The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare

Volume 8
Article 17
Issue 1 March

March 1981

Benefits for the Disabled: How Beneficial for

Women?
Kutza

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw

Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, Medicine and Health Commons, and the Social
Work Commons

Recommended Citation
Kutza (1981) "Benefits for the Disabled: How Beneficial for Women?," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article
17.
Available at: http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol8/iss1/17

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work at
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact
maira.bundza@wmich.edu.
 BENEFITS FOR THE DISABLED:
HOW BENEFICIAL FOR WOMEN ?

Elizabeth Ann Kutza, Ph.D.

The University of Chicago
School of Social Service Administration

ABSTRACT

The social and economic consequence of disability is of increasing

interest in American society today. The numbers of persons reporting
disabling conditions is rising, as is the number of persons qualifying
for public disability benefits. This article examines the impact of
current United States disability policy on disabled women, and con-
cludes that the major programs -- disability insurance, supplemental
security income, workers' compensation, vocational rehabilitation --
because of their relationship to labor market participation, disad-
vantage women. Women not only receive fewer, but less generous benefits.
Explanations of this outcome, and implications for future policy are
addressed.

Introduction

The 1980s are likely to bring with them increased attention to the
social and economic consequences of disability. Already this concern
has been exhibited nationally through the convening of the 1977 White
House Conference on Handicapped Individuals, and internationally through
the designation of 1981 as the International Year of Disabled Persons.
The highly symbollic political attention to the circumstances of dis-
ability in the American polity has emerged from three sources. One
is the public's increased awareness of the extent of disability in
our society, another is the increased cost associated with public and
private disability benefits, and a third is the increased demands of
the disabled themselves.

Not until the 1970 Census was there any systematic attempt to
identify the number of disabled persons living in the United States.
The Census counted 11.2 million persons between the ages of sixteen
and sixty-four (one in eleven persons) with functional disabilities.
Of this number, approximately 1.7 million persons were homebound due
to chronic health disorders or degenerative diseases, and 2.1 million
were institutionalized (President's Committee on Employment of the Han-
dicapped, 1977). In 1972, the Social Security Administration conducted
its Survey of Disabled and Nondisabled Adults, and counted one in nine
persons disabled (15.6 million persons between the ages of twenty and
sixty-four) including approximately 7.7 million severely disabled
(Allan, 1976).

Those first attempts at enumeration, however, have been criticized

as underestimating the numbers of disabled persons in our country.
The disability classification used in both surveys is based upon the
individual's capacity to work. Those whose health prevents or limits
them from working are classified as disabled. But many disabled
persons do work, hence their disability is not an impediment to employ-
ment. Such persons, as well as persons over age sixty-four, are
omitted from among the disabled by the Census and the Social Security
Administration surveys.

Responding to the limitations of these studies by expanding the

concept of disability, two alternate estimates of the number of dis-
abled in our society have been put forth. The White House Conference
on Handicapped Individuals estimated that 33 million persons living in
the United States have physical or developmental disabilities, while
the American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities estimates the
number at 36 million -- one in six persons. Thus the sheer number of
persons having some handicapping condition has elerted policymakers
and the public to the needs of this group.

While it is not known whether physical and developmental disabili-

ties among adults are on the rise in American society (since most
enumerating attempts have been so recent), it is apparent that the
number of persons who qualify for public benefits on the basis of
disability is increasing. The numbers of workers who qualified for
social security disability insurance benefits, for example, has doubled
in seven years. The cost of the program has quadrupled since 1970
(Singer, 1978). Under the supplemental security income program, too,
benefit receipt contingent upon disability is the fastest growing
component. Workers' compensation and state vocational rehabilitation
programs also are experiencing rapid growth. (Between 1977 and 1978,
workers' compensation benefit outlays increased from $3.9 to $5.8
billion).

Many provisions of the programs themselves have contributed to

these increases, but the experiences of privately financed disability
plans, and of government programs in other countries generally have
paralleled those of federal and state programs. Hence one conclusion
might be that the public acceptance of the government's role in com-
pensating for the functional limitations brought about by disability
is growing. In 1979, federal benefit outlays for the disabled were
estimated at totaling $35 billion (U.S. Office of Management and Budget,
1979). These growing budgetary outlays naturally have brought public
disability programs increased -- and often unwelcome -- attention from
national policymakers. And this attention predictably will continue.

A final impetus to the public concern about disability has come

from the disabled themselves. Increased militancy by advocates of the
disabled has generated new programs, and placed new demands on policy-
makers. The disabled are striving to achieve mainstreaming in education,
barrier free environments, special transportation facilities, and equal
access rules. Exercising their political muscle, the disabled have
witnessed mixed results. While new programs are being developed, the
budgetary implications of these demands are generating alarm and re-
sistance at all levels of government.

Three factors, than, are combining to propel social policies for

the disabled into the forefront of our national agenda for the 80s.
As existing programs undergo new scrutiny, it is appropriate to ask how
their benefits affect disabled women. This paper will explore the
impact on disabled women of current United States policy for disabled
persons.

Programs That Benefit the Disabled

Programs aimed at assisting the disabled have a long historical

tradition. The lame, as they were earlier called, were regarded along
with the aged and children as unable to fully participate in the econo-
mic activity of society. Because this inability to contribute was
involuntary and unchanging, such individuals were seen as deserving of
support by the larger collectivity. Resources generated by the able-
bodied were transferred to the lame individual as part of a social
contract. In early societies this transfer of resources occurred in-
formally through family or clan; in more developed industrialized
societies this collective responsibility has shifted to the formal
organizations of government through the implementation of public
policies.

Currently there are a wide range of benefits available to disabled

individuals through public programs. Most of these programs are admi-
nistered and funded by the federal government. Official government
estimates identify more than 120 programs and activities serving handi-
capped individuals sponsored by twenty federal departments (U.S. Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978A). Several og these
programs provide services to children or the aged, but the majority of
public policies that concern themselves with disability are directed to
working-age adults. And the major purpose of these programs is either
to replace earnings lost through disability, or to provide services that
rehabilitate handicapped persons so they may reenter the labor force and
become self-sufficient. The four most significant programs are the
disability insurance program under social security (DI), the supple-
mental security income program (SSI), the state workers' compensation,
and vocational rehabilitation programs.

Disability Insurance Under Social Security

The social insurance features of United States social security

policy, embodied in Title II of the Social Security Act, provide for
the partial replacement of earnings lost to workers and their dependents
because of the worker's retirement in old age (old age insurance),
disability severe enough to prevent substantial gainful employment
(disability insurance), or death (survivors' insurance). Disability
insurance pays wage-related benefits to the worker, the worker's child-
ren, and the caretaker (usually the mother) of the children of the
disabled worker. In July 1979, the disability insurance cash benefit
program provided monthly benefits to about 2.9 million disabled workers
and 1.9 million dependents of disabled workers.

While now an integral part of the social security system, disabi-

lity insurance provisions were enacted twenty-one years after the re-
tirement program, and seventeen years after enactment of survivors'
insurance. "The delay," in the words of the 1979 Advisory Council on
Social Security, "was the result, in part, of fears that providing
social security disability benefits would discourage rehabilitation and
encourage malingering, and that the costs of disability insurance would
be difficult to control." (U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security,
1979, p. 139). These fears led to the adoption of a very limited dis-
ability insurance program in 1956. Only persons aged fifty and over
were eligible for benefits. By 1960, benefit eligibility was liberali-
zed, and coverage under DI began to parallel coverage under the old
age and survivors' insurance provisions.

Benefit entitlement and benefit eligibility continued to liberalize

in the 1960s and 1970s, and by 1975, the number of workers being awarded
disability benefits was roughly twice its 1965 level. After 1975,
however, the number of new awards declined, although benefit outlays
continued to rise. Recent legislative proposals have been aimed at
curtailing these continually rising costs.
 Eligibility for disability insurance benefits are contingent upon
three things: (1) insured status; (2) disability status; and (3) age.
A worker must by sixty-four years of age or younger, and have a required
number of quarters of coverage to be fully insured under the program.
For fully insured status, a worker must have twenty quarters of coverage
in the forty quarters preceding the onset of his/her disability. (A
quarter of coverage is a calendar quarter in which the individual re-
ceives wages of $50.00 or more.) In effect, than, at the time of his/
her disability, an individual would have to have contributed to the
social security system at least five of the preceding ten years.

In addition to fully insured status, an individual must fit the

statutory definition of disability to be eligible for benefits. In the
Social Security Act and its regulations, disability is defined as "the
inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any
medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be ex-
pected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.
A person must be not only unable to do his/her previous work or work
commensurate with the previous work.. .but cannot, considering age, edu-
cation, and work experience, engage in any other kind of substantial
gainful work which exists in the national economy..." (U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1974). Under current regulations,
earnings of more than $280.00 a month for nine months are assumed to
demonstrate an ability to engage in "substantial gainful activity"
(SGA), and thus result in a loss of benefit entitlement.

The disability insurance program is financed by part of a payroll

tax paid half by the covered employee and half by the employer, and a
tax paid by self-employed people on their earnings. Persons who have
not contributed to the social security system are not eligible for bene-
fits. The disability insurance program is administered by the Social
Security Administration.

The Supplemental Security Income Program

The Social Security Administration administers a second program

that pays benefits to the disabled. Also part of the Social Security
Act (Title XVI), the supplemental security income program (SSI) provi-
des benefits to the nonaged blind and disabled in financial need, as
well as to people aged sixty-five and over who are in financial need.
While disability insurance provisions are a fairly recent addition to
the Social Security Act, aid to the needy blind dates back to the
original Act of 1935. Under the 1950 social security amendments,
federal matching funds were also provided to states that wished to
provide public assistance payments to persons who were "permanently
and totally" disabled. In 1974, SSI, a federally administered and
financed program of assistance using a federal definition of disability
and a uniform federal payment standard, replaced these various federal/
state programs.

SSI, unlike DI, is not a social insurance program but a welfare

program. Benefits are based upon one's current income status, unrelated
to past contributions or work history. The program provides a federal
minimum level of income to those disabled who meet income and resource
tests. As of July 1980, SSI benefits of $238.00 per month for an indi-
vidual and $357.00 for a couple were the maximum amounts payable to
those with virtually no other income. As income from other sources
increases (excepting certain disregards), SSI payments are reduced.
About 1.9 million blind or disabled persons under age sixty-five were
receiving benefits under the supplemental security income program in
mid-1979.

Workers' Compensation

Workers' compensation is a system of state-sanctioned insurance

programs that are to provide protection against loss of income, medi-
cal expenditures, or death due to injuries on the job. While the first
workers' compensation program was enacted in the early 1900s, it was not
until 1949 that all states had adopted workers' compensation programs.
By 1978, nearly 90 percent of the labor force was covered by programs
which would compensate for work-related accidents or occupational di-
seases.

Since it is a state program, workers' compensation lacks uniformity

among jurisdictions in coverage, benefit structure, and administration.
Unlike DI and SSI, which by definition include only the most severely
disabled, workers' compensation is designed to cover the entire range
of disabilities, of which only a small percentage are long-term and
severe. As a consequence, workers' compensation has developed a far
more flexible eligibility/benefit structure that can differentiate be-
tween permanent and temporary, as well as total and partial disability
(Joe and Bogatay, 1980).

Workers' compensation is intended to protect employees from health

hazards at their place of work. As a consequence, benefits are closely
tied to the work-relatedness of the disability. In general, to qualify
for benefits, the employee must have sustained an injury or been killed
in performing his duties, but the injuries or death must not have arisen
due to the employee's gross negligence, willful misconduct, or intoxi-
cation. Workers' compensation programs are financed almost entirely
by employers. In 1978, the total paid under the various state and
federal workers' compensation plans was about $8.7 billion.

Vocational Rehabilitation Services

The three programs just reviewed provide cash benefits to disabled

workers. Their purpose is to partially replace income lost because of
a disability. There exist another set of programs which provide
services to the disabled, services intended to rehabilitate. The lar-
gest of these is the vocational rehabilitation (VR) program.

All beneficiaries of the DI and SSI programs are categorically

eligible for consideration for state vocational rehabilitation services.
By statute, all beneficiaries who have the potential to engage in sub-
stantial gainful activity must be referred for consideration. To serve
these clients the states administer three vocational rehabilitation
programs: a basic state program, and two special programs mandated by
the Social Security Act - one for DI beneficiaries (paid out of the
Social Security Trust Fund), and the other for SSI beneficiaries (paid
out of general revenues). The federal government funds 100 percent
of the special programs and 80 percent of the basic program.

Services of all forms can be provided to the disabled under VR

programs - medical, psychological, training, tools, and placement.
These services are to be provided to any severely disabled individual,
without regard to financial need, under two conditions: there is a
physical or mental disability that results in a substantial impediment
to employment, and there is a reasonable expectation that vocational re-
habilitation services may benefit that individual in terms of employment.
The purpose is to rehabilitate individuals towards "maximum participa-
tion in gainful employment." (Joe and Bogatay, 1980, p. 46).

In 1977, expenditures for all three programs exceeded $1 billion,

and about 1.9 million persons received services. Of these, close to
300,000 were claimed "rehabilitated," at a cost of about $3,000 per
rehabilitation (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978b).

Commonality of Programs

The common element underlying each of the programs described above

is their relationship to work in society. These programs only offer
benefits to a disabled person who cannot work in the marketplace. They
either try to make that person "more employable," or give him or her
a stipend. Even rehabilitation services, with their emphasis on "voca-
tional rehabilitation," have been seen from their inception in 1920 as
a way of saving money and increasing industrial output, rather than as
a method of reintegrating disabled people into society (Erlanger et al,
1979). Both disability insurance and workers' compensation benefits
are contingent upon labor market participation, while the supplemental
security income program incorporates in its disability definition the
criterion of the capacity to engage in substantial gainful activity.
Because women have historically had weaker ties to the labor market,
this benefit contingency on labor market participation has meant that
these programs have been less responsive to the needs of disabled
women.

Women and Disability

The Social Security Administration's (SSA) 1972 Survey of Disabled

and Nondisabled Adults provides the best available data on the preva-
lence and nature of disability among adult American women. It also
provides data on womens' participation rates in the disability insurance
and supplemental security income programs. Two findings emerge:
women represent a somewhat greater proportion of persons in the
population who report suffering from one or more chronic con-
ditions or impairments,
and yet,
women are less likely than men to receive public income maintenance
benefits (Allan, 1976; Posner, 1977; Krute and Burdette, 1978).

The implications of these two findings for the economic well-being

of the disabled woman in the United States are very serious.

Sex Differences in the Prevalence of Disability

In the 1972 SSA Survey, disability prevalence was found to be greater

among women than among men (15.2 percent of women had some impairment
compared to 14.0 percent of men). Not only were women more likely to
report a chronic disease or impairment, but the condition was more
likely to result in a severe disability. Eight percent of the women
but only 6 percent of the men reported that they were severely dis-
abled. Table I displays these different prevalence rates by sex.

The 1976 Survey of Income and Education conducted by the Bureau

of the Census reports similar findings. Of the 28.2 million people
three years old and older who were reported to have some activity
limitation due to a health condition, about 53 percent were women
(U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1979a).
 202

TABLE 1

Disability Prevalence Rate (per 1,000 population), By Sex

Population Men Women

With chronic conditions 464.7 507.3

Disabled 139.6 152.4
Severely disabled 59.0 85.0

Source: Aaron Krute and Mary Ellen Burdette, "1972 Survey of

Disabled and Nondisabled Adults: Chronic Disease, Injury,
and Work Disability." Social Security Bulletin, 41:4
(1978), p. 10.

When these differences are looked at by major disease group, women

report higher rates of cardiovascular diseases (primarily peripheral
vascular disorders such as varicose veins and high blood pressure),
mental disorders, urogenital conditions, neoplasms, and endocrine dis-
orders. According to the Social Security Administration, the excess of
urogenital and endocrine disease among women is due to disorders of the
female reproductive system and to thyroid problems, respectively. More
women than men also report visual problems - serious difficulty seeing
or blindness.

While accidents and injuries caused a significant proportion of the

chronic diseases and/or impairments reported by SSA survey respondants
in general, on this dimension women are underrepresented. The propor-
tion of men with an accident-related condition ranged from 16 percent
of the nondisabled to 31 percent of the currently disabled. The com-
parable figures for women were 5 percent and 18 percent, respectively
(Krute and Burdette, 1978).

Looking at other demographic variables, the composition of the dis-

abled is heavily weighted toward older people. Most chronic conditions
and impairments take years to develop. For any condition, the rates
for persons aged fifty-five to sixty-four are from one and one-half to
three times higher than for persons under forty-five. Not only are
older persons more likely to suffer from a chronic condition or impair-
ment, but also they are much more likely to be disabled as a result.
But as Allan points out, "Some of the relationships between age and
disability may..,reflect the work-related definition of disability.
Regardless of health, many people begin to work less in their late
fifties and early sixties as a mode of preparation for retirement....
The availability of social security benefits reinforces the effects
of ill health on encouraging retirement." (Allan, 1976).

As with age and sex, the composition of the disabled population

is heavily weighted toward those with low educational attainment. More
than 40 percent of the severely disabled group had no high school. And
related, blacks and other nonwhites are more heavily represented among
the disabled than among the general population.

Finally, the disabled population -- in particular, the severely

disabled -- is composed of unmarried individuals to a larger extent than
the nondisabled population. Since the disabled are older than non-
disabled, they are more likely to be widowed, separated, or divorced.

Work Limitation and Disability Among Women

Women not only report themselves as more disabled when asked, they
also report more serious work limitations as a result of their disabi-
lity. In 1976, the Bureau of the Census found 13.3 percent of the
124.6 million Americans between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four
reporting some level of work disability. But a breakdown by sex,
marital status, and household relationships as they reflect level of
work disability shows some significant differences. (See Table 2)

The implications for women of the data in Table 2 as regards their

receipt of benefits under current United States programs for the dis-
abled are important. First, the data make clear that women suffer
more serious work disability than men. Their disability is more likely
to prevent them from working at all, or from working regularly. The
disparity between men and women on these measures is observable from
age thirty onward, and steadily increases with age.

Women who suffer a work disability are also more likely than men
to be living without a spouse. This sex-related difference is greatest
among those women whose disability is severe enough to prevent them
from working. Additionally, the extent of disability found among
persons who are the head of their households is greater for women than
for men. One in five women in female-headed households have some work
disability; the comparable figure for male-headed households is one in
eight. In the case in which the work disability is severe, female-
headed households are twice as likely to have a head unable to work
than are male-headed households.
 TABLE 2

Work Disability Status of Persons 18 - 64 Years of Age,

By Sex and Selected Characteristics, U.S., 1976

With a Work Disability (Percent of total)

Characteristic Total Prevented Unable to Able to

from Working Work Regulariy Work
Regularly

M F M F M F M F

Total 13.3 13.3 5.1 6.4 1.4 2.1 6.7 4.9

Age
18-24 years 6.4 4.9 1.3 1.2 0.6 0.5 4.5 3.1
25-29 years 7.6 6.2 2.0 1.9 0.7 1.0 4.9 3.3
30-34 years 8.1 8.2 2.4 2.9 0.9 1.5 4.8 3.7
35-44 years 10.2 11.5 3.2 4.5 1.2 2.0 5.8 5.1
45-54 years 18.3 19.0 7.6 9.4 1.7 3.0 9.1 6.6
55-64 years 29.4 29.5 14.7 17.9 3.6 4.3 11.2 7.2
Marital Status
Married, spouse 13.0 11.8 4.7 5.3 1.2 2.0 7.1 4.5
Married, no spouse 1.9 17.7 3.5 8.5 1.3 3.8 7.1 5.4
Household Relationship
Head of household 13.2 20.5 4.8 9.9 1.3 3.4 7.1 7.3
Wife of head - 11.8 - 5.4 - 2.0 - 4.5
Unrelated Indiv. 4.2 19.3 6.1 10.3 1.9 2.5 6.1 6.5

Source: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office for

Handicapped Individuals. Digest of Data on Persons with Dis-
abilities. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979)
Table 5, p. 17.

Women are therefore more likely than men to be limited or prevented

from working because of their disability, are likely to experience a
higher degree of work disability at an earlier age than men, and are
more likely to be without a spouse. Being married is particularly
important to disabled persons because the presence of a spouse provides
greater income and extra attention to personal care needs. Each of
these factors support the urgent need of women to have available to them
some form of public income support protection. But because of womens'
more tenuous ties to the labor force, and the contingent relationship
between disability programs and labor force participation, women are
largely excluded from public disability benefits.

Labor Force Participation of Women

By mid-1977, forty million American women were in the labor force --

about 41 percent of the country's entire labor force, and 49 percent of
all women sixteen years of age and over. (By contrast, 77 percent of all
men aged sixteen and over were in the labor force). Most women who work
outside the home do so in clerical occupations (34.9 percent) and ser-
vice sector jobs (17.9 percent). Of the 5.6 million women in profes-
sional and technical jobs in 1976, nearly 40 percent were elementary
and secondary school teachers (U.S. Department of Labor, 1977).

While labor force participation by women has been increasing

steadily in the last thirty years, women still constitute about three-
fourths of the population outside of the labor force. Most of these
women do not want jobs because of their home and family responsibili-
ties. Thus women who head families (especially divorced women) are
more likely to be in the labor force than wives living with their
husbands.

Womens' participation in and rewards from work outside the home

differ from mens' in several ways. First, women are more likely than
men to work part-time or only for part of the year. The Bureau of
Labor Statistics reports that of the 42.8 million who were employed in
1975, 41.4 percent worked all year (50 to 52 weeks), 25.7 percent worked
part of the year (1 to 49 weeks), and 32.9 percent worked at part-time
jobs. The comparable percentages for men are shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3

Work Experience of Women and Men, 1975

Work Experience Women Men

Persons who worked

Number (in thousands) 42,881 58,359
Percent 100 100
Worked at full time jobs
50 to 52 weeks 41.2 63.9
27 to 49 weeks 12.2 13.3
1 to 26 weeks 13.5 10.3
 TABLE 3 (cont.)

Work Experience of Women and Hen, 1975

Work Experience Women Men

Worked at part-time job

50 to 52 weeks 11.8 4.4
27 to 49 weeks 8.3 3.0
1 to 26 weeks 12.8 5.1

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Working Women: A Databook. (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1977), Table 14, p. 12.

In addition to working less than full time, women have been on

their current job a substantially shorter time, on average, than men.
The largest differences are for persons age forty-five to sixty-four.
These differences are highlighted in Table 4.

TABLE 4

Median Number of Years Worked at Current Job

By Women and Men by Age, 1973

Age Group Median Number of Years

Women Men

Total, 16 years and over 2.8 4.6

16 to 19 0.6 0.6
20 tO 24 1.2 1.2
25 to 34 2.2 3.2
35 to 44 3.6 6.7
45 to 54 5.9 11.5
55 to 64 8.8 14.5
65 and over 10.9 13.9

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Working Women: A Databook. (Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1977), Table 56, p. 57.

Thus in 1973, the median number of years on the current job for
all women employed was 2.8 years while for men it was 4.6 years.
 A final dimension upon which womens' relationship to work outside
the home differs from that of mens' is compensation. The great majority
of working women have not yet attained parity with working men in earned
income. Women who worked at year-round, full-time jobs in 1977 earned
only 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. This figure is actually
down from the 1955 level of 64 cents for every dollar. A recent Depart-
ment of Labor report notes: "Men's median weekly earnings exceeded
women's by $116, so that a woman had to work nearly nine days to gross
the same earnings men grossed in five days." (U.S. Department of Labor,
1979). The situation is no better if educational level is taken into
account. In both 1970 and 1974, the median income of women college
graduates aged twenty-five and over who worked full-time was only 60
percent of the comparable male median income (U.S. Department of Com-
merce, 1976). Surveys of starting salaries of women and men graduating
from college have for many years revealed differences in "offers" re-
ceived by women and men job seekers. The majority of women continue to
receive lower offers than men.

Thus, as most women workers continue to be concentrated in lower

paying occupations that provide limited opportunities for advancement,
and as discrimination in hiring, promotion, and pay scales continue to
be a major obstacle to equality for women in the workplace, womens'
rewards from work outside the home are significantly less than mens'.

Women and Public Programs

All of the factors just reviewed as regards the labor force parti-
cipation of women help explain why women receive fewer, and less gene-
rous benefits from public disability programs. Fewer women than men are
in the labor force, and therefore fewer are eligible for coverage under
disability insurance or workmans' compensation programs. Women engaged
in full-time homemaking activities do not participate in the social
security system at all, and therfore are not eligible for DI benefits
should they become disabled. To be fully insured under the disability
insurance program, workers must have contributed through their payroll
taxes a proscribed number of quarters within a proscribed period of
time. Both length of time worked during the year and tenure on the
job, less for women than men, thus may exclude women from benefit en-
titlement under DI. And since DI benefit levels are indexed to earnings,
even women workers covered under the program will receive substantially
lower benefits than men if they become disabled. Program participation
rates make clear the disadvantage disabled women face vis-a-vis our
current public policies on disability.
Participation of Women in Disability Programs

In 1977, of the 40.5 million women in the labor force, 32 million

were insured by the Social Security Administration in the event of dis-
ability. A quarter of these were young women, under age twenty-five.
As would be expected, coverage increases with age. About 74 percent of
working women under age twenty-five were fully insured, 78 percent of
those aged 25 to 54, and 88 percent of those fifty-five and over (U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978c). Thus in 1977,
nearly 9 million American working women were without disability insu-
rance protection under social security. While there are more men in
the labor force than women, fewer men were uninsured (about 3 million).

Within the social security program, disability insurance benefits

play a smaller part in providing income replacement for women than for
men. Of the 1.88 million workers who were receiving DI benefits in 1976,
1.15 were men and 730,000 were women. In the Social Security Adminis-
tration 1972 Survey of Disabled and Nondisabled Adults only 9 percent
of severely disabled women were found to be receiving benefits because
of their disability. Fully one-third (33 percent) of the severely
disabled men were receiving benefits. Additionally, twice as many
severely disabled men as women received benefits for early retirement.
The situation was reversed for dependents' benefits. Twice as many
severely disabled women as men received benefits as dependents of
disabled, retired, or deceased workers (Allan, 1976).

For the disabled worker, benefit levels vary by sex. The average
benefit received by men in 1977 was $320.40; the average benefit re-
ceived by women was $228.50. Those persons more recently gaining eli-
gibility had, on average, higher benefit awards than earlier eligibles.
A woman worker who became elibible for DI benefits between 1960 and
1964, for example, would be receiving an average monthly amount of
$199.60. One becoming eligible between 1975 and 1977 would average
$227.10 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Table 77, 1980).
For those wives of disabled workers whose entitlement was based on
children in their care, their average monthly benefit amount in 1977
was $76.80 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Table 67,
1980).

The average age of women workers who are receiving disability

insurance benefits is about 52 years old. Fully 76 percent of women
DI beneficiaries are between the ages of fifty and sixty-four. And
it is these older disabled women workers who receive the lowest benefit
levels from the program, and who are more likely to have fewer resources
available to them. Many are widowed, divorced, or separated. Thus,
while fewer disabled women than men benefit from the disability in-
surance program, even those who do remain seriously economically dis-
advantaged.

While underrepresented in the disability insurance program, women

are overrepresented under supplemental security income. Public as-
sistance is a more important source of income for women than for men,
and becomes increasingly important with the severity of the limitation.
Women now constitute about 60 percent of SSI beneficiaries reflecting
their weaker work force attachment. For those women who have worked
too little to gain eligibility under the disability insurance program,
or who while eligible may only qualify for minimum DI benefits, public
assistance in the form of supplemental security income offers the
only means of support.

Public income maintenance programs such as workers' compensation

and veterans disability programs are also less important for women
than for men. (See Table 5). A study done in 1975 on the workers'
compensation program of five states found that 82 percent of claimants
were male and only 18 percent were female (Joe and Bogatay, 1980).

Rehabilitation services are available infrequently to disabled

women. Due to the VR screening process and inadequate funding, not
all individuals eligible for VR services receive them. Only one-
quarter of those awarded disability insurance or supplemental security
income benefits in a given year are referred for rehabilitation ser-
vices. Less than half of those referred are accepted into the program.
Thus eight out of every nine beneficiaries do not receive VR services
(Joe and Bogatay, 1980). And those who are referred are young --
36.5 years old for DI clients, 29.8 years old for SSI clients (U.S.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1979b). The typical
disabled woman, however, is more likely to an older recipient, and
thus more likely to be screened out of the vocational rehabilitation
process as having a lower potential for engaging in substantial gainful
activity after rehabilitation. This bias towards providing services
to individuals who can reenter the labor force effectively excludes
women who may have been full-time homemakers, or who may have had
tenuous labor market connections prior to the onset of their disabi-
lity, or who may now be at an age where reentry into the labor force
would be difficult because of age discrimination.
 210

0 M rD003 0 M03D000-
-0<CL0 0 4<CL0 X

M0 ( 03 0 0 0 m

00'

03 0
0 0

0 m-30
U. .0 U-0 0
CD C)CD
CD 00 0 -D0 0 0' w

c-' 0

10 m cc 00r03

10 PI r

00
r- 0
0000 40 0 0000 00 '1

co

*D
03

0'0 0 ~.O
'o~~ ~ 00a

0%° ° ° ° 0o ... n Co
?I !" 0%U.0%
o ? - U 0 -- % 0)

r-- 0
00-v03
a, r- -
 Conclusions and Policy Implications

After twenty years of development, disability policy in the

United States is undergoing a serious reassessment. The role and func-
tion of disability insurance, public assistance, and rehabilitation
services in the life of the disabled individual, both male and female,
is being questioned. Application rates for the disability insurance
program are rising, and so are the costs. Between 1970 and 1979, the
cost of DI cash benefits grew from $2.8 to $13.6 billion. Yet, the
program experience for the period 1968 to 1978 reflects, in the words
of one author, "...disqueting trends in terms of future cost potential,
and apparent erosion of the rate in which disabled beneficiaries
leave the benefit rolls for reasons other than death or the attain-
ment of retirement age." (Joe and Bogatay, 1980, p. 132). Since
1960, yearly "recoveries" have remained constant at approximately
40,000, although rolls have been steadily rising. In effect, than,
over 90 percent of those who become DI beneficiaries never "recover."
The resulting loss to the society of the economic contributions of
these individuals is causing great concern. Countless proposals
have recently been made to alter the various disability programs in
such a way as to strengthen the incentives to reenter the labor force
for those disabled who can, to increase the adequacy of public
benefits for those who cannot, and to make more effective and effi-
cient the available rehabilitation services (Sussman and Hagan, 1977;
U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security, 1979; U.S. Senate Finance
Committee, 1979).

All of these proposals, if adopted, will strengthen United States

policy on disability so as to more greatly benefit all disabled per-
sons, men and women. But marginal improvements in program specifics
will not solve what is a continuing problem for women -- the strong
relationship between program benefit entitlement and labor force
participation. As long as the major (and most generous) disability
protection programs are premised upon a model of life-long, full-
time employment outside the home, with disability being explicitly
defined in a work-related context, women will continue to be dis-
advantaged.

The policy implications of this "disadvantage" are different,

of course, for women who are employed and those who are not. For
the majority of the 41 percent of American adult women who are now
in the labor force, disability insurance benefits under social secu-
rity provide the primary income assurance program in the event of
disability. Yet only 32 percent of recent successful applicants for
the DI program were women, and of those applicants who were denied
benefits, more than three-fourths had incomes under $4,000. And for
those women who qualify as beneficiaries, benefits remain low. Over
42 percent of female workers who are severely disabled are classified
as service workers. These workers typically earn low wages (the median
usual weekly earnings of full-time women service workers in 1976 was
$109), and about 31 percent have less than a high school education
(U.S. Department of Labor, 1977). Thus, such workers would not only
receive low benefits, but would be poor candidates for retraining.

The low benefits awarded women workers who become disabled re-
sult in a dramatic decline in their income. In 1970-71, 82.8 percent
of recently disabled adult women experienced a drop in their yearly
earnings of 50 percent or more (U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, 1979a). This decline has a differential effect on dis-
abled women with spouses and those without. The estimated median
family income of severely disabled married women in 1977 was $9,543.
For nonmarried women the figure was $2,225 (Lando and Krute, 1976).

Thus, if they can qualify, employed women can rely upon dis-
ability insurance benefits in the event of disability. But these
benefits are likely to be very low and present a particular hardship
for women who have no spouse present. Some older women who do not
qualify for DI benefits on their own work record may be eligible for
a disabled widow benefit under social security. But this category
is very restrictive, serves few women, and provides a very low
average monthly benefit.

For those 49 percent of women outside the labor force, fewer op-
tions are available in the event of disability. If married, they may
qualify for the supplemental security income program. For these dis-
abled women, their annual income guarantee would be no more than
$2,856, about 84 percent of the poverty line in this country.

The implications of the above data are clear. There is need for
an urgent reassessment of the impact of current disability policy on
the disabled woman. While labor force participation rates of women
are on the rise, social circumstances of child rearing and homemaking
will always keep large numbers of women from working outside the home.
Increasing divorce and separation is also enlarging the number of
female-headed households in this country. The presumption that the
disabled woman will either be protected from a loss of income because
of adequate disability insurance protection, or by the presence of a
spouse is patently false. As long as those presumptions underlie
major United States disability programs, women will remain unpro-
tected from the economic threats associated with disability.
 REFERENCES

Allan, Katheryn H.
1976 "First Findings of the 1972 Survey of the Disabled:
General Characteristics." Social Security Bulletin
39:10, 18-37.

Erlanger, Howard S., William Roth, Allyn Walker, and Ruth Peterson
1979 "Disability Policy: The Parts and the Whole." Madison, Wisc.:
University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty
Discussion Paper.

Joe Thomas and Alan Bogatay (eds.)

1980 The Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental
Security Income Programs: A Series of Papers. Washington,
D.C.: The University of Chicago, Center for the Study of
Welfare Policy.

Krute, Aaron and Mary Ellen Burdette

1978 "1972 Survey of the Disabled and Nondisabled Adults:
Chronic Disease, Injury, and Work Disability." Social
Security Bulletin 41:4, 3-17.

Lando, Mordechai E. and Aaron Krute

1976 "Disability Insurance: Program Issues and Research."
Social Security Bulletin 39:10, 3-17.

Posner, Iris
1977 "Functional Capacity Limitations and Disability."
Washington, D.C.: Social Security Adminaitration, Office
of Research and Statistics, SSA Report No. 2.

President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped

1977 One in Eleven: Handicapped Adults in America. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Singer, James W.
1978 "It Isn't Easy to Cure the Ailments of the Disability
Insurance Program." National Journal 10:715-719.

Sussman, Marvin B. and Frank E. Hagan

1977 "Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation: Policy and
Program Recommendations." Mimeographed paper.
U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security
1979 Social Security Financing and Benefits. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Advisory Council on Social Security, Final Report.

U.S. Congress, Senate Finance Committee

1979 "Issues Related to Social Security Act Disability Programs."
96th Cong., 1st sess.

U.S. Department of Commerce.

1976 Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports. A
Statistical Portrait of Women in the U.S. Series P-23,
No. 58.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

1974 Social Security Administration. Social Security Handbook.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1978a Office for Handicapped Individuals. Federal Assistance

for Programs Serving the Handicapped. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.

1978b Rehabilitation Services Administration. State Vocational

Rehabilitation Agency Program Data: Fiscal Year 1977.
Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1978c Social Security Administration. Social Security Bulletin:

Annual Statistical Supplement, 1976. Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office.

1979a Office for Handicapped Individuals. Digest of Data on

Persons with Disabilities. Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office.

1979b Rehabilitation Services Administration. RSA Annual Report:

FY 1978. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

1980 Social Security Administration. Social Security Bulletin:

Annual Statistical Supplement, 1977-1979. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S, Department of Labor

1977 Bureau of Labor Statistics. U.S. Working Women: A Databook.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
 215

U.S. Department of Labor

1979 Women's Bureau. The Earnings Gap Between Women and Men.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Office of Management and Budget

1979 Special Analysis, Budget of the United States Government:
Fiscal Year 1979. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.
 I'UiODUCTI0U

::'is story is neant to be read primarily by or to

children of elementary school age as it is written in
1ngu'ge that tney can identify with and understand. It
is also intended as reading for social workers and educat-
ors for the purpose of enhancing their understanding of
tn e eotional dilemmas experienced by abused children.
Especially stressed are the feelings of ambivalence, be-
trayal, anger, loss, concern, guilt, desertion, saddness
and loyalty to one's parents/caretakers, no matter how
-ad t-e situation man, seen or how urgent the need for
placement.

This paper poses for thought the author's feeling

tat oppression breeds anger which results in unnecessary
pressure being brought to bear upon the oppressed, wheth-
er tis be pressure to conform or pressure to rebel. This
oppression, when not dealt with, or when dealt with un-
successfully or inappropriately, can lead to the ongoing
stress that is evident in situations of abuse.

A secondary purpose of this paper is to point out

some of the s-ortcomings of foster placement - both in
the area of pre-placement preparation as well as the
child's need to maintain some type of contact with his/her
home situation while in placement. Because it is very
difficult for any child to experience and understand all
of the emotions that surface prior to, during and after
placement, this story is meant to convey the message that
only in the most necessary of circumstances should a child
be removed from home.