n the two populations, disabled and non-disabled, would indicate that inequality by both gender and d i s a b i l i t y are pervasive, and gender differences i n education, work, and income are i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y effected by the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y . This i s not to say that the consequences of d i s a b i l i t y are not severe, rather i t may be the case that the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y does not a l t e r gender inequality. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y i s neither a 'master-status' nor a 'double-standard', rather i t i s a general status lowering stigma which does not interact with gender inequality. Master status and double standards may i n fa c t be present i n a v a r i e t y of sit u a t i o n s . However, as Bonwich (1985) suggests, the capacity of individual's to accommodate to s o c i a l , economic, and physical disadvantage through creative strategies may ameliorate some conditions of master status or double standards. 23 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODS The data to be analyzed i s from the Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations Survey (HALS) conducted as a supplement of the 1986 Census of Population. The survey i s a comprehensive questionnaire of the s o c i a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of persons with a d i s a b i l i t y . The HALS i s p a r t i c u l a r l y useful because of i t s linkage with the 1986 Census which allows comparative analysis of the disabled and non-disabled populations over a s e l e c t i o n of the variables l i s t e d on the Census of Population. The census v a r i a b l e s c o v e r p e r s o n a 1 - l e v e l , household, and f a m i l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The HALS i s comprised of s i x q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Four questionnaire forms were used for the household survey and two questionnaire forms were used for the i n s t i t u t i o n s survey. The household survey has forms based on the respondent's geographical l o c a t i o n and age. The two geographic regions recognized by the household survey are (1) southern p r o v i n c i a l areas, selected urban centres i n the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , and Indian reserves i n southern p r o v i n c i a l areas, and (2) northern areas of the provinces, the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s excluding selected urban centres, and remote Indian reserves. Each of these regions has a questionnaire form for adults (15 years of age and older) and one for children (less than 15 years of age). The two questionnaire forms for i n s t i t u t i o n s are also based on age group 24 (adults and children) but no d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n the forms for geographic location. The research reported here i s concerned with the two adult questionnaire forms for the household survey (form 02 for southern areas, and form 04 f o r northern Canada). The questionnaire form for northern Canadians i s a reduced version of the questionnaire form for southern Canadians. Most of the questions i n the two forms are i d e n t i c a l except f o r questions where geographic location requires d i s t i n c t i o n . There are two other household questionnaire forms for chil d r e n i n southern Canada (form 03) and northern Canada (form 05) . As with the adult forms, the northern form 05 i s a reduced version of the southern form 03. I n s t i t u t i o n a l questionnaire forms were 06 for children, and 07 for adults. The data from these four forms i s not included i n t h i s research. HALS i s the second component of the national data base on d i s a b i l i t y being compiled by S t a t i s t i c s Canada. The f i r s t component was a supplementary survey conducted with a 198 3 Labour Force Survey. However, t h i s survey, the Canadian Health and D i s a b i l i t y Survey, i s limited i n the variables employed. HALS i s the most comprehensive s t a t i s t i c a l survey of disabled persons i n Canada. The HALS sample excludes persons i n penal or co r r e c t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , and persons l i v i n g on Indian reserves which were not enumerated as part of the 1986 Census. 25 Objectives of the HALS The objectives of the HALS as set out by S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) are: (1) to extend the coverage of the national data base on d i s a b i l i t y to include residents of the Yukon and Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s , on Indian reserves, and i n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r disabled persons; (2) to interview a s u f f i c i e n t number of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s to enable the release of data for subprovincial areas, and of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s of low prevalence (such as Alzheimer's disease); and (3) to extend the d e f i n i t i o n of d i s a b i l i t y to include i n d i v i d u a l s whose d i s a b i l i t y i s due sol e l y to the presence of a p s y c h i a t r i c condition. Development and Implementation of the HALS The HALS was developed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada through meetings with representatives from federal, p r o v i n c i a l , and t e r r i t o r i a l departments, agencies, crown corporations, and associations of and f o r disabled persons to determine t h e i r s p e c i f i c data requirements. The HALS questionnaire was intended to c o l l e c t the most relevant data for po l i c y and service development. The HALS was implemented through two stages. F i r s t , a set of questions on a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s was included i n the 1986 Census of Population questionnaire to a s s i s t S t a t i s t i c s Canada i n designing a sample frame from which to sel e c t i n d i v i d u a l s for p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the post-censal survey (HALS). The HALS was completed through interviews i n households i n the autumn of 1986, and i n i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the spring of 1987. A l l interviewing and fieldwork was conducted by trained enumerators from S t a t i s t i c s Canada. HALS enumerators were s e l e c t e d from the Census 26 enumerators, and received additional t r a i n i n g for conducting the HALS. The household survey completed i n 198 6 consisted of two stages. F i r s t , Question 20 on a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s and d i s a b i l i t i e s included on the Census long form, which was asked of every f i f t h household, was used to i d e n t i f y , p r i o r to the HALS survey, a large part of the potential disabled population, i n order to focus survey resources on the target group as much as possible. From a l l persons who were p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d as disabled through question 20 of the Census, a se l e c t i o n of 112,000 persons was made for incl u s i o n into the HALS. This sample population, known as the 'Yes' sample, included a l l persons i d e n t i f i e d p o s i t i v e l y on Indian reserves, and a representative s e l e c t i o n from the remainder of p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d persons. P r i o r to conducting the 1986 Census, a small f i e l d t e s t was conducted to assess i f a l l persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s would be p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d by question 20. S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) determined from the f i e l d t e s t that persons with mild d i s a b i l i t i e s , and e l d e r l y persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s may not be p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f i e d by question 20. A sample of 72,500 persons "negatively i d e n t i f i e d " by the Census question 20 were selected f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the HALS interviewing. From t h i s 'No' sample 5% of persons were transferred to the 'Yes' sample on the basis of a p o s i t i v e response to one of the HALS screening questions. Thus, 184,500 persons were included i n the HALS household survey of which 115,500 ind i v i d u a l s were included i n the 'Yes' sample of disabled persons. Data Co l l e c t i o n of the HALS For the completion of the HALS questionnaire stage most of the 'Yes' sample was interviewed i n person, and most of the 'No' sample was interviewed by telephone. Approximately, 12% of the adult sample were interviewed with the assistance of another member of the household due to the physical or psychological state of the respondent. This s i t u a t i o n was unavoidable, but the extent to which the presence of another household member influenced r e s u l t s i s unknowable given the survey design. The response rate for the household survey of adults was 90%; 3% r e f u s a l s ; 6% no contact was made; and 1% non-response for 'other' reasons for both the 'Yes' and 'No' samples ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1988: 3). Processing and Estimation of the HALS Data Each record entered on the HALS household data base includes both the HALS questionnaire and the corresponding Census questionnaire for each person included i n the sample of disabled persons. A l l HALS data base records were subjected to computer e d i t i n g for v a l i d i t y and consistency of responses. Missing or erroneous data was i d e n t i f i e d as 'unknown', or imputed using other information from the same respondent. In sample surveys of a population, each respondent i n the sample i s used to represent a subset of persons i n the population being studied. Thus, each of the HALS data base records was 28 assigned a numeric weight to correspond with the number of persons being represented. This numeric weight was modified to account f o r non-response, and d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the population being studied and the target population. The r e s u l t s of the survey were multiplied by t h i s numeric weight to provide an estimate of what the response would be for the entire population. Weighted data, adjusted to r e f l e c t the true sample s i z e , i s used i n the analysis which follows. HALS Data Limitations S t a t i s t i c s from the HALS data base are estimates based on a sample survey of a p o r t i o n of the Canadian population (approximately 1 out of every 25 persons i n the 'Yes' sample, and 1 out of every 300 persons for the 'No' sample) ( S t a t i s t i c s Canada, 1988: 4). These s t a t i s t i c s are subject to both sampling and non-sampling errors. A sampling error i s the difference between the estimate obtained from a sample population and the r e s u l t which would have come from a t o t a l population census using the same data c o l l e c t i o n procedures. Sampling errors i n the HALS data base were estimated from the survey data. The degree of error i s measured by the standard deviation from the estimate. Where data was found to have a sampling error greater than 25% of i t s estimate i t was deemed unre l i a b l e and omitted. Data found to have a sampling error i n the range of 16.5% to 25% i s marked, and needs to be used with caution. A l l data having a sampling error of less than 29 16.5% i s regarded by S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) to be r e l i a b l e without r e s t r i c t i o n s . Non-sampling errors are more d i f f i c u l t to i d e n t i f y and evaluate. Non-sampling errors include errors i n observation, response, and processing. Non-response to questions also causes non-sampling error i n data. Integrating the HALS with the census of population has reduced the problem of observation error by reducing the differences between the sample population i n the HALS and the target population of a l l persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s . Further observation errors may have occurred from the omission of some Indian reserves not enumerated i n the census, and some c o l l e c t i v e dwellings. However, these omissions are judged by S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) to be n e g l i g i b l e i n t h e i r impact. Thus, observation errors were assessed by S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) as having an i n s i g n i f i c a n t influence on the HALS data. The impact of non-response errors on survey estimates depends on the l e v e l of non-response and p a r t i c u l a r l y on any differences between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of respondents and non-respondents. In p r i n c i p l e , the more severe these differences, the greater the consequences are for the accuracy of the survey estimates. A t o t a l non-response occurs when a respondent can not be i n t e r v i e w e d . A p a r t i a l non-response occurs when the questionnaire i s only p a r t i a l l y completed. The response rate for the HALS household survey was 90%. S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1988) regards t h i s as an acceptable response 30 rate. S t a t i s t i c s Canada adjusted the numeric weighing of data on the basis of the t o t a l non-response rate. The impact of t o t a l non-responses can be accounted for at least p a r t i a l l y by using the census to i d e n t i f y errors i n demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample r e s u l t i n g from t o t a l non-responses. HALS QUESTIONS This section describes each section of questions asked i n the HALS. Further d e f i n i t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s measured are provided i n the following section of "Measurement". Screening Questions The f i r s t section of the household survey contain the screening questions. The questions i n t h i s section are used to determine i f the respondents are limited i n t h e i r day-to-day a c t i v i t i e s ( A c t i v i t i e s of Daily Living) because of a condition or health problem which i s expected to l a s t s i x months or more. The respondents are asked whether they have problems performing these even when using a special aid such as glasses, hearing aid, brace, and others. Other questions are asked about l i m i t a t i o n s due t o l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s and long-term emotional, psychological, nervous and mental health conditions or problems. Special Aids The second section of the household survey has questions about s p e c i a l aids. The purpose of t h i s section i s to i d e n t i f y s p e c i a l aids used or needed by the respondent to help i n transportation and acting independently. Questions are also asked about the respondent's use of pre s c r i p t i o n and non-prescription 31 medication. Ross and S h i l l i n g t o n (1990: 71) c r i t i c i z e d the questions on use of technical aids and services since they did not allow for linkage between use of s p e c i a l aids and services to success i n the labour market. Such a linkage would have been b e n e f i c i a l to the present study. Social Services The purpose of t h i s section of the household survey i s to obtain information on how the respondent's condition of health problem a f f e c t s his or her a b i l i t y to carry out everyday household a c t i v i t i e s such as preparing meals, shopping, managing personal finances, and other housework. Such information i s intended to determine the l e v e l of support needed by disabled persons to continue to l i v e independently. As Ross and S h i l l i n g t o n (1990: 71) point out the questions i n t h i s section do not permit the linkage of service usage to economic status. This i s unfortunate as such information i s important, p a r t i c u l a r l y for investigating differences i n access to services between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups. As well, needs surveys may not r e f l e c t the actual l e v e l of need as i n d i v i d u a l s without access to services and resources may withdraw completely from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n work, education, or recreation. Thus, the l e v e l of usage of such services and resources may not r e f l e c t the l e v e l of need. The HALS questionnaire addresses t h i s problem by asking respondents which services and technical aids they need but they do not have access to. 32 Employment The fourth section of questions has the objective of providing information on the employment b a r r i e r s encountered by disabled persons i n and not i n the labour force. Education The intent of t h i s section i s to determine the impact that health problems have on educational attainment. Analysis of the population by age of onset allows for comparisons between disabled and non-disabled persons. Transportation The questions i n t h i s s e c t i o n address the problems encountered by disabled persons i n using the l o c a l transportation system and the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced while t r a v e l l i n g longer distances by airplane, bus, t r a i n , or automobile. Accommodation This section asks questions about s p e c i a l features the respondent uses or needs for entering, leaving, or moving about inside the residence. Recreation and L i f e s t y l e s This section deals with the respondent's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n physical and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s as well as h i s or her smoking, alcohol use and eating habits. The questions are intended to provide information of the extent of the respondent's a c t i v i t i e s and some of the problems encountered i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n these a c t i v i t i e s . 33 Economic Characteristics The purpose of t h i s section i s to obtain information on the extraordinary "out-of-pocket" expenses incurred and the amount of d i s a b i l i t y or compensatory income received by the respondent. Census Linked Characteristics Throughout the HALS sections, questions are included which were selected from the 1986 Census of Population. These questions provide the data for comparison between the disabled and non-disabled population. The selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the Census which are included i n the HALS come from a l l four of the universes investigated i n the Census. These universes are: (1) population universe which includes c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d to demographics, et h n i c i t y , language, schooling, income and labour force; (2) family universe of census and economic family var i a b l e s ; (3) household universe variables; and (4) dwellings universe c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Some of these questions are central to the research presented here. These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are discussed i n the following section on "Measurement". MEASUREMENT This section provides information on how each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c discussed i n t h i s research was measured and categorized i n the HALS. To ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of respondents, S t a t i s t i c s Canada has organized a l l data into categorized groupings. Understanding the d e f i n i t i o n s of the categories used for each c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i s important f o r interpreting the data presented i n the HALS. The 34 questions referred to below from the HALS household survey questionnaire (form 02) presented i n the appendix. D i s a b i l i t y The d i s a b i l i t y rate i s the number of respondents with d i s a b i l i t i e s as a percent of the t o t a l population. Further d e f i n i t i o n s of d i s a b i l i t y are discussed above i n sections on the HALS i n t h i s Chapter, and i n Chapter Two. The var i a b l e named "Disabled" i n the HALS i d e n t i f i e s respondents who have a d i s a b i l i t y , and respondents without a d i s a b i l i t y . This variable allows f o r comparative analysis between the disabled and non-d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n ; or a n a l y s i s of e i t h e r one of the populations. Impairments The HALS categorizes impairment, or type of d i s a b i l i t y , into s i x groupings of mobility, a g i l i t y , seeing, hearing, speaking and other. An 'unknown' category includes a l l persons who were i d e n t i f i e d as disabled, but did not state t h e i r impairment, or did not state each one of t h e i r impairments i n the case of persons with multiple d i s a b i l i t i e s . The HALS record layout provides space for a maximum of six d i s a b i l i t i e s to be recognized for each respondent. The HALS micro data public use f i l e provides variables to i d e n t i f y respondents i n each one of the six d i s a b i l i t y populations. The HALS i d e n t i f i e d impairments through screening questions which are s i m i l a r to those used previously by the OECD (1982) . This format of using screening questions has been used with i n 35 surveys i n Europe, the U.S.A. and Canada (1983 Canadian Health and D i s a b i l i t y Survey). The screening questions i d e n t i f y the s p e c i f i c cause of the impairment. For example, screening question A1C asks what i s the main condition or health problem which l i m i t s the respondents a b i l i t y to hear a conversation with one or more people. The respondent i s provided with 14 choices which include: congenital, aging, injury through accident i n home or work, v i o l e n t act, stroke, disease, and other s p e c i f i c disorders with the ear. Thus, i t i s possible to investigate s p e c i f i c health conditions among the population. This research i s concerned with the differences between general impairment categories, and thus r e f e r s only to the s i x d i s a b i l i t y groupings and the unknown category. The screening questions for a g i l i t y , hearing, mobility and seeing impairments use a three point scale of: "no" trouble; "yes" has trouble; and "completely unable". The screening question for speaking impairments i s a two point scale: "no" trouble; and "yes" has trouble. These 17 screening questions are the o r i g i n a l set used by the OECD (1982) . Factor analysis was used to t e s t whether any of the OECD screening questions duplicated each other. This concern was raised given the number of questions related to physical impairments as compared to questions on sensory and mental impairments. MacDowell (1988) concluded that each question did increase the discrimination of the score rather than duplicating scores for the physical impairments. 36 S t a t i s t i c s Canada added another six screening questions to the HALS beyond the o r i g i n a l seventeen OECD screening questions. Two of the a d d i t i o n a l screening questions cover sensory d i s a b i l i t i e s . Another two question covers general l i m i t a t i o n s i n a c t i v i t i e s at home, work, school, t r a v e l l i n g , p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n sports or l e i s u r e . Where t h i s general question was responded to p o s i t i v e l y , but no other questions where i d e n t i f i e d an impairment, the respondent's impairment was categorized as "unknown". S t a t i s t i c s Canada designed three questions to i d e n t i f y respondents with learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , cognitive d i s a b i l i t i e s , or p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t i e s . Unfortunately, these screening questions on learning, cognitive and p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t i e s do not provide scoring for intensity as do the o r i g i n a l seventeen OECD questions. MacDowell (1988) concluded that while the absence of an i n t e n s i t y scale for these impairments w i l l lower the severity score for persons i d e n t i f y i n g themselves as learning, c o g n i t i v e l y or p s y c h i a t r i c a l l y disabled, the e f f e c t would not be s i g n i f i c a n t s i n c e the more severely disabled respondents i d e n t i f i e d other l i m i t a t i o n s i n the o r i g i n a l seventeen screening questions. The alternative would have been to weight these three questions on mental impairments. However, weighing i s rejected by MacDowell (1988: 15-6, and MacDowell and Newell, 1987) as i t may only lead to increasing the severity score for respondent's with a mild mental impairment with no other impairments. As well, 37 Nunnally (1967: 278) questions whether weighing provides any greater discrimination as compared to using a d d i t i o n a l questions. These s p e c i f i c a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s used to i d e n t i f y an impairment through the screening questions are l i s t e d below. A g i l i t y Impairments A g i l i t y impairments are l i m i t a t i o n s i n the a b i l i t y to bend, dress or undress, get i n or out of bed, cut t o e n a i l s , use fingers to grasp or handle objects, to reach or cut own food. Responding p o s i t i v e l y to any of these screening questions A13, A14, A15, A16, A17, A18, and A19, i d e n t i f i e s the respondent as having an a g i l i t y impairment. Hearing Impairments Hearing impairments include l i m i t a t i o n s i n the a b i l i t y to hear what i s being said i n conversation with one or more persons or hear through a regular telephone, even with a hearing a i d . A hearing impairment i s i d e n t i f i e d with a p o s i t i v e answer to one of the screening questions A l , A2, or A3A. M o b i l i t y Impairments Mo b i l i t y impairments include l i m i t a t i o n s i n a b i l i t y to walk, move from room to room, carry an object for 10 metres, or stand for long periods of time. The screening questions used to i d e n t i f y mobility impairments are: A8, A9, A10, A l l , and A12. "Other" Impairments The category of "other" impairments includes l i m i t a t i o n s because of learning d i s a b i l i t i e s , emotional or p s y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t i e s , or developmental delay. A respondent i s i d e n t i f i e d 38 as having one of these "other" impairments i f he or she responds p o s i t i v e l y to one of these screening questions A21 or A22. Seeing Impairments Seeing impairments include l i m i t a t i o n s i n the a b i l i t y to read ordinary newsprint or to see someone from four metres away, even when wearing glasses. As well, a respondent i s i d e n t i f i e d as having a seeing impairment when she or he has a condition diagnosed as l e g a l blindness. The screening questions used to i d e n t i f y a seeing impairment with a respondent are: A4, A5 and A6A. Speaking Impairments Speaking impairments are lim i t a t i o n s i n a b i l i t y to speak and be understood by others. The screening question used to i d e n t i f y a speaking impairment i s A7. "Unknown" Impairments This category includes a l l respondents who i d e n t i f i e d themselves as disabled, but did not specify the nature of t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y . This occurs when a respondent answers p o s i t i v e l y to eit h e r of screening questions A2 0 or A23 but does not respond p o s i t i v e l y to any of the other screening questions. Severity of Impairments D i s a b i l i t y surveys generally use a set of screening questions that are combined following a suitable algorithm to provide an o v e r a l l score indicating the severity of d i s a b i l i t y . This score may then be categorized into discrete l e v e l s , such as "mild", "moderate" and "severe" d i s a b i l i t y . Such a score provides 39 an o v e r a l l i n d i c a t i o n of functional l e v e l , and permitting comparative analysis between groups of d i f f e r i n g functional l e v e l s ( i . e , comparing incomes for persons with mild d i s a b i l i t i e s to persons with severe d i s a b i l i t i e s ) . A v a r i e t y of alternatives have been used f o r constructing such a scale. Scales either provide a single score for each respondent, or separate scores for each impairment for each respondent. The score used by the HALS i s a single score given to each i n d i v i d u a l . The intensity and range of a l l impairments for each respondent are measured on a d i s a b i l i t y scale developed for the HALS (MacDowell, 1988). The d i s a b i l i t y scores have a possible range from 1 to 43. This severity scale was developed using the responses to the twenty-one " a c t i v i t i e s of d a i l y l i v i n g " (ADL) screening questions plus two additional questions on hearing and seeing d i s a b i l i t i e s . The scoring i s derived by adding together the separate severity scores for each screening question; counting one point for each p a r t i a l loss of function and two points for each complete loss of function, per question. The t o t a l score i s then categorized as follows: mild i s less than 5 points; moderate i s 5 to 10 points, and severe i s 11 or more points (MacDowell, 1988). These categories while a r b i t r a r y are designed to be e a s i l y understood by user's, and comparable to scales used elsewhere (such as the OECD 1982). The categories are set to r e f l e c t the expectation that there should be the largest percent (approximately 45%) of the disabled population i n the "mild" category, with the second largest portion (approximately 40 30%) i n the "moderate" category, and the smallest portion (approximately 20%) i n the "severe" category. The categories also were selected to r e f l e c t usage of technical aids as measured i n the HALS. Consistent use of aids and services was observed for generally 4% or respondents with a score of 1 to 4; however, at a score of 5 the use of special aids and services dramatically increases to generally 12%. F i n a l l y , the category la b e l s were selected to respect the dignity of the respondents, and avoid l a b e l s which may be pejorative. This approach of assigning a single score to each respondent i s complicated since i t requires a single measure to r e f l e c t both the i n t e n s i t y and range of each impairment of the respondent. The range of an impairment refers to the areas i n which the impairment l i m i t s a c t i v i t y ( i . e , a r t h r i t i c impairments may l i m i t a range of a c t i v i t i e s of a g i l i t y and mobi l i t y ) . The i n t e n s i t y of an impairment i s the extent of the s p e c i f i c l i m i t a t i o n ( i . e , p a r t i a l or t o t a l loss of function). The score increases with both the range and in t e n s i t y of impairment. An o v e r a l l score for each respondent i s intended to r e f l e c t both the i n t e n s i t y and range of d i s a b i l i t i e s ; and thus, permit comparisons of "severity of d i s a b i l i t y " between respondents. For example, comparisons can be made of a respondent with an a r t h r i t i c impairment which p a r t i a l l y l i m i t s functions i n a range of a c t i v i t i e s to a respondent who i s t o t a l l y deaf. T h i s approach makes assumptions about the r e l a t i v e importance of range and int e n s i t y of an impairment without making 41 e x p l i c i t the r e l a t i v e differences. MacDowell (1988) produced the HALS scoring scale a f t e r conducting s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s on a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e scales. MacDowell (1988) concluded that t h i s d i s a b i l i t y scale and category scheme are s t a t i s t i c a l l y the best suited approach for the purposes of the HALS. Work Limitations The HALS further categorizes the disabled population by extent of a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s i n a variety of settings. These categories are operationalized through four questions i n the employment section of the HALS and the two general a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s screening questions discussed above i n the section on Severity of Impairments. The disabled population i s categorized as respondents who were: (1) not limited, (2) limited, or (3) completely unable and lim i t e d , i n kind or amount of a c t i v i t y at work or at school. Thus the population i s categorized as: (1) disabled but not l i m i t e d i n work; (2) disabled and limited i n work, and; (3) disabled and completely unable to work. While these classes might be expected to be highly correlated with the above severity categories of mild, medium and severe, Cohen (1990) i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n betweens these two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes. Respondents were considered as l i m i t e d at work i f they answered p o s i t i v e l y to one of Questions 2 0 ( i i ) , 2 3 ( i i ) , D19, D55, D69, and D73. 42 Age Groups The age of each respondent was for t h e i r most recent birthday as of the census reference date of June 3 1986. To ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y of respondents, the HALS categorizes each respondent's age into f i v e year age groups. The youngest f i v e year age group i s the 15 to 19 year old group. The oldest f i v e year age group i s the 80 to 84 year old group. The highest age group i s for a l l respondents 85 years of age or older. This research i s concerned with the ten "working-age" groups from 15 to 64 years of age. Demographic Location The HALS i d e n t i f i e s respondents demographic loca l e s through (1) province or t e r r i t o r y and (2) census metropolitan area, other urban area or r u r a l area. Respondents are categorized into the province or t e r r i t o r y i n which t h e i r permanent address i s located. As well, respondents are categorized as r e s i d i n g i n either an urban area (one of the i d e n t i f i e d census metropolitan areas) or a r u r a l area. The i d e n t i f i e d census metropolitan areas are: St. John's; Halifax; Montreal; Toronto; Winnipeg; Calgary; Edmonton; Vancouver, and; other urban areas. This research i s concerned with comparisons of urban and r u r a l areas, and not with differences between s p e c i f i c census metropolitan areas. Ethnic Origins Ethnic or i g i n s refers to the ethnic or c u l t u r a l groups to which the respondent or the respondent's ancestors belong. Ethnic or c u l t u r a l group refers to the ancestry of the respondent and i s 43 d i s t i n c t from c i t i z e n s h i p or na t i o n a l i t y . The HALS categorizes the respondents ethnic o r i g i n into only one of three groups for reasons of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y requirements. Unfortunately, a l l respondents are categorized as one of: b r i t i s h ; french, or; other. Highest Level of Schooling The HALS measures and categorizes educational attainment of respondents by t h e i r highest l e v e l of schooling achieved. The categories used by the HALS are: Elementary and Secondary only *no schooling or kindergarten •grades 1 to 4 *grades 5 to 8 •grades 9 to 10 •grades 11 to 13 •high school graduation c e r t i f i c a t e •trades c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma Other Non-University Education only •some post-secondary education but without other non-university or trades c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma, and with a trades c e r t i f i c a t e •some post-secondary education with a trades c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma •some post-secondary education with a non-university c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma University Education  some u n i v e r s i t y without a degree without other non-university education •some u n i v e r s i t y without a c e r t i f i c a t e , diploma or degree •some u n i v e r s i t y with a trades c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma •u n i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma below bachelor l e v e l with other non-university education •some u n i v e r s i t y and non-university without a c e r t i f i c a t e , diploma or degree •some u n i v e r s i t y and non-university with a trades c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma •some u n i v e r s i t y with a non-university c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma •some non-university with an university c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma below bachelor l e v e l u n i v e r s i t y with a degree •bachelor's or f i r s t professional degree •un i v e r s i t y c e r t i f i c a t e above bachelor's degree •master's degree •earned doctorate degree 44 Although t h i s variable i s described as "highest l e v e l of schooling", implying a hierarchy of educational attainment, there are i n f a c t a number of instances which v i o l a t e the hierarchy. The research analysis here collapsed these categories into years of schooling as follows: * l e s s than 1 year (0.5 years); *1 to 5 years (2.5 years); •6 to 8 years (6.5 years); •9 or more years, but less than high school graduation (9.5 years); *high school graduation (12 years); *1 year of post-secondary (13 years); *3 years of post-secondary (15 years); •bachelor's degree (17 years); •bachelor's degree and c e r t i f i c a t e or diploma (18 years); •master's degree (19 years), and; •doctoral degree (21 years). This method of years of schooling allows for a more d i r e c t measure of educational attainment i n s t a t i s t i c a l a n alysis. Labour Force Labour force status refers to the labour market a c t i v i t y of the working age population (excluding i n s t i t u t i o n a l residents) who i n the week p r i o r to enumeration were employed or unemployed. The remainder of the working age population i s c l a s s i f i e d as "not i n the labour force". Respondents are considered employed who during the week p r i o r to enumeration: (1) did any work at a l l , excluding housework and other maintenance or repairs of the dwelling, and volunteer work; or (2) were absent from t h e i r job or business because of own temporary i l l n e s s or d i s a b i l i t y , vacation, labour dispute at t h e i r place of work, or were absent for other reasons. 45 A respondent i s considered unemployed when during the week p r i o r to enumeration: (1) was without work, had a c t i v e l y searched for employment i n the previous four weeks and was avail a b l e to work; or (2) was on a " l a y - o f f " and expected to return to t h e i r job; or (3) had d e f i n i t e plans to s t a r t work i n four weeks or l e s s . Respondents are c l a s s i f i e d as not i n the labour force who i n the week p r i o r to enumeration were unwilling or unable to o f f e r or supply t h e i r labour services under conditions e x i s t i n g i n the labour market. This c l a s s i f i c a t i o n includes respondents who searched for work during the previous four weeks but who were not av a i l a b l e to s t a r t work i n the reference week. As well, i n d i v i d u a l s not i n the labour force are: respondents who did not work f o r pay; did not have a new job to s t a r t i n four weeks or le s s ; were not on a temporary l a y - o f f , or; had not searched for paid work i n the four weeks p r i o r to enumeration. Common measures of labour force a c t i v i t y are p a r t i c i p a t i o n and unemployment rates. The p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate i s the number of respondents i n the labour force as a percent of the t o t a l population (excluding respondents who did not state t h e i r labour f o r c e a c t i v i t y ) . The unemployment rate i s the number of respondents who were unemployed as a percent of a l l respondents eithe r employed or unemployed. Hours Worked The measure of hours worked i n the reference week i s the actual number of hours that respondents worked i n the week p r i o r 46 to enumeration i n 1986. This includes hours worked for wages, salary, t i p s or commission, hours worked i n one's own business, farm or professional practice, or hours worked without pay i n a family business or farm owned or operated by a r e l a t i v e l i v i n g i n the same household. "Work" i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n excludes housework or other maintenance or repairs around the home and volunteer work. The HALS provides measures of hours worked f o r the population from 1 to 65 hours per week. A l l respondents who worked 66 or more hours per week are categorized together. Weeks Worked The HALS provides information on the number of weeks i n 1985 during which a respondent worked even i f for only a few hours. This measure includes weeks of vacation or sick leave with pay or paid absence on t r a i n i n g courses. "Work" i n t h i s d e f i n i t i o n excludes housework or other maintenance or repairs around the home, and volunteer work. Respondents are i d e n t i f i e d as working 52 weeks even i f they did work for fewer weeks so long as they were paid f o r a f u l l year ( i . e , school teachers paid on a 12 month b a s i s ) . The categories for weeks of work are: *no weeks i n 1986, and worked before 1985; *no weeks i n 1985, and worked i n 1986; •worked 1 to 13 weeks f u l l time; •worked 1 to 13 weeks part time; •worked 14 to 26 weeks f u l l time; •worked 14 to 26 weeks part time; •worked 27 to 39 weeks f u l l time; •worked 27 to 39 weeks part time; •worked 40 to 48 weeks f u l l time; •worked 40 to 48 weeks part time; •worked 49 to 52 weeks f u l l time, and; •worked 49 to 52 weeks part time. 47 Occupational Status Occupational status i s measured i n the HALS by asking the respondent to i d e n t i f y t h e i r occupation. S t a t i s t i c s Canada categorizes s p e c i f i c occupations into occupational groups. In the case of the HALS, requirements of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y r e s u l t i n only twelve o c c u p a t i o n a l groups being used to categorize a l l occupations. These occupational groups are: *upper l e v e l management; •middle and other management; •professionals; •semi-professionals and technicians; •supervisors; •foremen and forewomen; • c l e r i c a l workers; •sale workers; •service workers; • s k i l l e d c r a f t s and trades; •semi-skilled manual workers, and; •other manual workers; A complete l i s t i n g of which s p e c i f i c occupations are included i n each occupational group used i n the HALS i s a v a i l a b l e i n S t a t i s t i c s Canada (1989: appendix H). Employment and Total Income Employment and t o t a l income i s measured i n the HALS by income categories. The employment income measure i s for a l l employment earnings during 1985. The t o t a l income measure i s for a l l income from a l l sources during 1985. The employment and t o t a l income categories are both: $ 0 $ 1 to 999 $ 1000 to 2999 $ 3000 to 4999 $ 5000 to 6999 $ 7000 to 9999 $ 10 000 to 14 999 48 $ 15 000 to 19 999 $ 20 000 to 24 999 $ 25 000 to 29 999 $ 30 000 to 34 999 $ 35 000 or more Low Income Status S t a t i s t i c s Canada does not measure poverty, rather, i t defines a set of income 'cut-offs' below which people may be said to l i v e i n 'straitened circumstances'. Low income status i s measured s i m i l a r to various poverty rates. The accepted convention when estimating low income status i s to examine the t o t a l income available to the household from a l l members. This includes a l l sources of income such as, but not l i m i t e d to, employment earnings, investment income, pensions, and government tr a n s f e r s . A household i s defined here as any l i v i n g arrangement i n which people who are related to one another by blood, marriage or common-law r e l a t i o n s share a common dwelling. A household's 1985 income was deemed below the cut-off point when a family was required to spend at lea s t 2 0% more of i t s t o t a l income than the average Canadian family does on food, clo t h i n g , and shelter. This l e v e l of income leaves very li m i t e d money for other requirements of d a i l y l i v i n g . The low income cut-o f f s vary by both household family si z e , to a maximum of seven persons, and urban or r u r a l location of the household. For example i n 1985, the low income cut-offs for large c i t i e s were: one person, $10 200; two persons, $13 500; three persons, $18 100; and four persons, $20 800. 49 Ross and S h i l l i n g t o n (1990: 18) point out that these low-income cut-off l e v e l s are not adjusted upwards to r e f l e c t the fa c t that many disabled persons have higher costs of l i v i n g than the non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n . Obviously, respondents with s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher extraordinary l i v i n g costs as a r e s u l t of a health condition may i n fact meet the s p i r i t of the low-income status c r i t e r i a while having an income above the formally set cut-off point for t h e i r household s i z e . The HALS questionnaire asked respondents what 'extra out-of-pocket' expenses they made during 1985 for a variety of health re l a t e d products and services. Unfortunately, the data released by S t a t i s t i c s Canada only shows whether expenses where incurred, without amounts, i n each of these seven areas. ANALYSIS The HALS f i l e for adults (15 years of age and over) was analyzed with the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for So c i a l Sciences extended release 3.0 (SPSSx) on the uni v e r s i t y ' s Michigan Terminal System (MTS). The data analysis was a comparison of gender differences i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. This comparison of gender differences i n socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s between the disabled and non-disabled populations provides a measure of the consequences of d i s a b i l i t y f or men and women. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of most si g n i f i c a n c e for t h i s research are: l e v e l of education; personal income; occupation; hours of work; l i v i n g arrangements; and labour force status. 50 Where the populations are l a r g e enough to provide s t a t i s t i c a l r e l i a b i l i t y for analysis of gender differences among ethnic, age or class groups i n the disabled population such comparisons w i l l be made with the respective s o c i a l group i n the non-disabled population. Comparative analyses of these variables by region w i l l also be conducted where the populations remain s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e . These further l e v e l s of analysis could determine the significance of a d i s a b i l i t y ' s consequences fo r men and women i n r e l a t i o n to other s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (as e t h n i c i t y , age, class, and region). The a n a l y s i s considers the consequence of multiple d i s a b i l i t i e s compared to a singular d i s a b i l i t y . For example, inv e s t i g a t i n g the consequences of mental and mobility impairments i s complicated by the prevalence of multiple d i s a b i l i t i e s among these populations. Individuals with a mental impairment generally have a secondary impairment i n speech. As well, persons with a mobility impairment generally have a secondary impairment i n a g i l i t y . The hearing impaired population had the lowest rate of secondary d i s a b i l i t i e s . However, t h i s group was also shown to have the l e a s t severe consequences from d i s a b i l i t y . The presence of multiple d i s a b i l i t y d i f f e r s by gender. Women are less l i k e l y than men to have a single d i s a b i l i t y . The time of onset of a d i s a b i l i t y was also considered. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n of gender differences by period of d i s a b i l i t y onset (such as childhood, adulthood, late adulthood) was conducted. A r e l a t e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n was the provision of benefits and 51 compensation. Persons disabled while at work or i n an accident are compensated through insurance services above standard public services and benefits for disabled persons. F i n a l l y , the region i n which an i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s was examined to determine the r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n the consequences of a d i s a b i l i t y . The differences i n the provision of services and benefits for persons with a d i s a b i l i t y between provinces and within provinces has consequences for the extent of integration and socio-economic status. As well, since the occupational structure varies between urban and r u r a l areas l e v e l s of integration and socio-economic status of disabled also d i f f e r with region. The HALS household sample was organized to permit the generation of s t a t i s t i c a l estimates for the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of disabled persons for subprovincial areas throughout Canada. For persons l i v i n g on Indian reserves, s t a t i s t i c a l estimates can be generated f o r p r o v i n c i a l populations. The research here was concerned with major Canadian regions, and urban/rural comparisons. The focus of the research i s the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y f o r women and men i n work. I t i s important to examine other s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and conditions which may s i g n i f i c a n t l y impact the r e l a t i o n s between d i s a b i l i t y and gender. The other variables described above were investigated for t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e to the r e l a t i o n s between d i s a b i l i t y and gender. 5 2 CHAPTER FOUR RESEARCH FINDINGS This Chapter presents the data for selected c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s from the HALS. The f i r s t s e c t i o n presents d e s c r i p t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the population. The second section provides a comparative analysis of those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s most relevant to measuring gender inequality i n the population. The f i n a l two sections of t h i s Chapter present the findings from multiple regression analyses of educational attainment, and employment and t o t a l income i n the population. The f i r s t of these sections i s concerned with examining the in t e r a c t i o n between, and the s i g n i f i c a n c e of, d i s a b i l i t y and gender as measured by income. The following section examines the extent of v a r i a t i o n within the disabled population with regards to education and income. This research i s p r i n c i p a l l y concerned with, and r e f e r s to, the working age population unless otherwise stated. GENERAL POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS This section provides data of descriptive c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for the population. The following two sections of t h i s Chapter presents findings of analyses of gender inequality i n employment, and r e l a t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Total Population The percentage of people with d i s a b i l i t i e s i n the general population of adults (15 years of age or older) i s 14.3%. Women account for 52.5% of t h i s disabled adult population and for 50.9% of the adult non-disabled population. 53 There were 97.7% of women and 96.8% of men with d i s a b i l i t i e s of working age residing i n private households, with the remainder r e s i d i n g i n health related i n s t i t u t i o n s (Harvey and Tepperman, 1990). There i s a difference i n rates of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n between women and men i n the el d e r l y population where 19.0% of women as compared to 11.5% of men reside i n health related i n s t i t u t i o n s . This research i s concerned with the disabled and non-disabled population of women and men r e s i d i n g i n private households. Comparisons of the d i s a b l e d and non-disabled adult population are complicated by substantial differences i n the age structure of each population. Persons of working age (15 to 64 years of age) represent 78.2% of the non-disabled population, but represent only 63.3% of the disabled population. As a r e s u l t , d i v i s i o n of the population into working age and e l d e r l y age groups i s necessary, p a r t i c u l a r l y for examination of employment, labour force and income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Disabled persons account for 10.4% of the working age population. While women comprise 57.2% of the disabled e l d e r l y population, women make up 49.7% of the disabled working age population. In the non-disabled population women account for 56.5% of e l d e r l y persons and for 50.3% of persons of working age. The higher rates of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n f or e l d e r l y women and the higher proportion of women i n the e l d e r l y population p a r t l y a r i s e because women, on average, l i v e longer than men. A further explanation of the higher rate of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of 54 e l d e r l y women could be that e l d e r l y women are less economically independent than men, and thus not as able to acquire services necessary for remaining i n a private household. This may be p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant i n areas where community services provided at low or no cost are less available. P r o v i n c i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n The d i s t r i b u t i o n of disabled persons i n Canada by province generally r e f l e c t s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the t o t a l population. A more meaningful comparison comes from d i s a b i l i t y rates f or each province (the percentage of t o t a l population with d i s a b i l i t i e s ) . The rate of d i s a b i l i t y for persons age 15 years and older i s consistently higher for women than for men i n a l l provinces, and the Northwest T e r r i t o r i e s . Only i n B r i t i s h Columbia are the d i s a b i l i t y rates s i m i l a r between women and men. In the Yukon, the d i s a b i l i t y rate i s higher for men than for women. Impairment Status This section shows the portion of disabled persons who have an a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n i n each of the impairment groupings. The data below i s shown i n table 1. mobility and a g i l i t y impairments The most common group of impairments are mobility l i m i t a t i o n s . Mobility impairments are present among 67.6% of women and 51.0% of men i n the disabled population. Individuals with a mobility impairment commonly also have an a g i l i t y impairment. A g i l i t y impairments are the second most common group of l i m i t a t i o n s . The percentage of a g i l i t y impaired 55 Table 1 IMPAIRMENT STATUS IN THE DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION o o Women o o Men Women as a % M o b i l i t y 67.6 51.0 56.7 A g i l i t y 56.0 47.8 53.7 Other 27.7 28.3 49.2 Hearing 18.5 28.6 39.0 Seeing 12.6 10.5 54.3 Speaking 5.5 6.7 44.8 Unknown 7.1 9.7 41.8 56 persons i n the disabled population i s 56.0% for women and 47.8% for men. Women comprise the majority of the mobility impaired (56.7%) and a g i l i t y impaired (53.7%) populations. As well, women c o n s i s t e n t l y have a higher rate of mobility and a g i l i t y impairments than men for a l l age groups. psychological, cognitive and speaking impairments The 'other' category i n S t a t i s t i c s Canada's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme i n c l u d e s respondents with learning, cognitive and ps y c h i a t r i c d i s a b i l i t i e s , i s the t h i r d largest among the disabled population including 27.7% of women and 28.3% of men. Persons with a speaking impairment commonly have a psychological or cognitive d i s a b i l i t y . Among the psychologically and co g n i t i v e l y disabled population, speaking impairments are not as common. Speaking impairments are the least common group of l i m i t a t i o n s . In the disabled population 5.5% of women and 6.7% of men have a s p e a k i n g impairment. Women account f o r 49.2% of the psychologically and cognitively disabled and 44.8% of the speaking disabled population. hearing impairments Hearing impairments constitute the fourth most common group of l i m i t a t i o n s . Hearing impairments are present among 18.5% of women and 28.6% of men. Hearing impaired persons have the lowest rate of multiple d i s a b i l i t y . Women comprise only 39.0% of the hearing impaired population. This i s the smallest percentage for women i n a l l the census groupings of l i m i t a t i o n s . However, the 57 higher general rate of hearing impairments for men compared to women i s not consistent for a l l age groups. seeing impairments Seeing impairments are the second least common grouping of impairments. In the disabled population 12.6% of women and 10.5% of men have a seeing impairment. Women represent 54.3% of the seeing impaired population. category of unknown nature of impairment Among the disabled population 7.1% of women and 9.7% of men had an impairment which was i d e n t i f i e d but the nature of the l i m i t a t i o n was not speci f i e d . summary In summary, women more often than men have mobility, a g i l i t y , and seeing impairments. Men more often than women have hearing and speaking impairments. The presence of psychological and cognitive d i s a b i l i t y among women and men i s s i m i l a r . The highest concentration of women i s i n mobility impairments, and for men i s i n hearing impairments. Although women have a higher incidence than men of mobility impairment for a l l age groups, the higher incidence of hearing impairments i n men i s not consistent i n a l l age groups (Harvey and Tepperman, 1990). Multiple D i s a b i l i t i e s The portion of disabled persons with a single impairment i s 40.9% for women and 48.9% for men. Persons with two impairments account for 35.5% of women and 30.0% of men with d i s a b i l i t i e s . The presence of three or more impairments was i d e n t i f i e d i n 23.6% 58 Table 2 MULTIPLE DISABILITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATIONS Number of Conditions (%) 1 2 3 4 5 6 or more Women 40.9 35.5 14.4 6.4 2.4 0.4 Men 48.9 30.0 13.4 5.5 1.7 0.5 Women as a Percentage of Pop. 45.3 54.0 51.4 53.6 58.1 44.8 Table 3 SEVERITY STATUS OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION 0 0 , 0 , "6 "o o Mild Moderate Severe Total Women 48.7 34.5 16.7 100.0 Men 54.5 31.5 13.9 100.0 Women as a Percentage of Pop. 46.9 52.0 53.7 49.7 59 of women and 21.1% of men. In summary, women more often than men have multiple d i s a b i l i t i e s , as i s demonstrated i n table 2. Severity Status Fewer women (48.7%) than men (54.5%) have mild d i s a b i l i t i e s . Moderately disabled persons account for 34.5% of women and 31.5% of men. Persons i d e n t i f i e d as severely disabled represent 16.7% of women and 13.9% of men. Table 3 shows men are i n general more severely disabled than men. Women consistently have both a lower rate of mild d i s a b i l i t y and higher rates of moderate and severe d i s a b i l i t y as compared to men for a l l age groups. This higher proportion of women than men with moderate or severe d i s a b i l i t i e s r e f l e c t s the higher concentration of women i n the older age groups. The rates of moderate and severe d i s a b i l i t y increase with age throughout the population. Work Limitations A further measure used i n HALS of a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g from an impairment i s degree of ' a c t i v i t y l i m i t a t i o n s at work'. Disabled persons were asked to state whether they were l i m i t e d i n the kind or amount of a c t i v i t y they could perform at work. Individuals who were limited i n the kind or amount of work a c t i v i t y they could perform were then asked i f they were p a r t i a l l y l i m i t e d i n , or completely unable to work. The data discussed here on work limi t a t i o n s was obtained from Cohen (1990). Women (41%) are more l i k e l y than men (29%) to be completely unable to work. The greatest difference by gender i n the rate of 60 being completely unable to work i s i n the age groups of 45 to 64 years. This higher representation of women among the population completely unable to work i s consistent with the higher representation of women among persons with multiple or severe d i s a b i l i t i e s . Related to these higher rates f or women i s t h e i r older age d i s t r i b u t i o n as compared to the age d i s t r i b u t i o n of men. The rate of being completely unable to work increases with each age group, as i s seen with rates of multiple and severe d i s a b i l i t i e s . Persons with multiple d i s a b i l i t i e s reported greater rates of work l i m i t a t i o n than persons with a single d i s a b i l i t y . Period of onset i s also related to these rates, persons disabled as youths (24 years of age or less) reported lower rates of work l i m i t a t i o n than persons disabled as older adults (45-64 years of age). Cohen (1990: 21) found the most s i g n i f i c a n t determinant of the a b i l i t y to work was severity of d i s a b i l i t y . Age Groups Among the disabled working age population the average age of women i s 45.1 years and of men i s 44.6 years. The average age for the non-disabled working age population i s 35.4 for women and i s 35.1 f o r men. As i s evident from table A l , the disabled p o p u l a t i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y o l d e r than the non-disabled population even with the exclusion of e l d e r l y persons from the comparison. This older age structure i n the disabled population may be a consequence of increased l i k e l i h o o d of onset of d i s a b i l i t y with increased age. While the d i s a b i l i t y rate r i s e s for successive age groups, the majority of disabled persons (63.3%) are less than 65 years of age. Among young adults (15 to 24 years of age) 4.4% of persons have a d i s a b i l i t y . Women account for 48.4% of disabled young adults and for 49.6% of non-disabled adults. Disabled persons represent 7.7% of middle age adults (25 to 44 years of age). Among the middle age population, women comprise 49.6% of disabled persons and 50.3% of non-disabled persons. F i n a l l y , disabled persons comprise 20.0% of the older adult population (45 to 64 years of age). Women represent 50.1% of disabled persons and 51.1% of non-disabled persons i n middle age population. Urban and Rural Status Disabled persons constitute 10.2% of the urban and 11.2% of the r u r a l working age population. Table 4 shows the portion of non-disabled women (79.1%) and men (78.3%) and disabled women (79.2%) l i v i n g i n urban areas are a l l comparable. However, disabled men have a lower concentration at 74.7% i n urban areas. Marital Status Table A2 provides data on the marital status of non— disabled and disabled persons. In the disabled population 59.2% of women and 64.9% of men are married. Among the non-disabled population 62.9% of women and 60.2% of men are married. A higher percentage of disabled (10.6%) as compared to non-disabled (5.8%) people are divorced or separated. The percentages divorced or separated are more sim i l a r for non-disabled women 62 Table 4 URBAN AND RURAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o Women o Men Women as a % Q. Women o Men Women as a % Urban 79.2 74.7 51.2 79.1 78.3 50.6 Rural 20.8 25.3 44.9 20.9 21.7 49.4 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 63 (6.7%) and men (4.8%) as compared to the percentages for disabled women (13.3%) and men (7.4%). The divorced or separation percentages d i f f e r more by gender for the disabled population than f o r the non-disabled population. A lower percentage of women (18.5%) and men (25.1%) i n the disabled population as compared to non-disabled women (27.5%) and men (34.3%) are single. This difference i s probably r e l a t e d to differences i n age composition between the non-disabled and disabled populations. Disabled women (9.1%) and men (2.1%) are widowed more often as compared to non-disabled women (3.0%) and men (0.6%). The percentages for disabled women and men d i f f e r more by gender than the percentages for non-disabled women and men. Once again t h i s patterning might be the r e s u l t of the older age composition of the disabled population. In summary, the disabled population has higher percentages of divorce, separation, and widowed than the non-disabled population. As well, these percentages d i f f e r more by gender for the disabled as compared to the non-disabled population. The disabled population has lower percentages of single women and men than the non-disabled population. The older age structure for the disabled population may contribute to these differences. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN WORK. EDUCATION.  AND INCOME BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS The previous section i l l u s t r a t e d some of the general differences and s i m i l a r i t i e s between the disabled and non-64 d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n s , with p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n to the experiences of women and men i n each of these populations. Considerable differences i n some of these general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s suggests p o t e n t i a l differences i n s o c i a l and economic status between and within these populations. This section examines those work, educational and income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are indicators of inequality. The f i r s t part of t h i s section i s concerned with general differences i n work between and within disabled and non-disabled populations. The general work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s examined i n t h i s f i r s t s e r i e s of comparisons are: labour force a c t i v i t y ; l e v e l of f u l l time and permanent employment; and o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . The second part of t h i s section examines the consequences of these differences i n work c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As well, educational attainment i s examined as an explanatory factor of these differences. A series of comparative analyses of educational attainment, employment and t o t a l income, and low-income status are used to address the central research question posed i n Chapter Two, 'what consequence does d i s a b i l i t y have on gender inequality i n work?' This second series of comparative analyses t e s t s the three hypotheses developed around the research question. An overview of these hypotheses i s presented i n the introduction to the second series of comparative analyses. Table 5 provides several of the more s i g n i f i c a n t inequality measures from the following discussions of the comparative 65 Table 5 CENTRAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN IN THE DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATIONS: Schooling, Employment, and Income DISABLED NON-DISABLED Women Men Ratio/%W Women Men Ratio/%W LFPR 37.0% 58.0% 38.7%W 67.7% 88.1% 43.8%W Rate of Employment i n the LFS 31.2% 50.8% 37.9%W 41.0% 60.0% 79.8% 43.2%W 69.9% Average Years of Schooling 10.28 10.64 0.97R 49.7%W 12.23 12.36 0.99R 50.3%W Average Total Income 7704.66 17116.67 0.45R 49.7%W 10382.80 20390.71 0.51R 50.3%W Average Employment Incomel 11695.17 30.3% 19869.76 50.3% 0.59R 37.9%W 13484.68 60.0% 22134.73 79.8% 0.61R 43.2%W Average Employment Income2 18363.93 14.0% 25466.11 33.2% 0.72R 29.8%W 19097.72 31.9% 26946.77 58.1% 0.71R 35.7%W Low Income Status 31.2% 25.6% 54.7%W 15.4% 12.8% 55.0%W (notes continued on following page) 66 (continued from previous page) LFPR Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate i s the number of persons either employed or unemployed as a percentage of the population. R Ratio i s the average for women divided by the average for men. ER Employment Rate i s the number of persons who are employed as a percentage of the t o t a l population (excluding those who did not state t h e i r labour force status). % This i s the percentage for women and men i n the disabled and non-disabled populations (excluding where % refers to a LFPR and ER). %W This i s the percentage of women from the cases i n each row by disabled and non-disabled. 1 Employment income for a l l indiv i d u a l s who worked. 2 Employment income for a l l indiv i d u a l s who worked f u l l time (35 hours or more during reference week) for 40 to 52 weeks. 67 analyses. Over each of these measures, women are disadvantaged as compared to men f o r both the non-disabled and disabled populations. The notes to the table provide further explanation of these measures. Labour Force Status Differences i n labour force status between and within the non-disabled and disabled populations i s perhaps the most s t r i k i n g contrast provided by the HALS data as i l l u s t r a t e d i n table 6. While the majority of non-disabled people are employed, the majority of disabled people are not i n the labour force. Within these populations considerable difference also e x i s t s between women and men i n labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The rate of labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s 37.0% for women and 58.0% for men with d i s a b i l i t i e s and for non-disabled women i t i s 67.7% and men i t i s 88.1%. Disabled persons are disadvantaged by t h e i r low labour force p a r t i c i p a t i o n rate, and women i n both populations are disadvantaged i n r e l a t i o n to men. Persons p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the labour force are either employed or unemployed (without employment, a c t i v e l y seeking employment, and available to work). The number of persons unemployed as a percentage (the unemployment rate) of a l l persons i n the labour force i s generally used to indicate the extent of unmet need for employment i n the population. The disabled population has considerably higher rates of unemployment for women (17.0%) and men (14.2%) as compared to rates for non-disabled women (11.6%) and men (9.4%). 68 Table 6 LABOUR FORCE STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o "5 Women g. Men Women as a % o Women % Men Women as a % Not i n the Labour Force NPR 61.5 40.0 60.3 32.1 11.9 73.2 Lab. Force Part. Rate (LFPR) 37.0 58.0 38.7 67.7 88.1 43.8 Employed 31.2ER 50.8 37.9 60.0 79.8 43.2 Unemployed 17.OUR 14.2 43.0 11.6 9.4 49.1 Not Stated 1.6 2.0 43.7 0 0 0 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 ER Employment rate i s the number of employed persons as a percentage of the t o t a l population (excluding those persons who did not state t h e i r labour force status). UR Unemployment rate i s the number of persons who are unemployed as a percentage of a l l persons either employed or unemployed. LFPR Labour Force P a r t i c i p a t i o n Rate i s the number of persons either employed or unemployed as a percentage of the t o t a l population. NPR Non-participation Rate i s the number of persons not i n the labour force as a percentage of the t o t a l population. 69 While the number of disabled people who are unemployed form a r e l a t i v e l y high percentage of disabled people i n the labour force, the unemployed form a r e l a t i v e l y low percentage of the t o t a l disabled population. Thus, while the unemployment rate for disabled women i s 17.0%, only 6.3% of a l l women with d i s a b i l i t i e s are unemployed and ac t i v e l y seeking employment. This s i t u a t i o n a r i s e s from the very high percentage of disabled people who are not i n the labour force, that i s people who are neither employed nor a c t i v e l y seeking employment. This suggests the extent of unmet need for employment among disabled people may be greater than i s indicated by the unemployment rate. The difference between the unemployment rate and the percentage of the population who are unemployed i s greater for the disabled population than for the non-disabled population. Thus, the d i f f e r e n c e between d i s a b l e d and non-disabled populations i n the actual extent of unmet need for employment i s l i k e l y greater than i s suggested by comparing unemployment rates. For t h i s reason comparing the percentages of disabled and non-disabled populations who are employed i s a more useful indicator of d i s p a r i t i e s i n labour force a c t i v i t y between disabled and non-disabled populations. The employment rate i s the number of persons who are employed as a percentage of the t o t a l population (excluding those who did not i d e n t i f y t h e i r labour force status). The rates of employment among disabled women (31.2%) and men (50.8%) are s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower than among non-disabled women (60.0%) and men 70 (79.8%). As well, the r a t i o of employed women to men i s lower for the d i s a b l e d population (0.61) than for the non-disabled population (0.76). Thus, the differences i n employment rates between women and men i s r e l a t i v e l y greater among disabled persons than among non-disabled persons. In summary, disabled persons p a r t i c i p a t e f a r less i n the labour market, have fewer employment opportunities, and have a higher rate of unmet need for employment than do non-disabled persons. Furthermore, women are seriously disadvantaged by t h e i r labour force status as compared to men i n both disabled and non-disabled populations. Comparison of the r a t i o of employed women to men indicates greater difference i n l e v e l of employment by gender i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. Labour force a c t i v i t y and employment rates are i n s u f f i c i e n t measures of gender inequality. Employment rates do not r e f l e c t differences i n hours worked per week, weeks worked per year, occupational status, and earnings. Each of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are important for assessing the extent of gender inequality i n work. work l i m i t a t i o n s Before examining the other c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e l a t e d to employment, i t i s necessary to consider the influence of work l i m i t a t i o n s on labour force a c t i v i t y . Eighty percent of disabled women and men not i n the labour force are completely unable to work (Cohen, 1989: 22). At least some of the differences between 71 disabled and non-disabled populations i n labour force a c t i v i t y can be explained by the rate of persons completely unable to work. However, since women and men have a s i m i l a r rate of being completely unable to work, gender differences remain as great even when c o n t r o l l i n g for being completely unable to work. Cohen (1989) did f i n d i n general that women with a p a r t i a l work l i m i t a t i o n without employment were more l i k e l y to be not a c t i v e l y seeking employment, and thus not i n the labour force. Men with p a r t i a l work li m i t a t i o n s and without employment were more l i k e l y to be a c t i v e l y seeking employment, or unemployed, than were women (Cohen, 1989). Hours and Weeks Worked The l e v e l of employment ( f u l l time, p a r t time, temporary/seasonal, and f u l l year) are important indicators of economic status. The majority of non-disabled women (60.0%) and men (79.8%), and a minority of disabled women (30.3%) and ha l f of disabled men (50.3%) had employment during 1985. These rates decline s i g n i f i c a n t l y for both non-disabled and disabled persons who worked ( f u l l time and f u l l year) at lea s t 40 weeks i n 1985, and 35 hours or more during the reference week i n 1986. The percentage of persons who worked f u l l time and f u l l year i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower among disabled women (14.0%) and men (33.2%) than among non-disabled women (31.9%) and men (58.1%). This concentration of non-disabled and disabled women i n p a r t time and temporary or seasonal work i s a serious disadvantage for women. The consequence of t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s 72 demonstrated i n the disadvantaged income l e v e l of women as compared to men i n both populations discussed below. Occupational Status As noted above differences i n employment income between women and men ar i s e from differences i n hours and weeks worked, and p a r t i c u l a r l y from occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n . Differences i n the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n s of women and men are generally r e f e r r e d to as the gender d i v i s i o n of labour. The gender d i v i s i o n of labour i s the pattern of occupational segregation of women and men into d i f f e r e n t job tasks. The gender d i v i s i o n of labour originates i n the process by which the gender i d e n t i t i e s of women and men become associated with s p e c i f i c s k i l l s and tasks (Cockburn, 1983; 1985). S k i l l s i n t h i s sense are not s o c i a l l y neutral a b i l i t i e s ; rather s k i l l s , and talent s , are implicated i n the gender i d e n t i t i e s of women and men. As a consequence work becomes i d e n t i f i e d as either 'men's work' or 'women's work'. The a n a l y s i s here of occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n s was conducted to assess the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on the gender d i v i s i o n of paid labour. The occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n of disabled women and men i s shown i n table 7 to be comparable with the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n s of non-disabled women and men. Table 7 shows the gender differences i n occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n are comparable for each population. This suggests those disabled people who obtain employment have been integrated into the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n of the larger population. Thus, 73 Table 7 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION % Disabled WOMEN % Non-Disabled Index of Dis s i m i l . o *S Disabled MEN % Non-Disabled Index of Di s s i m i l . Upper Management 0.2* 0.6 0.4* 1.8 2.5 0.7 Middle and Other Management 3.7 5.9 2.2 7.1 9.0 1.9 Profession 12.8 15.8 3.0 8.5 10.9 2.4 Semi-Prof-essionals & Technic. 6.6 4.9 1.7 3.2 4.4 1.2 Supervisor 2.4 3.1 0.7 2.5 2.6 0.1 Foremen/ women 0.6 0.5* 0.1* 3.4 5.2 1.8 C l e r i c a l Workers 29.4 31.8 2.4 5.9 5.3 0.6 Sale Workers 8.8 8.9 0.1 7.6 7.7 0.1 Service Workers 11.9 12.6 0.5 5.5 6.6 1.1 S k i l l e d Crafts and Trades 1.1 1.5 0.4 15.1 13.1 2.0 Semi-Skill Manual Workers 5.7 2.5 3.2 15.1 13.7 1.4 (continued on following page) 74 (continued from previous page) WOMEN MEN o *o Disabled % Non-Disabled Index of Di s s i m i l g. o Disabled % Non-Disabled Index of Di s s i m i l . Other Manual Workers 11.1 10.0 1.1 19.5 16.9 2.6 Not Stated 5.7 1.9 3.8 4.6 2.1 2.5 Total 100.0 100.0 9.8 100.0 100.0 9.3 * High sampling variance ( c o e f f i c i e n t of between 16.5% and 25%). This measure should be used with caution. Index of D i s s i m i l a r i t y shows the absolute difference between percentages for disabled and non-disabled women, and between disabled and non-disabled men for each occupational group. The t o t a l score for the index i s the sum of scores for each occupational group divided by two. This score shows what percentage of people would have to change t h e i r occupational group to make the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n d i r e c t l y comparable between disabled and non-disabled women, and between disabled and non -disabled men. 75 d i s a b i l i t y does not appear to s i g n i f i c a n t l y e f f e c t the gender d i v i s i o n of paid labour. The comparability of occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n by gender regardless of presence or absence of d i s a b i l i t i e s i s indicated by the index of d i s s i m i l a r i t y as presented i n table 7. The index of d i s s i m i l a r i t y between women and men i n the disabled population i s 9.8 and i n the non-disabled population i t i s 9.3. The index of d i s s i m i l a r i t y measures differences i n percentage d i s t r i b u t i o n . This measure shows what percentage of the population would have to change occupations for the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n s to be d i r e c t l y comparable between non-disabled and disabled women, and non-disabled and disabled men. The occupational grouping scheme used i n HALS i s a collapsed version of the 1981 census c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of occupations. The broad occupational categories of HALS may diminish s i g n i f i c a n t differences within the occupational categories. Summary of Work Characteristics The comparison of gender differences i n work between disabled and non-disabled persons has to t h i s point examined: the extent of employment and unemployment; l e v e l of f u l l time and permanent employment; and the o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n . Differences i n gender over a l l of these variables are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r both disabled and non-disabled populations. Disabled persons are also disadvantaged i n a l l these areas as compared to non-disabled persons. In general, d i s a b i l i t y i s more s i g n i f i c a n t than gender i n explaining differences i n labour force status, and 76 gender i s more s i g n i f i c a n t than d i s a b i l i t y i n explaining differences i n occupational status. The analysis below i s concerned with comparing the extent of gender differences between disabled and non-disabled populations along more d i r e c t measures of inequality. COMPARATIVE ANALYSES OF GENDER INEQUALITY  BETWEEN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED POPULATIONS The comparative analyses of gender differences above established that gender differences are s i g n i f i c a n t for both disabled and non-disabled populations. The c e n t r a l question i n t h i s research concerns how gender differences vary between disabled and non-disabled populations. To examine t h i s question, three hypotheses are tested i n the following ser i e s of analyses. These three hypotheses were developed i n Chapter Two around the c e n t r a l question i n t h i s research: 'what consequence does d i s a b i l i t y have on gender inequality i n work?'. The hypotheses were: (1) d i s a b i l i t y as master status; (2) d i s a b i l i t y as a 'double jeopardy' for women, and; (3) gender as a pervasive status for both populations. The d i s a b i l i t y as a master status t h e s i s anticipates a lesser extent of gender inequality within the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. D i s a b i l i t y i s viewed as being so pervasive as to diminish the s i g n i f i c a n c e of other s o c i a l status, such as gender. This thesis argues that the following measures w i l l show less inequality by gender i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. 77 This hypothesis w i l l be supported i f the r a t i o on inequality measures for women to men i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher among disabled persons as compared to non-disabled persons. The hypothesis that d i s a b i l i t y poses a 'double jeopardy' for women agrees with the master status thesis that an in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s present between d i s a b i l i t y and gender. However, t h i s t h e s i s anticipates that gender inequality w i l l be more severe within the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled p o p u l a t i o n . The stigma of d i s a b i l i t y i s interpreted as exaggerating, rather than diminishing, e x i s t i n g s o c i a l status, such as gender. Thus, using t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n the following measures should r e f l e c t a greater difference by gender for the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. Support for t h i s hypothesis w i l l be demonstrated where the inequality r a t i o s for women to men are s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower among disabled persons as compared to non-disabled persons. The f i n a l hypothesis presented anticipated a comparable extent of gender inequality to be present i n both the disabled and non-disabled populations. This hypothesis interpreted the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y as lowering the status of persons with d i s a b i l i t i e s but anticipates that gender i s so pervasive a s o c i a l status as not to be altered by, or to interac t with, the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y . This thesis suggests the differences by gender w i l l be comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations across inequality measures. Where inequality r a t i o s f o r women to 78 men are comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations, support for t h i s hypothesis w i l l be demonstrated. The following measures were selected f o r t e s t i n g the above hypotheses since each of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e i t h e r o f f e r an e x p l a n a t i o n of these d i f f e r e n c e s (as with e d u c a t i o n a l attainment) , or they highlight the consequences of these differences (as with the income measures). Educational Attainment The following comparison of educational attainment of women and men i n the disabled and non-disabled populations provides the f i r s t d i r e c t t e s t of these hypotheses. The differences between the average l e v e l s of educational attainment for women and men are minimal for both disabled and non-disabled populations, as i s shown i n table 5. In fact, the average l e v e l of educational attainment for women and men d i f f e r by less than one-half of a year of schooling for both populations. The r a t i o of the average number of years of schooling for women to men i s 0.97 i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n and i t i s 0.99 i n the non-disabled population. The comparison of these r a t i o s provides support for the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between the disabled and the non-disabled populations. D i s a b i l i t y i s far more s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n educational attainment than i s gender when comparing both the educational attainment d i s t r i b u t i o n of the population, and the average l e v e l of educational attainment for the population. Table 16 shows women are concentrated i n lower educational l e v e l s 79 r e l a t i v e to men for both populations. As well, i n examining average number of years of schooling women are disadvantaged i n comparison to men i n both populations. However, the disadvantage experienced by disabled persons i n comparison with non-disabled persons i s considerably greater than the difference between women and men. Whereas the average of number of years of schooling attained among disabled persons i s 10.28 for women and i s 10.64 for men, among the non-disabled the average i s 12.23 for women and i s 12.36 for men. Furthermore, Table A3 shows disabled persons are highly concentrated at lower educational l e v e l s . These differences i n average l e v e l of educational attainment, and p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n across educational l e v e l s between disabled and non-disabled persons may ar i s e from differences i n the age composition of each population. Beyond gender, another s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n educational attainment within the disabled population i s nature of d i s a b i l i t y . Persons with seeing, speaking, cognitive, emotional, or psy c h i a t r i c impairments are considerably more disadvantaged than are persons with a g i l i t y , mobility, hearing, or unknown impairments. This pattern of disadvantage between these d i s a b i l i t y groups i s continued throughout t h i s series of c o m p a r a t i v e a n a l y s e s of the general work and income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s discussed here. Employment Income Employment income i s perhaps the best measure of success i n the labour market. Thus, tes t i n g the research hypotheses with the 80 measured differences i n employment income may be the best assessment of these hypotheses. When comparison i s made of the r a t i o of average employment income f o r women to men between the disabled (0.59) and non-disabled (0.61) populations, gender inequality i s revealed to be comparable between these populations (see table 5). This provides further support for the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations, and thus gender should be understood to be a pervasive status. In general, gender i s shown to be more s i g n i f i c a n t than d i s a b i l i t y i n influencing employment income. While women earn on average only 60% of average earnings for men, the difference between disabled and non-disabled persons i n average earnings i s approximately 10%. The r a t i o of average employment income for disabled to non-disabled persons i s 0.87 for women and i t i s 0.90 for men. These differences are also evident i n comparing the population d i s t r i b u t i o n s over employment income categories as presented i n table A4. The disadvantage i n employment income experienced by women declines among the f u l l time and permanent employed population. However, women account for a considerably lower percentage of persons employed f u l l time and f u l l year than women account for among a l l persons employed. This pattern e x i s t s i n both populations. The s t r i k i n g s i m i l a r i t y of such patterns i n both p o p u l a t i o n s f u r t h e r supports the hypothesis that gender 81 inequality i s comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n average employment income between d i s a b i l i t y groups r e f l e c t s a s i m i l a r pattern observed i n educational attainment. Persons with seeing, speaking, cognitive, emotional, or p s y c h i a t r i c impairments are more disadvantaged i n comparison with a g i l i t y , m o b i l i t y , h e a r i n g or unknown impairments. The support for the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations i s provided by comparative analyses of average l e v e l of educational attainment and average employment income. However, the employment rates presented above demonstrate the high rate of exclusion from employment experienced by disabled persons. Thus, employment income i s the primary source of income for a f a r smaller portion of disabled persons than for non-disabled persons. Given t h i s s i t u a t i o n , the comparative analyses of gender inequality between disabled and non-disabled populations was extended to t e s t the hypotheses with measured differences i n average t o t a l income. Total Income Research on gender inequality i n work benefits from expanding the analysis beyond employment c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to include an examination of the consequences of being excluded from employment. Analysis of t o t a l income reveals the consequence on income from a high rate of exclusion from employment as experienced i n the disabled population. 82 Table 5 provides the r a t i o of average t o t a l income for disabled persons to non-disabled persons i s lower than the same r a t i o f o r employment income. The r a t i o of average t o t a l income for disabled to non-disabled i s 0.74 for women and i s 0.84 for men. I t was anticipated that examination of the consequence on income of exclusion from employment may reveal an in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y not observed f o r employment income. While gender inequality may be comparable between the lim i t e d population of disabled persons with employment to non-disabled persons, gender inequality among persons excluded from employment may be greater among disabled persons than non-disabled persons. A comparison of gender differences i n average t o t a l income found less comparability between the disabled and non-disabled populations than was found with employment income. However, gender remains more s i g n i f i c a n t i n influencing income from a l l sources than does d i s a b i l i t y . The r a t i o of average t o t a l income for women to men i s 0.45 for disabled persons and 0.51 for non-disabled persons. These r a t i o s r e f l e c t the differences i n p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n s over t o t a l income categories as presented i n table A5. The r a t i o of average t o t a l income for disabled persons to non-disabled persons i s 0.74 for women and i t i s 0.84 f o r men. I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t that differences i n income between women and men and between disabled and non-disabled persons are greater by 83 t o t a l income than by employment income. This suggests that employment s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduces inequality by gender for disabled persons i n comparison to non-disabled persons. Differences i n average t o t a l income between d i s a b i l i t y groups are s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than i s the case i n employment income. Since the majority of disabled persons r e l y on income sources, such as welfare, which do not vary by nature of d i s a b i l i t y the differences i n t o t a l income between d i s a b i l i t y groups are minimized. This l e v e l l i n g e f f e c t on income from income assistance programs may be diminishing an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y and gender which otherwise may have been present. work l i m i t a t i o n s and income Work l i m i t a t i o n s have a large impact on the t o t a l incomes of in d i v i d u a l s . Cohen (1990: 11-3) found that persons who were not li m i t e d i n the kind or amount of work they could perform had double the 1985 average income of persons who were completely unable to work. The gender difference i n income remained large fo r each work l i m i t a t i o n category. This further confirms that employment i s central to the status of disabled persons. The further integration of disabled persons into the en t i r e range of occupations i s es s e n t i a l for diminishing the s o c i a l and economic inequality experienced by many disabled persons. Income Differences Reconsidered The differences i n employment and t o t a l incomes by gender, between disabled and non-disabled persons, and between d i s a b i l i t y 84 groups are severe. However, these measures may not f u l l y r e f l e c t the actual material conditions of the household i n which i n d i v i d u a l s reside. To r e f l e c t these differences i n household wealth i t i s necessary to examine family or household income. A common measure of household income used by S t a t i s t i c s Canada i s census f a m i l y income. Table A6 presents the population d i s t r i b u t i o n s f or disabled and non-disabled persons by gender. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s r e f l e c t the d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r employment and t o t a l incomes i n terms of indicating gender to be more s i g n i f i c a n t than d i s a b i l i t y i n explaining population differences i n income. A further measure of material conditions i s tenure of dwelling as presented i n table A 7 . This table shows disabled women are less concentrated i n households owned or being purchased than are non-disabled women. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between non-disabled and disabled i n terms of percentage l i v i n g i n a household which i s owned or being purchased. This measure suggest that d i s a b i l i t y i s associated with a more severe consequence on the material conditions of women than f o r men. However, tenure of dwelling i s not as precise a measure as i s household income. A dramatic measure of the differences i n household incomes i s obtained from analyzing low-income status. S t a t i s t i c s Canada has set a series of income 'cut-offs' by family s i z e and community s i z e to i d e n t i f y those households with 'low-income'. Households designated with the low-income status are subsisting 85 Table 8 LOW INCOME STATUS IN DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED Q. Women a. Men Women as a % o *o Women O, Men Women as a % Above Line 68.8 74.4 47.9 84.6 87.2 49.6 Below Line 31.2 25.6 54.7 15.4 12.8 55.0 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.8 100.0 100.0 50.3 86 at an income l e v e l which i s below most 'poverty l i n e s ' . A l l ind i v i d u a l s i n these households are i d e n t i f i e d i n HALS as having low income status. To tes t i f the differences i n employment and t o t a l income do r e f l e c t the material conditions of in d i v i d u a l s , a comparative analysis of low-income status between disabled and non-disabled women and men was conducted. Low-Income Status Table 8 shows women account for a s i m i l a r portion of the low-income population among disabled (54.7%) and non-disabled (55.0%) persons. This comparability of women's portion of the low-income population between disabled and non-disabled persons further supports the hypothesis that gender in e q u a l i t y i s comparable between disabled and non-disabled populations. The rates of low-income status among disabled women (31.2%) and men (25.6%) are double the rates f or non-disabled women (15.4%) and men (12.8%). This difference between disabled and non-disabled populations i n the extent of low-income status further demonstrates the severe consequences a r i s i n g from the poor labour force position of disabled persons. In general, d i s a b i l i t y i s more s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n low-income status than i s gender. Summary of Comparative Analyses of Gender Inequality  Between Disabled and Non-disabled Populations The disadvantage i n average educational attainment, average employment and t o t a l incomes, and low-income status of women as compared to men i s comparable between the disabled and the non-87 disabled populations. This evidence supports the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between the disabled and non-disabled populations. This hypothesis recognizes the severe disadvantage of disabled persons as compared to non-disabled persons. The comparative analyses presented above show that disabled persons are severely disadvantaged i n educational attainment, employment and t o t a l incomes, and low-income status i n comparison to non-disabled persons. The comparisons of average employment and t o t a l income between disabled and non-disabled populations suggests that for those disabled persons who obtain employment t h e i r disadvantage i n income r e l a t i v e to non-disabled persons decreases. As well, gender differences are more sim i l a r by employment income than by t o t a l income. This indicates the p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e of employment for disabled women i n diminishing economic inequality. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of employment for a l l disabled persons i s indicated by the rate of low-income status. Disabled women and men have twice the rate of low-income status as compared to non-disabled women and men. This s i t u a t i o n i s associated with the high rate of non-participation i n the labour force among disabled persons as compared to non-disabled persons. In general, d i s a b i l i t y i s most s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n labour force a c t i v i t y , educational attainment, and low-income status. Gender i s most s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n , and employment and 88 t o t a l income. Generally, no interaction was observed between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i n educational attainment or income. The absence of an interaction e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y and gender may r e s u l t from complex differences between these populations which obscures such an e f f e c t from comparative analyses. As was i l l u s t r a t e d i n the f i r s t section of t h i s Chapter, d i s a b l e d and non-disabled women and men d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y a c r o s s a v a r i e t y of general p o p u l a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . To t e s t i f these v a r i a t i o n s s i g n i f i c a n t l y obscure an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t a series of multiple regressions were conducted. Within the disabled population the nature of d i s a b i l i t y was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n labour force a c t i v i t y , educational attainment, and employment income. Total income indicated greater comparability throughout the disabled population. In general, persons with seeing, speaking, or 'other' impairments where disadvantaged i n r e l a t i o n to persons with a g i l i t y , mobility, hearing, and 'unknown' impairments. ANALYSES OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN DISABILITY AND GENDER The previous section discussed r e s u l t s of cross-tabulations and simple correlations for variables associated with gender d i f f e r e n c e s i n work. While useful for i d e n t i f y i n g simple associations among variables, these analyses do not account for complex i n t e r a c t i o n s among explanatory f a c t o r s . Multiple r e g r e s s i o n s of educational attainment and income selected variables were computed to determine the extent to which the 89 educational and income differences by gender could be explained by these variables. Before discussing the regression analyses, a b r i e f outline of how to interpret the measures presented i n the regression analysis tables i s provided. The f i r s t s e r i e s of regression analyses examines the interaction between d i s a b i l i t y and gender as measured by educational attainment, and employment and t o t a l income. A var i e t y of other variables were tested for t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e i n influencing the educational attainment and incomes of the non-disabled and disabled populations. The second part has a series of multiple regression analyses which i d e n t i f i e s the most s i g n i f i c a n t variables f o r explaining differences within the disabled population by education and income. This s e r i e s of analyses i s concerned with i d e n t i f y i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of gender i n r e l a t i o n to other variables for explaining these differences i n the disabled population. Interpreting the Regression Analysis Tables The two measures most important for i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e g r e s s i o n t a b l e s are the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s and the unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t s . The sig n i f i c a n c e l e v e l indicates the p r o b a b i l i t y that the regression c o e f f i c i e n t i s not equal to zero ( i . e . . that the e f f e c t i s not due to chance). A c o e f f i c i e n t measure i s deemed to be r e l i a b l e with a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l which i s equal to or less than .050. If the measure i s shown to not be s i g n i f i c a n t , the variable i s deemed to not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the dependent variable. If the measure i s s i g n i f i c a n t a 90 we then look to the unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t f o r the l e v e l of the e f f e c t on the dependent variable. To t e s t the three hypotheses set out above requires looking fo r an in t e r a c t i o n between being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y . The s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n which i s of int e r e s t here i s the l e v e l of disadvantage. I f the variable 'disabled female' i s not shown to be s i g n i f i c a n t , t h i s means we can predict the extent of disadvantage r e s u l t i n g from being a female with a d i s a b i l i t y on the basis of what disadvantage occurs from being female (disabled or non-disabled) and from having a d i s a b i l i t y (being female or male). The conclusion would then be that no i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s present between gender and the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y f o r that dependent variable. If being a woman with a d i s a b i l i t y incurs a measure of disadvantage which i s shown to be s i g n i f i c a n t , we conclude that there i s an int e r a c t i o n between gender and d i s a b i l i t y f o r that dependent va r i a b l e . This means the l e v e l of disadvantage r e s u l t i n g from coinciding stigmata ( i . e . being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y ) can not be predicted by simply summing the disadvantage measured for each of these stigmatized statuses. If a s i g n i f i c a n t interaction i s i d e n t i f i e d , we then examine the unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t for the variable 'disabled female'. This measure indicates the difference between the l e v e l of disadvantage from being a woman with a d i s a b i l i t y and the l e v e l of expected disadvantaged from being a disabled woman as predicted by each of the separate variables 'sex' (being female) 91 and 'disabled' (having a d i s a b i l i t y ) . I f the unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t i s po s i t i v e i t indicates a less severe consequence from being a disabled woman than would be expected from summing the separate disadvantages measured for being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y . This indicates a master status e f f e c t from having a d i s a b i l i t y which p a r t i a l l y diminishes the disadvantage from other stigmatized statuses, such as being female. I f the unstandardized c o e f f i c i e n t i s negative, t h i s indicates there i s an additi o n a l incremental penalty for both being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y beyond what disadvantage would be expected by summing the separate disadvantage measures for being female and for having a d i s a b i l i t y . This indicates a double standard t h e s i s since the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y i s more severe for women than f o r men. Employment Income Using the above described process to examine table 9, we can determine whether an interaction exists between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i n terms of employment income. Stated d i f f e r e n t l y , the extent of gender inequality i n employment income can be assessed as greater, lesser, or comparable i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. As shown i n table 9, the variable 'disabled female' has a s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l of . 1985. This measure indicates the disadvantage from being a disabled woman i s not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from zero, and so the additive and i n t e r a c t i v e models equally f i t the data. Thus, no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i s indicated for employment income. 92 Table 9 MULTIPLE REGRESSION: EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION (employment income greater than zero) Independent Unstandardized Standardized Significance Variables Coefficients C o e f f i c i e n t s Levels Disabled Female 392.696 .004 .1985 Sex -5587.290 -.220 .0000 Disabled -875.329 -.016 .0000 F u l l Year 10574.860 .396 .0000 Hours Worked 43.002 .043 .0000 Part Time Work -651.488 -.020 .0000 Upper Management 7681.593 .080 .0000 Professional 5867.298 .159 .0000 Middle Management 4383.664 .094 .0000 Foremen/women 3020.817 .042 .0000 Semi-Professional 1918.136 .032 .0000 S k i l l e d Worker 1187.538 .026 .0000 Supervisor 656.143 .009 .0017 Semi-Skilled Worker 213.532 .005 .1454 Sales Worker -231.577 -.005 .0949 Manual Worker -391.758 -.011 .0016 Service Worker -1512.840 -.034 .0000 Education 665.589 .167 .0000 Vocation 545.762 .019 .0000 Married 4406.871 .167 .0000 Was Married 2960.758 .064 .0000 Presence of Children -631.476 -.017 .0000 Persons i n Household -47.515 -.006 .0522 Urban 1868.707 .058 .0000 North 5032.177 .024 .0000 B r i t i s h Columbia 1981.444 .049 .0000 P r a i r i e s 1113.406 .034 .0000 Ontario 1210.914 .047 .0000 Quebec 795.324 .027 .0000 Moved Within 5 Years -650.942 -.026 .0000 Recent Immigrant -3997.395 -.040 .0000 B r i t i s h Origins 230.335 .009 .0023 (continued on following page) 93 (continued from previous page) B i l i n g u a l French Language No O f f i c i a l Language 784.896 -464.008 -1222.273 .025 -.012 -.007 . 0000 .0061 .0084 Experience 117.307 . 124 .0000 Constant -4726.814 .0000 R Square (adjusted) .53190 Reference categories are c l e r i c a l workers, sin g l e , A t l a n t i c region, and English language. 94 Gender i s shown i n table 9 to have a major e f f e c t on employment income, with women earning $5,587.29 les s than men i n 1985 when the other variables are controlled. Having a d i s a b i l i t y r e s u l t s i n earnings of $875.33 less than i n d i v i d u a l s without a d i s a b i l i t y , with everything else controlled. These r e s u l t s support the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between the non-disabled and disabled populations. Furthermore, gender i s shown to be more s i g n i f i c a n t than d i s a b i l i t y i n explaining differences i n employment income i n the general population. These r e s u l t s are consistent with the non-regression findings discussed e a r l i e r . Total Income A regression analysis f or t o t a l income was conducted to determine i f an interaction e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y was observed for a l l sources of income. I t was hypothesized that the absence of an interaction e f f e c t for employment income may be the consequence of disincentives i n welfare programs against low income employment. Welfare programs i n Canada, generally, discourage only part time or minimum wage employment since r e c e i p t of t h i s l e v e l of employment income often r e s u l t s i n can c e l l a t i o n of many benefits necessary for disabled persons to maintain t h e i r standard of l i v i n g , such as health care services, medication coverage, and income assistance. Women's income from a l l sources i s shown i n table 10 to be $6 077.42 less than the t o t a l income for men with a l l factors c o n t r o l l e d . Furthermore, the t o t a l income for disabled people i s 95 Table 10 MULTIPLE REGRESSION TOTAL INCOME FOR DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION (to t a l income greater than zero) Independent Unstandardized Standardized Significance Variables Coefficients C o e f f i c i e n t s Levels Disabled Female 553.654 .009 .0029 Sex -6077.415 -.237 .0000 Disabled -995.939 — .024 .0000 Labour Force Status 1635.678 .055 .0000 F u l l Year 10161.543 .398 .0000 Part Time Work -903.230 -.028 .0000 Hours Worked 45.812 .073 .0000 Education 730.947 .190 .0000 Vocation 501.220 .016 .0000 Married 4113.980 .156 .0000 Was Married 3711.774 .085 .0000 Presence of Children 134.820 .004 . 1558 Persons In Household 5.692 6 •708E-04 .7821 Urban 1265.580 .040 .0000 North 4398.985 .019 .0000 B r i t i s h Columbia 1224.321 .030 .0000 P r a i r i e s 807.305 .024 .0000 Ontario 632.989 . 024 .0000 Quebec -11.222 -3 .827E-04 .9385 Moved Within 5 Years -323.756 — .013 .0000 Recent Immigration -2851.244 — . 029 .0000 B r i t i s h Origins 355.461 .014 .0000 B i l i n g u a l 1205.059 . 037 .0000 French Language 213.779 . 006 . 1289 No O f f i c i a l Language -2091.599 — .013 .0000 Age Group 182.565 . 188 . 0000 Constant -7847.932 .0000 R Square (adjusted) .52926 Reference categories are single, English language, and A t l a n t i c region. 96 $995.94 lower than the t o t a l income for non-disabled people. However, disabled women have a t o t a l income which i s $553.65 higher than would be expected by summing the disadvantage i n t o t a l income for being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y , when a l l factors are controlled. This i s to say, while the l e v e l of disadvantage i n t o t a l income for disabled women i s expected to be $7 073.35 (after summing the measured le v e l s of disadvantage from being female and from having a d i s a b i l i t y ) , the actual l e v e l of measured disadvantage i n t o t a l income i s $6 519.70 as compared to the r e s t of the general population, when a l l factors are con t r o l l e d . These findings support the master status hypothesis that l e s s gender inequality exists i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. However, the provision of welfare services to people with a low income may be p a r t i a l l y standardizing income among the population. A further factor may also be that there i s a minimum l e v e l of income necessary to remain i n a household, and below t h i s subsistence l e v e l i n d i v i d u a l s become 'homeless', and thus not e l i g i b l e for in c l u s i o n i n the HALS. The l e v e l of e f f e c t from these s i t u a t i o n s can not be measured given the sample design. F i n a l l y , as with employment income, gender i s shown to be a more s i g n i f i c a n t explanation than d i s a b i l i t y of differences i n t o t a l income i n the general population, when a l l factors are cont r o l l e d . 97 Educational Attainment Education i s generally assumed to be a good predictor of employment income. As was shown i n table 9, education has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income. The higher the l e v e l of educational attainment the higher the l e v e l of employment income, when a l l factors are controlled for the general population. Thus, examining the consequence of gender and d i s a b i l i t y on educational attainment i s a further indicator of s o c i a l i nequality. Table 11 shows that the educational attainment of disabled persons i s fa r lower (1.3 years lower) than that of non-disabled persons, when a l l factors are controlled. As well, women are also disadvantaged with an educational attainment l e v e l which i s just l e s s than one month (0.073 years) less than that f or men. However, disabled women have an educational attainment l e v e l which i s ju s t under two months (0.149 years) less than what would be expected given the sum of disadvantage from being female and having a d i s a b i l i t y . Thus, an interaction e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i s observed for educational attainment. reconsidering the interaction between d i s a b i l i t y and gender Gender i s shown i n table 11 to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n educational attainment when c o n t r o l l i n g f o r the presence or absence of d i s a b i l i t y . However, table 13 shows gender i s not s i g n i f i c a n t i n ef f e c t i n g educational attainment when nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y are c o n t r o l l e d . These re s u l t s from table 13 indicate that the si g n i f i c a n c e attributed to gender i n table 11 a r i s e from the 98 Table 11 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION Independent Unstandardized Standardized Significance Variables Coefficients C o e f f i c i e n t s Levels Disabled Female -0.149 -.010 .0138 Sex -0.073 -.011 .0002 Disabled -1.294 -.118 . 0000 Recent Immigrant 0.976 .040 .0000 B r i t i s h Origins 0.470 .070 .0000 B i l i n g u a l 0.860 .100 .0000 French Language -1.195 -.125 . 0000 No O f f i c i a l Language -5.671 -.145 .0000 Age Group -0.039 -.158 .0000 Constant 13.507 .0000 R Square (adjusted) .11977 Reference category i s English language. 99 d i s t r i b u t i o n of women and men i n the variables l i s t e d above from table 13. This means, the higher representation of women as compared to men among the more severely and multiply disabled populations, and i n the more disadvantaged d i s a b i l i t y groups r e s u l t s i n gender being s i g n i f i c a n t when only the presence or absence of d i s a b i l i t y i s controlled, as i n table 11. The in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t measured between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i n table 11 i s questionable given that gender i t s e l f i s not s i g n i f i c a n t within the disabled population when c o n t r o l l i n g for nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y , as shown i n table 13. ANALYSES OF DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE DISABLED POPULATION This section continues the process of regression analysis with an examination of d i f f e r e n c e s w i t h i n the disabled p o p u l a t i o n . The a n a l y s i s conducted here uses educational attainment and employment income to measure the s i g n i f i c a n c e of gender i n explaining differences within the disabled population. Employment Income Gender i s highly s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n employment income within the disabled population as indicated i n table 12. In 1985, disabled women earned $6 185.07 less than d i s a b l e d men i n employment income, when a l l factors are cont r o l l e d . Other s i g n i f i c a n t variables i n explaining differences i n employment income within the disabled population are working f u l l year, education, marital status, urban status, and not speaking 100 Table 12 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EMPLOYMENT INCOME FOR DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION (employment income greater than zero) Independent Unstandardized Standardized Significance Variables Coefficients C o e f f i c i e n t s Levels Sex -6185. .072 -.240 .0000 F u l l Year 9965. .798 .372 .0000 Hours Worked 16. .592 .017 .2456 Part Time Work -636. .088 -.020 .2796 Professional 7219. ,095 . 189 . 0000 Upper Management 4771. .776 .048 .0003 Middle Management 3807. .973 .078 . 0000 Foremen/women 3057. .096 .040 .0029 Semi-Professional 2359. .905 .042 .0026 S k i l l e d Worker 76. .382 .002 .9074 Manual Worker -182. .531 -.005 .7530 Supervisor -487. ,413 -.006 . 6377 Semi-Skilled Worker -649. .380 -.014 . 3443 Service Worker -928. .970 -.018 . 1910 Sales Worker -1005. .175 -.023 . 1184 Education 420, .567 . 114 .0000 Vocation 550, .504 .019 .1418 Mo b i l i t y 2435, .744 .098 . 0000 A g i l i t y 1261, .715 . 050 .0377 Seeing 1166, ,576 .025 . 1462 Hearing 902, .991 .033 . 1379 Speaking -985, .091 -.014 . 3751 Unknown 2289, .472 .061 . 0010 Severity 60, .214 . 017 .4275 Duration 177, .931 . 187 .0003 Age of Onset 182. .554 .238 .0002 Work Limitation -1370, .885 -.055 .0002 Multiple D i s a b i l i t y -1618, .309 -.106 .0009 Married 3232 , .219 . 120 . 0000 Was Married 1489. .239 .039 .0205 Presence of Children -395, .547 -.010 .5177 Persons In Household -21. .304 -.002 .8626 (continued on following page) 101 (continued from previous page) Urban 1074.001 .036 . 0084 North 3882.792 .017 .1793 B r i t i s h Columbia 1482.805 .037 .0364 P r a i r i e s -610.269 -.020 .3299 Ontario 1204.877 .048 . 0373 Quebec 350.975 .010 .7050 Moved Within 5 Years 454.712 .018 . 1877 Recent Immigrant -2864.122 -.018 . 1589 B r i t i s h Origins -2.376 -9.511E-05 .9947 B i l i n g u a l 68.028 .002 .9022 French Language 319.584 .008 .7402 No O f f i c i a l Language -8687.229 -.050 .0001 Experience -73.373 -.079 . 1134 Constant -353.399 .8262 R Square (adjusted) .45483 Reference categories are c l e r i c a l worker, 'other' d i s a b i l i t i e s , s i n g l e , A t l a n t i c region, and English language. 102 an o f f i c i a l language. These are a l l s i g n i f i c a n t variables within the general population as well. A number of variables which are s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n employment income for the general population are not s i g n i f i c a n t for explaining employment income differences i n the disabled population. Among the disabled population only the higher l e v e l managerial and professional categories have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income as compared to other occupations. While i n the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n most occupations show s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n employment income. Whereas region has a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income i n the general population, among the disabled population the only regions which have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income are Ontario and B r i t i s h Columbia. Another demographic variable, urban residency does have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income w i t h i n the d i s a b l e d p o p u l a t i o n . When other factors are cont r o l l e d , l i v i n g i n an urban area increases a disabled person's employment income by $1,074 over the employment income of disabled people l i v i n g i n r u r a l areas. As well, i t i s interesting that being a recent immigrant does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on employment income f o r the disabled population, when a l l factors are co n t r o l l e d . This may r e s u l t from immigration regulations which require a medical examination as part of the immigration assessment. As a r e s u l t , immigrants with d i s a b i l i t i e s are l i k e l y to have milder 103 impairments, or meet p r e f e r e n t i a l c r i t e r i a i n t h e i r occupation or business investments. S i g n i f i c a n t differences i n employment income by nature of d i s a b i l i t y suggests that integration into employment has been uneven i n the disabled population. S p e c i f i c a l l y , women and men with mobility, a g i l i t y and 'unknown' impairments are less disadvantaged than people with other d i s a b i l i t i e s . The greater the degree of work l i m i t a t i o n or number of impairments ( i . e . , 'multiple') the more disadvantaged an i n d i v i d u a l i s i n employment income, when a l l factors are c o n t r o l l e d . Also related to employment income i s the age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y . The older an i n d i v i d u a l i s at age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y the less disadvantage he or she i s i n employment income, when a l l factors are controlled. Educational Attainment Gender i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , as shown i n table 13, i n explaining differences i n educational attainment i n the disabled population, when a l l factors are controlled. This i s i n t e r e s t i n g since an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t i s observed between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i n educational attainment i n table 11. This indicates that when factors of impairment such as nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , duration and age of onset are controlled, gender does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on educational attainment i n the disabled population. E d u c a t i o n a l attainment, l i k e employment income, i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y effected by nature of d i s a b i l i t y . There are three 104 Table 13 MULTIPLE REGRESSION EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION Independent Unstandardized Standardized Significance Variables C o e f f i c i e n t s C o e f f i c i e n t s Levels Sex -0.115 -.014 .0919 Hearing 1.189 . 127 .0000 A g i l i t y 1.010 .127 .0000 Mo b i l i t y 0.643 .079 .0000 Seeing 0.627 .051 . 0000 Speaking -0.311 -.019 .0000 Unknown 1.474 .103 .0000 Age of Onset -0.055 -.254 . 0000 Duration -0.069 -.241 .0000 Severity -0.070 -.086 .0000 Multiple D i s a b i l i t y -0.833 -.218 .0000 Recent Immigration 0.157 .004 .6573 B r i t i s h Origins 0.561 .070 . 0000 B i l i n g u a l 0.421 .037 .0000 French Language -1.635 -.145 .0000 No O f f i c i a l Language -5.684 -.178 .0000 Constant 13.806 .0000 R Square (adjusted) .17723 Reference categories are 'other' d i s a b i l i t i e s , and English language. 105 general l e v e l s of disadvantage by nature of d i s a b i l i t y . People with 'unknown', hearing, and a g i l i t y impairments show 1.474, 1.189, and 1.010 years respectively less disadvantage i n educational attainment as compared to people with cognitive or p s y c h i a t r i c impairments. The second least disadvantaged grouping includes people with mobility or seeing impairments who have 0.643, and 0.627 years respectively less disadvantage i n educational attainment as compared to the reference population (people with 'other' d i s a b i l i t i e s ) , when a l l factors are c o n t r o l l e d . The most disadvantaged grouping includes the reference population of people with cognitive and p s y c h i a t r i c impairments, and people with speaking impairments. People with speaking impairments show nearly one-third of a year less educational attainment as compared to the reference population, when everything i s controlled. These findings indicate that integration into educational and t r a i n i n g programs i s uneven between populations with d i f f e r e n t d i s a b i l i t i e s . The l e v e l of educational attainment shown by persons with 'unknown' impairments (persons who did not i d e n t i f y the nature of t h e i r d i s a b i l i t y ) i s d i f f i c u l t to int e r p r e t given the sample design. Age at onset, d u r a t i o n , s e v e r i t y , and p a r t i c u l a r l y m u l t i p l i c i t y of d i s a b i l i t y a l l are s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n educational attainment i n the disabled population, when a l l factors are controlled. The disadvantage i n educational attainment with a higher age at onset indicates that i n d i v i d u a l s 106 experiencing d i s a b i l i t y at a younger age may further t h e i r education or t r a i n i n g as a strategy for compensating f o r the disadvantages from having a d i s a b i l i t y . Summary of Regression Analyses These seri e s of regression analyses support the hypothesis that gender inequality i s comparable between the non-disabled and disabled populations for employment income. The regression analysis of t o t a l income supports the hypothesis that the gender gap i s smaller i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. However, t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n may r e s u l t from the high percentages of disabled women and men r e l i a n t upon income assistance programs which tend to standardize income. F i n a l l y , an interaction e f f e c t i s also observed between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i n educational attainment. However within the disabled population, gender does not have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on educational attainment when factors l i k e nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y are cont r o l l e d . Thus, the observed interaction e f f e c t may r e s u l t from the d i s t r i b u t i o n of women and men within these d i s a b i l i t y v a r iables controlled for i n table 13. Within the disabled population, gender i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n employment income, but gender i s not s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n educational attainment. As well, the nature of d i s a b i l i t y i s an important explanation of differences i n income and p a r t i c u l a r l y i n educational attainment. Persons with speaking or 'other' impairments are the most 107 disadvantaged group i n terms of employment and educational attainment. CONCLUSION The disabled population d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the non-disabled population over a variety of important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A fundamental difference between the disabled and non-disabled populations i s an older age d i s t r i b u t i o n among the disabled population. This difference i n age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s rela t e d to s i g n i f i c a n t differences between these populations i n marital status. Also related to differences i n age d i s t r i b u t i o n i s educational attainment. However, age d i s t r i b u t i o n only p a r t l y explains differences i n educational attainment between non-disabled and disabled populations. The urban and r u r a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s of the disabled and non-disabled populations are comparable. However, disabled men are s l i g h t l y less concentrated i n urban areas than are non-disabled men. Within the disabled population considerable differences are found between women and men by nature, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and severity of d i s a b i l i t y . Women i n general have more multiple and severe d i s a b i l i t i e s than do men. This difference i s also l i k e l y associated with the higher age d i s t r i b u t i o n of women as compared to men. A further measure of impairment i s the extent of l i m i t a t i o n i n the kind or amount of work an i n d i v i d u a l can perform. Again women experience greater l i m i t a t i o n i n work a c t i v i t y than do men. 108 Related to these above differences are differences i n educational attainment, work and income. This research i s concerned with comparing the extent of these l a t t e r differences by gender between the disabled and non-disabled populations. In general these simple comparative analyses showed that gender inequality i n educational attainment, work, and income i s comparable between the disabled and non-disabled populations. These comparative analyses also showed d i s a b i l i t y i s more s i g n i f i c a n t than gender i n explaining differences i n educational attainment, labour force a c t i v i t y , and l i v i n g i n a low-income household. Gender i s most s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n occupation, and employment and t o t a l incomes. These simple comparative analyses do not control f o r a wide range of population differences indicated at the beginning of t h i s Chapter. Thus, multiple regression analyses were conducted to s p e c i f i c a l l y examine the interaction e f f e c t between gender and d i s a b i l i t y i n income and educational attainment. In examining the s p e c i f i c interaction between d i s a b i l i t y and gender, there i s no interaction observed for employment income. Interestingly, the difference between women and men i n t o t a l income i s smaller i n the disabled population than i n the non-disabled population. This interaction e f f e c t may r e s u l t from the standardizing e f f e c t on income from welfare services on a population with a very high percentage of persons with a low income. F i n a l l y , an interaction between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i s observed for educational attainment. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the difference 109 between women and men i n educational attainment i s greater i n the disabled population as compared to the non-disabled population. However, t h i s interaction e f f e c t may have more to do with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of women and men over c e r t a i n v a riables, than with the impact of d i s a b i l i t y on gender r e l a t i o n s . These findings support the hypothesis that the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y and gender are each a pervasive process of segregation i n work. Furthermore, having employment lessens the disadvantage of d i s a b i l i t y . When analyzing differences i n the disabled population, gender i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n employment income. However, gender i s not s i g n i f i c a n t i n explaining differences i n educational attainment. Persons with a speaking or 'other' (psychological or cognitive) impairment are consistently the most disadvantaged grouping i n the disabled population. 110 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This Chapter begins with a discussion of the research findings, and the conclusions supported by t h i s evidence. Following t h i s summary are discussions of the implications of t h i s research for s o c i a l services and practices, and d i r e c t i o n s for further research. Conclusion of Research This research has demonstrated the severe s o c i a l inequality e x i s t i n g between women and men, and non-disabled and disabled peoples. The regression analyses found no i n t e r a c t i o n between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i n employment income. This means, that the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y and gender are each a pervasive status, neither of which i s diminished by the presence of the other status. Given the high rate of exclusion from the labour force among disabled people, a regression analysis of income from a l l sources was conducted to t e s t i f an interaction e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y and gender i s present i n the general population. The regression analysis of t o t a l income indicated an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y and gender. This finding provides support for the master status hypothesis that the stigma of d i s a b i l i t y diminishes the consequence of gender. However, t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t may be the r e s u l t of the disabled population's high rate of dependence on income from welfare services which has a standardizing e f f e c t on income across the population. Regression analyses were also conducted f o r educational attainment. An in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between d i s a b i l i t y and gender was observed for the general population. This f i r s t regression a n a l y s i s examined educational attainment for a number of variables including presence or absence of a d i s a b i l i t y . However, when a more extensive regression analysis of the disabled population was conducted which controlled for nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y , gender was found not to be s i g n i f i c a n t i n e f f e c t i n g educational attainment. This l a t e r analysis suggests that the in t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t observed for the general population i s the r e s u l t of the differences i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n s of women and men for the nature, severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , and age of onset of d i s a b i l i t y . To summarize, the regression analysis for employment income indicated that gender inequality i s comparable between non-disabled and disabled populations. However, the regression analyses for t o t a l income and educational attainment remain i n c o n c l u s i v e given the considerations raised. In general, d i s a b i l i t y i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t factor than gender i n explaining differences i n educational attainment, labour force status, and low-income status. Gender i s a more s i g n i f i c a n t factor than i s d i s a b i l i t y i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n o c c u p a t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n , employment and t o t a l incomes. Within the disabled population, d i s a b i l i t y groups are more often s i g n i f i c a n t for educational attainment than for employment income. This indicates integration has been more uneven within 112 the disabled population i n schools than i n the work place. S p e c i f i c a l l y , people with speaking, p s y c h i a t r i c , or cognitive d i s a b i l i t i e s are among the most disadvantaged groups i n the disabled population for educational attainment and employment income. Employment income i s also s i g n i f i c a n t l y effected by age of onset, or duration, and m u l t i p l i c i t y of d i s a b i l i t y , as well as extent of work l i m i t a t i o n s . Other s i g n i f i c a n t factors r e l a t e d to d i s a b i l i t y f o r educational attainment are severity, m u l t i p l i c i t y , age of onset, and duration of d i s a b i l i t y . The Significance of Social Science The discussion here begins by s i t u a t i n g s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge into s o c i a l l i f e . Discussion of some implications for s o c i a l p o l i c y from t h i s research concludes t h i s section. The e f f e c t s s o c i a l science has had on the l i v e s of disabled persons may appear i n s i g n i f i c a n t as compared to the dramatic medical and material intervention by the health sciences into the l i v e s of disabled persons. However, s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge not only informs s o c i a l p o l i c y and strategies f or s o c i a l change, the concepts developed by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t to in t e r p r e t s o c i a l action and i n s t i t u t i o n s can also become c o n s t i t u t i v e of the very action and i n s t i t u t i o n s being investigated (Giddens, 1984: 281-354). For example, the organization of work and markets understood by Canadians along l i n e s of ' c a p i t a l ' , 'investment', 'industry' and many other concepts were o r i g i n a l l y t h e o r e t i c a l explanations of economic a c t i v i t y . 113 The linkage between the new s o c i a l movements and s o c i a l science are p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t . While s o c i a l researchers and t h e o r i s t s draw upon the knowledge and concepts popularized by s o c i a l movements, the concepts developed by s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s to i n t e r p r e t the experiences of individuals can become re-appropriated by s o c i a l movements i n further challenging e x i s t i n g p r a c t i c e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s . This process of appropriation and re-appropriation e x i s t s between the disabled peoples' movement and a v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n e s . Organizations promoting s e l f - h e l p , consumer advocacy, and c i v i l r i g h t s among disabled people have drawn extensively from the empirical and t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e s i n education, humanities, and p a r t i c u l a r l y the s o c i a l sciences. As well, the organizations f a c i l i t a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n d u r i n g the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Foucault, 1973), and d e - i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n during the previous three decades have each interchanged knowledge with the s o c i a l and health sciences. I t i s not unreasonable to argue the s o c i a l sciences have been as s i g n i f i c a n t , i f not more so, than the health sciences i n changing the position of disabled persons i n communities. Given t h i s p o t e n t i a l position of s o c i a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i n s o c i a l l i f e , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to discuss what w i l l be the d i r e c t r e s u l t s of any s o c i a l research. However, t h i s research does c e r t a i n l y inform a variety of service p o l i c i e s f o r disabled people. 114 F i r s t , the significance of obtaining employment i s d i f f i c u l t to overstate. The comparability of occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n s for women and men i n both the non-disabled and disabled populations indicates that those disabled people who obtained employment have not experienced s i g n i f i c a n t occupational segregation on the basis of d i s a b i l i t y . However, i t i s clear that only a minority of the disabled population have obtained employment. The high rate of exclusion from the labour market i s related to the severe educational disadvantage experienced by disabled people. Achieving greater integration into a l l l e v e l s of education i s necessary to f a c i l i t a t e greater integration into the labour market. In general, services and resources used to a s s i s t disabled people have been c r i t i c i z e d for being 'welfare' rather than 'employment' oriented programs. For example, educational programs and services have emphasized vocational t r a i n i n g which often leaves disabled people with s k i l l s i n low demand i n the labour market, and thus searching for jobs i n areas of high employee competition, low wages, and poor job security. As well, welfare services generally discourages disabled people from accepting low wage or part time employment The loss of medical coverage and steady income for a low wage, temporary, or part time job i s not worthwhile for many disabled people. F i n a l l y , the federal government's equitable employment program has not met i t s own modest objectives. 115 Services and resources made available to disabled people must support the development of s k i l l s which make disabled people t r u l y competitive i n the labour market. Provision of income assistance and medical services must f a c i l i t a t e , not discourage, entry into the labour market. As well, l e g i s l a t i o n and regulations promoting integration, p a r t i c u l a r l y into employment, must t r u l y r e f l e c t 'affirmative action' p r i n c i p l e s . The research reported here also indicates that greater attention needs to be given to the additi o n a l disadvantage experienced by women, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n terms of occupational segregation and employment income. The provision of services and resources, and development of l e g i s l a t i o n and regulations for disabled people need to r e f l e c t the additi o n a l disadvantage experienced by women with d i s a b i l i t i e s . Furthermore, programs, r e g u l a t i o n s , and l e g i s l a t i o n directed at r e a l i z i n g gender equality need to r e f l e c t the unique experiences and needs of women with d i s a b i l i t i e s . Directions for Further Research The research reported here draws attention to several areas re q u i r i n g further analysis than what could be accomplished using the HALS. F i r s t , further research on women and d i s a b i l i t y i s required. What can the experiences of disabled women who have i n t e g r a t e d into, and those who have been excluded from, s a t i s f y i n g , secure, and prestigious employment contribute to p o l i c i e s f or integration of women i n employment? How do the experiences of disabled mothers d i f f e r from non-disabled mothers? 116 As well, how does female sexual i d e n t i t y and experiences d i f f e r between disabled women and non-disabled women? The c e n t r a l i t y of work to s o c i a l l i f e has been emphasized throughout t h i s research. However, equally important, and often overlooked, i s the c e n t r a l i t y of sexual i d e n t i t y to s o c i a l l i f e (Duffy, 1981). The stigma of d i s a b i l i t y i s associated with an asexual i d e n t i t y (Hannon, 1980) which i s far too often incorporated into research as a presupposition. The interactions between d i s a b i l i t y and e t h n i c i t y are important for further status research. Two general question a r i s e here: (1) what i s the consequence of d i s a b i l i t y on ethnic inequality?; and (2) how does d i s a b i l i t y and e t h n i c i t y r e l a t e to s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n ? . This second question, stated d i f f e r e n t l y , asks do people of an ethnic minority i d e n t i f y themselves p r i m a r i l y on the basis of t h e i r e t h n i c i t y or d i s a b i l i t y , or equally as disabled and an ethnic minority?. Research on s o c i a l class and d i s a b i l i t y i s also required. How does s o c i a l class e f f e c t the experience of having a d i s a b i l i t y ? Do s o c i a l services and resources for disabled people diminish or exacerbate differences i n s o c i a l class? Research into the impact of technology on the integration of disabled people into schools, work, and recreation i s important for assessing current strategies of integration. Common sense implies that the development of new technological devices to a s s i s t people with d i s a b i l i t i e s has f a c i l i t a t e d greater integration. However, research i s necessary to assess how 117 technology has effected the education, employment, and recreation of disabled people? I t may be the case that technology has f a c i l i t a t e d a change i n segregation rather than actual greater integration. Research into the strategies used by women and men with d i s a b i l i t i e s to achieve independent and s a t i s f y i n g l i v e s i s urgently needed. What have been the consequences of l e g i s l a t i o n and regulations implemented to integrate people with d i s a b i l i t i e s into schools, employment, housing, and public services? How do the new s o c i a l movements of disabled people which include s e l f -help (Kolb, 1985; Saxton, 1985), consumer advocacy, and c i v i l r i g h t s organizations r e l a t e to in d i v i d u a l experiences of greater independence and meaning i n l i f e ? 118 APPENDIX TABLES Table Al AGE GROUPINGS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED Groups % Women o o Men Women as a % o o Women Q. "8 Men Women as a % 15-19 4.0 4.5 47.0 11.4 12.3 48.5 20-24 5.9 6.0 49.4 14.0 13.8 50.6 25-29 6.9 7.1 48.9 14.4 13.9 51.3 30-34 9.0 9.6 48.0 13.2 13.2 50.3 35-39 9.4 9.8 48.8 11.7 12.0 49.6 40-44 9.9 8.9 52.4 9.6 9.9 49.6 45-49 9.3 9.2 49.9 7.3 7.7 49.0 50-54 11.0 12.4 46.6 6.8 6.2 52.5 55-59 15.2 14.6 50.6 5.7 6.2 48.5 60-64 19.4 17.8 51.9 5.9 4.8 55.2 Total 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 119 Table A2 MARITAL STATUS OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED % Women o "5 Men Women as a % % Women o Men Women as a % Married 59.2 64.9 47.4 62.9 60.2 51.4 Single 18.5 25.1 42.2 27.5 34.3 44.8 Divorced 8.7 4.9 63.6 3.6 2.8 56.4 Separated 4.6 3.0 60.0 3.1 2.0 60.3 Widowed 9.1 2.1 80.6 3.0 0.6 82.9 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 120 Table A3 HIGHEST LEVEL OF SCHOOLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED Average Years of Schooling o *o Women o Men Women as a % o o Women Q. •o Men Women as a % 0.5 3.2 2.2 59.6 0.5 0.4 56.0 2.5 4.9 4.6 51.3 1.2 1.3 49.3 6.5 22.4 20.4 52.0 9.2 9.8 48.9 9.5 17.3 16.0 51.7 13.5 13.7 50.0 12 12.0 15.8 43.0 16.4 17.1 49.3 (continued on following page) 121 (continued from previous page) Disabled Non-Disabled o Women Q, *o Men Women as a % o Women g. Men Women as a % 13 29.3 28.0 50.8 40.2 35.6 53.4 15 3.7 5.0 42.3 7.0 7.0 50.4 17 5.8 6.7 45.9 10.0 11.5 46.9 18 0.8 0.4 68.7 0.9 1.2 44.5 19 0.6 0.7 43.6 1.0 2.2 30.9 21 0.02 0.2 10.0 0.1 0.4 20.6 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 122 Table A4 1985 EMPLOYMENT INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED Average Tnr« A T Y i a o "5 Women % Men Women as a % g . "5 Women Q . O Men Women as a % 0 58.6 35.4 62.1 31.3 13.2 70.5 500 4.4 3.7 54.2 4.6 3.1 60.1 2000 5.8 4.7 54.6 8.4 5.8 59.5 4000 3.9 4.3 47.1 6.0 4.2 59.5 6000 3.4 2.5 57.6 5.7 3.8 60.6 8500 4.8 3.8 55.2 7.8 5.5 59.1 12500 5.8 6.7 45.9 11.1 8.3 57.5 17500 4.5 7.1 38.6 9.2 9.3 49.9 22500 3.7 7.7 32.4 6.6 9.3 40.4 27500 2.5 6.4 27.9 4.2 10.4 29.3 32500 1.4 7.0 16.4 2.4 7.9 23.4 (continued on following page) 123 ( c o n t i n u e d f r o m p r e v i o u s page) DISABLED NON-DISABLED % % Women % % Women Women Men as a % Women Men as a % 40000 1.2 10.6 10.1 2.6 18.7 12.4 T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 124 Table A5 1985 TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED g. o Women o "5 Men Women as a % o o Women o "o Men Women as a % 0 24.7 7.3 77.0 20.4 7.8 72.7 1-999 7.3 3.8 65.7 5.5 3.2 63.6 1000-2999 8.7 4.8 64.1 9.1 5.4 63.2 3000-4999 10.3 8.5 54.6 6.9 4.4 61.6 5000-6999 11.6 6.9 62.3 7.2 3.9 64.9 7000-9999 9.7 8.0 54.5 9.4 5.6 62.8 10000-14999 10.8 11.9 47.2 13.3 8.9 60.4 15000-19999 6.1 9.1 39.9 10.0 10.4 49.4 20000-24999 3.9 10.5 26.8 7.3 10.0 42.3 25000-29999 3.3 7.9 29.1 4.7 10.8 30.4 30000-34999 1.5 7.5 16.2 2.9 8.9 25.0 (continued on following page) 125 (continued from previous page) 35000 or more 2.2 13.7 13.8 3.5 20.9 14.5 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 126 Table A6 1985 CENSUS FAMILY TOTAL INCOME OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED Q. *o Women g. o Men Women as a % % Women o Men Women as a % Less Than Zero 0.2 0.3 40.6 0.3 0.3 50.9 0 2.6 2.0 56.2 1.0 0.8 55.3 1000-4999 9.0 9.0 49.7 4.4 3.7 54.5 5000-9999 15.6 10.0 60.7 6.0 4.7 56.5 10000-14999 10.9 9.6 53.0 7.0 5.9 54.5 15000-19999 10.4 8.9 53.7 7.5 6.9 52.3 20000-24999 8.9 9.5 48.3 7.8 7.8 50.5 25000-29999 8.4 8.7 48.9 9.5 9.5 50.3 30000-34999 6.2 8.6 41.4 9.4 9.9 49.0 35000-39999 6.8 8.6 44.0 8.5 9.4 47.8 40000-49999 7.6 10.8 40.9 13.7 14.2 49.3 (continued on following page) 127 (continued from previous page) 50000 and above 13.3 14.0 48.5 24.9 26.8 48.5 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.7 100.0 100.0 50.3 128 Table A7 TENURE OF DWELLING OF DISABLED AND NON-DISABLED WORKING AGE POPULATION DISABLED NON-DISABLED o o Women o Men Women as a % o o Women o, o Men Women as a % Household on Reserve 1.1 0.9 56.8 0.8 0.8 50.2 Owned or Being Bought 61.6 69.5 46.7 69.6 71.6 49.6 Rented 37.3 29.7 55.6 29.6 27.6 52.1 Total Population 100.0 100.0 49.9 100.0 100.0 50.3 362 missing observations 129 GLOSSARY This section provides the World Health Organization's d e f i n i t i o n s of impairment, d i s a b i l i t y , and handicap (W.H.O., 1980). Impairment D e f i n i t i o n In the context of health experience, an impairment i s any l o s s or abnormality of p s y c h o l o g i c a l , p h y s i o l o g i c a l , or anatomical structure or function. "Impairment" i s more i n c l u s i v e than "disorder" i n that i t covers losses such as the loss of a leg. The loss of a leg i s an impairment, but i s not a disorder. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Impairment i s characterized by losses or abnormalities that may be temporary or permanent, and that include the existence or occurence of an anomaly, defect, or loss i n a limb, organ, ti s s u e , or other structure of the body, including the systems of mental f u n c t i o n . Impairment represents e x t e r i o r i z a t i o n of pathological state, and i n p r i n c i p l e i t r e f l e c t s disturbances at the l e v e l of the organ. D i s a b i l i t y D e f i n i t i o n In the context of health experience, a d i s a b i l i t y i s any r e s t r i c t i o n or lack (resulting from an impairment) of a b i l i t y to perform an a c t i v i t y i n the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. 130 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s D i s a b i l i t y i s characterized by excesses or d e f i c i e n c i e s of customarily expected a c t i v i t y performance and behaviour, and these may be temporary or permanent, r e v e r s i b l e or i r r e v e r s i b l e , and progressive or regressive. D i s a b i l i t i e s may a r i s e as a d i r e c t consequence of impairment or as a response of the i n d i v i d u a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y psychologically, to a physical, sensory, or other impairment. D i s a b i l i t y represents o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of an impairment, and as such i t r e f l e c t s disturbances at the l e v e l of the person. D i s a b i l i t y i s concerned with a b i l i t i e s , i n the form of composite a c t i v i t i e s and behaviours, that are generally accepted as e s s e n t i a l components of everyday l i f e . Examples include disturbances i n behaving i n an appropriate manner, i n personal care (such as excretory control and the a b i l i t y to wash and feed oneself), i n the performance of other a c t i v i t i e s of d a i l y l i v i n g , and i n locomotor a c t i v i t i e s (such as the a b i l i t y to walk). Handicap D e f i n i t i o n In the context of health experience, a handicap i s a disadvantage for a given ind i v i d u a l , r e s u l t i n g from an impairment or a d i s a b i l i t y , that l i m i t s or prevents the f u l f i l m e n t of a r o l e that i s normal (depending on age, sex, and s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l factors) for that i n d i v i d u a l . 131 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s Handicap i s concerned with the value attached to an in d i v i d u a l ' s s i t u a t i o n or experience when i t departs from the norm. I t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a discordance between the in d i v i d u a l ' s performance or status and the expectations of the in d i v i d u a l himself or herself or of the p a r t i c u l a r group of which he i s a member. Handicap thus represents s o c i a l i z a t i o n of an impairment or a d i s a b i l i t y , and as such i t r e f l e c t s the consequences for the individual - c u l t u r a l , s o c i a l , economic, and environmental - that stem from the presence of impairment or d i s a b i l i t y . Disadvantage arises from f a i l u r e or i n a b i l i t y to conform to the expectations or norms of the individual's universe. Handicap thus occurs when there i s interference i n the a b i l i t y to sustain what might be designated as "survival r o l e s " . C l a s s i f i c a t i o n I t i s important to recognize that the W.H.O. handicap c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s neither a taxonomy of disadvantage nor a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of individuals. Rather i t i s a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of circumstances i n which disabled people are l i k e l y to f i n d themselves, circumstances that place such i n d i v i d u a l s at a disadvantage r e l a t i v e to t h e i r peers when viewed from the norms of society. 132 REFERENCES Becker, Gaylene and Joanne K. Jauregui. 1985. "The I n v i s i b l e I s o l a t i o n of Deaf Women: Its Effects on So c i a l Awareness", i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. Bonwich, Emily. 1985. "Sex Role Attitudes and Role Reorganization i n Spinal Cord Injured Women" i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. Brisenden, Simon. 1986. "Independent Li v i n g and the Medical Model of D i s a b i l i t y " , D i s a b i l i t y , Handicap, and Society, 2(2). Canada, 1981. Obstacles: Report of the Special Parliamentary  Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services. Cockburn, Cynthia. 1983. Brothers: Male Dominance and  Technological Change. London, UK: Pluto Press. Cockburn, Cynthia. 1985. Machinery of Dominance: Women. Men, and  Technological Know-How. London, UK: Pluto Press. Cohen, Gary L. 1989. D i s a b i l i t y and the Labour Market: An  Analysis of Disabled Persons Not In The Labour Force. Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Cohen, Gary L. 1990. A P r o f i l e of Three Disabled Populations. Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and  Sexual P o l i t i c s . Cambridge, UK: P o l i t y Press. Conrad, Peter. 1976. Identifying Hyperactive Children: The  Medicalization of Deviant Behavior. Toronto, ON: Lexington Books. Deegan, Mary Jo. 1985. "Multiple Minority Groups: A Case Study of Phy s i c a l l y Disabled Women" i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. Deegan, Mary Jo and Nancy A. Brooks (eds). 1985. Women and  D i s a b i l i t y : The Double Handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Doyal, Len and Roger Harris. 1986. Empiricism. Explanation, and  Rat i o n a l i t y : An Introduction to the Philosophy of the Social  Sciences. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Edgerton, Robert B. 1967. Cloak of Competence: Stigma i n the  Lives of the Mentally Retarded. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. 133 E s t r o f f , Sue E. 1981. Making I t Crazy: An Ethnography of  Psy c h i a t r i c Patients i n an American Community. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Fine, Michelle and Adrienne Asch. 1985. "Disabled Women: Sexism without the Pedestal", i n Deegan and Brooks. Ibid. Fine, Michelle and Adrienne Asch (eds). 1988. Women with  D i s a b i l i t i e s : Essays i n Psychology, Culture, and P o l i t i c s . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Foucault, Michel. 1973. Bir t h of the C l i n i c : An Archaeology of  Medical Perception, translated by A.M. Sheridan Smith. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of  the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Giddens, Anthony. 1987. "Erving Goffman as a Systematic Social Theorist", i n his, Social Theory and Modern Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled  Identity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, Inc. Hannon, G. 1980. "No Sorrow, No Pity: A Report on the Gay Disabled", Body P o l i t i c , Feb: 19-22. Hughes, Everett. 1971. The Sociological Eye. Chicago, I I : Aldine. Irvine, John, Ian Miles, and J e f f Evans (eds). 1979. Demystifying  S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . Pluto Press. Langness, L.L. and Harold G. Levine (eds). 1986. Culture and  Retardation: L i f e Histories of Mi l d l y Mentally Retarded  Persons i n American Society. Dordrecht, Netherlands: D. Riedel Publishing. Kallen, Evelyn. 1989. Label Me Human: Minority Rights of  Stigmatized Canadians. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Kolb, Cynthia. 1985. "Assertiveness Training f or Women with V i s u a l Impairments" i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. Kutner, Nancy G. and Heather L. Gray. 1985. "Women and Chronic Renal F a i l u r e : Some Neglected Issues", i n Deegan and Brooks (eds), Ibid. Kutza, Elizabeth Ann. 1985. "Benefits f or the Disabled: How Be n e f i c i a l for Women?", i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. 134 McCharen, Nancy and Jo Anne L. Earp. 1985. "Toward a Model of Factors Influencing the Hiring of Women with a History of Breast Cancer" i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. MacDowell, Ian. 1988. A D i s a b i l i t y Score for the HALS. Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. MacDowell, Ian and C. Newell. 1987. Measuring Health. New York, NY: Oxford. Mercer, Jane R. 1973. Labelling the Mentally Retarded: C l i n i c a l  and S o c i a l System Perspectives on Mental Retardation. Berkeley, CA: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Nunnally, J.C. 1967. Psychometric Theory. New York, NY: McGraw-H i l l . O l i v e r , M. 1986. "Social Policy and D i s a b i l i t y : Some Theoretical Issues", D i s a b i l i t y . Handicap, and Society, 1(1). O r g a n i z a t i o n f o r Economic Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.). 1982. Special Study #5: Measuring D i s a b i l i t y . Ross, David P. and E. Richard S h i l l i n g t o n . 1990. An Economic  P r o f i l e of Persons with D i s a b i l i t i e s i n Canada. Ottawa, ON: Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. Rushing, W.A. 1979. "The Functional Importance of Sex Roles and Sex Related Behavior i n Societal Reactions to Residual Deviance", Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 20: 208-217. S a f i l i o s - R o t h s c h i l d , Constantina. 1970. The Sociology and Soc i a l  Psychology of D i s a b i l i t y and Rehabilitation . Random House. Saxton, Marsha. 1985. "Peer Counseling Training Program for Disabled Women: A Tool for Social and Individual Change" i n Deegan and Brooks, Ibid. Scheff, T.J. 1966. Being Mentally 111: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Scott, Robert. 1969. The Making of Blind Men. Russell Sage Foundation. Shaul, Susan, Pamela J. Dowling and Bernice F. Laden. 1985. "Like Other Women: Per s p e c t i v e s of Mothers with Physical D i s a b i l i t i e s " , i n Deegan and Brooks (eds), Ibid. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1987. Census Canada 1986: Reference  Dictionary. Ottawa, ON: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 135 S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1988. The Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations  Survey: User's Guide. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Supply and Services. S t a t i s t i c s Canada. 1989. The Health and A c t i v i t y Limitations  Survey: Micro-data User's Guide - Adults i n Households. Ottawa, ON: S t a t i s t i c s Canada. Sutherland, A l l a n T. 1981. Disabled We Stand. Souvenir Press. Tudor, W. , J.F. Tudor, and W.R. Gove. 1977. "The E f f e c t s of Sex Role Differences on the Control of Mental I l l n e s s " , Journal  of Health and Social Behavior. 18: 98-112. World Health O r g a n i z a t i o n (W.H.O.). 1980. I n t e r n a t i o n a l  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Impairments, D i s a b i l i t i e s , and Handicaps:  A Manual of C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Relating to the Consequences of  Disease. Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization. 136 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098772/manifest

Comment

Related Items