Intellectual disability employment statistics at a glance
Employment outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities vary sharply by state in the supplied dataset, and the range is wide enough to make the pattern impossible to ignore. Across the 51 state and district figures in the source statistics, the RSA-911 rehabilitation rate in FY 2010 runs from 21% in Alabama to 76% in Delaware (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Table of contents
- Fast facts
- State comparison table
- What the highest rates show
- What the lowest rates show
- Regional patterns in the supplied data
- How to read these employment statistics
- Selected state takeaways
Fast facts
Big number: Delaware posted the highest RSA-911 rehabilitation rate in the dataset at 76% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Low end: Alabama posted the lowest rate at 21% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Middle of the pack: Several states clustered near the 50% mark, including California at 51%, Iowa at 51%, Texas at 51%, and Virginia at 51% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
High concentration: The dataset includes multiple states at 60% or higher, with Colorado, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Vermont all standing out above that line (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Why it matters: The spread from the lowest state to the highest state is 55 percentage points, which suggests major differences in rehabilitation outcomes across states rather than a single national pattern (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Stat highlight: the dataset does not just show variation, it shows a full performance spectrum.
State comparison table
The cleanest way to understand the supplied statistics is to place the full set side by side. The table below keeps the source label visible and makes the state-level spread easier to scan.
| State or district | RSA-911 rehabilitation rate | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | 21% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Florida | 34% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Kansas | 36% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Louisiana | 39% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| South Carolina | 41% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Arizona | 44% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Michigan | 43% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| New York | 42% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Ohio | 42% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Rhode Island | 42% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Arkansas | 42% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Connecticut | 45% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Hawaii | 46% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Mississippi | 46% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Pennsylvania | 47% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Oregon | 48% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Tennessee | 48% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| New Jersey | 50% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| California | 51% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Iowa | 51% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Minnesota | 51% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Texas | 51% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Virginia | 51% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Indiana | 52% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Montana | 52% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Georgia | 53% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| New Mexico | 53% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Oklahoma | 54% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Wisconsin | 54% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Illinois | 55% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| District of Columbia | 56% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| North Carolina | 57% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Wyoming | 58% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Maine | 59% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Idaho | 60% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Massachusetts | 60% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Kentucky | 61% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Nebraska | 61% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Washington | 62% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| New Hampshire | 63% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Utah | 64% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Missouri | 66% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| West Virginia | 66% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Alaska | 67% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Nevada | 68% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| South Dakota | 68% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Colorado | 71% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Maryland | 71% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| North Dakota | 73% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Vermont | 75% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
| Delaware | 76% | Policy Research Brief: Table 2 |
What the highest rates show
The top tier of the dataset is small but clearly defined. Delaware leads at 76%, followed by Vermont at 75% and North Dakota at 73% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2). Colorado and Maryland both reach 71%, which means the upper end of the distribution is not limited to one region or one outlier state (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
High-rate cluster
States at 68% or above form a meaningful high-performance cluster in the supplied numbers:
- Delaware at 76% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Vermont at 75% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- North Dakota at 73% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Colorado at 71% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Maryland at 71% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Nevada at 68% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- South Dakota at 68% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
That cluster matters because it shows the high end is not a single-state anomaly. It is a repeated outcome across multiple states in the source statistics.
At a glance: the strongest states in this dataset are mostly above 70%, while many others sit near the 50% midpoint.
What the lowest rates show
The low end of the dataset is just as important as the high end because it reveals how far outcomes can fall below the middle.
Alabama is the lowest state at 21% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2). Florida follows at 34%, then Kansas at 36%, Louisiana at 39%, and South Carolina at 41% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Low-rate cluster
The lower cluster shows that several states sit well below the 50% midpoint:
- Alabama: 21% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Florida: 34% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Kansas: 36% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Louisiana: 39% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- South Carolina: 41% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
The difference between Alabama at 21% and Florida at 34% is already substantial, and the gap to the states in the 40s widens the picture further (Policy Research Brief: Table 2). The source statistics therefore show a lower tail that is not only below average, but distinctly separated from the best-performing states.
Regional patterns in the supplied data
The dataset is state-based, so it invites regional reading, but the figures should be treated as state-level outcomes first. Still, certain broad patterns are visible.
Northeast and nearby states
The Northeast and nearby states in the source include mixed outcomes rather than a single pattern. Delaware is the overall leader at 76%, Vermont is at 75%, New Hampshire is at 63%, Massachusetts is at 60%, Maine is at 59%, Connecticut is at 45%, Rhode Island is at 42%, New York is at 42%, and New Jersey is at 50% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
That spread shows that proximity does not guarantee similar results. Within the same broad part of the country, the dataset ranges from the low 40s to the mid-70s.
South and Southeast
The southern states in the source are especially varied. Alabama posts 21%, Florida 34%, Georgia 53%, Kentucky 61%, Louisiana 39%, Mississippi 46%, North Carolina 57%, South Carolina 41%, Tennessee 48%, Texas 51%, Virginia 51%, and West Virginia 66% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
This is a wide band of outcomes. The southern group includes some of the lowest results in the entire dataset, but it also includes several states above 50% and one, West Virginia, at 66% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Midwest and Plains states
The Midwest and Plains entries also show a mixed profile. Illinois is at 55%, Indiana at 52%, Iowa at 51%, Kansas at 36%, Michigan at 43%, Minnesota at 51%, Missouri at 66%, Nebraska at 61%, North Dakota at 73%, Ohio at 42%, South Dakota at 68%, Wisconsin at 54%, and Wyoming at 58% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Here again, the key story is spread. The region includes states in the 30s and low 40s, but it also includes a group above 60% and one state, North Dakota, in the low 70s.
West and Mountain states
Western states in the source include Alaska at 67%, Arizona at 44%, California at 51%, Colorado at 71%, Idaho at 60%, Montana at 52%, Nevada at 68%, New Mexico at 53%, Oregon at 48%, Utah at 64%, Washington at 62%, and Wyoming at 58% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Colorado stands out as the strongest western state in the set at 71%, while Arizona and Oregon sit below the middle. That combination makes the West another example of internal diversity rather than a single regional trend.
How to read these employment statistics
The dataset uses an RSA-911 rehabilitation rate, so the percentages are best read as a state-level outcome measure rather than a simple headcount. The numbers tell you how outcomes differ by geography, not how many people live with intellectual disabilities in each state.
Practical interpretation points
- Higher percentages indicate stronger rehabilitation outcomes in the source dataset (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
- Lower percentages indicate weaker outcomes relative to other states in the same table (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
- A midpoint near 50% is not a ceiling or floor; it is simply the center of this particular spread, and many states cluster around it (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
- The size of the gap matters because the difference between 21% and 76% is large enough to signal structural variation across states rather than a minor fluctuation (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
Useful benchmarks from the table
If you want a fast mental model for the data, these reference points help:
- Below 40%: Alabama, Florida, Kansas, and Louisiana fall clearly below the midpoint (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
- Around 50%: California, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Virginia, and New Jersey sit close to the center of the distribution (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
- 60% and above: Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Washington, Utah, New Hampshire, Missouri, West Virginia, Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota, Colorado, Maryland, North Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware all clear that threshold (Policy Research Brief: Table 2).
That last group is worth highlighting because it contains many of the strongest outcomes in the entire set.
Selected state takeaways
States to watch at the high end
- Delaware: 76%, the highest value in the dataset (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Vermont: 75%, nearly matching the top state (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- North Dakota: 73%, another standout above 70% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Colorado and Maryland: 71% each, showing the high end is not isolated to one state (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
States near the center
- California, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia all sit at 51% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- New Jersey sits at 50% exactly, making it a clean midpoint reference point in the table (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Illinois at 55% and Oklahoma at 54% show the transition from the middle toward the upper half (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
States pulling the average down
- Alabama at 21% is the most extreme low in the dataset (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Florida at 34% and Kansas at 36% remain notably below the midpoint (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Louisiana at 39% and South Carolina at 41% continue that lower-end pattern (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
States with notable upward movement
- Missouri and West Virginia both reach 66% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Alaska reaches 67% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Nevada and South Dakota both reach 68% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Utah reaches 64%, while Washington reaches 62% and New Hampshire reaches 63% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
These are not tiny improvements over the midpoint. They are sizable jumps that place these states in a clearly stronger part of the distribution.
What the spread suggests
The strongest single takeaway from the dataset is not any one state’s score. It is the distance between the bottom and the top, plus the broad middle in between.
In the supplied statistics, intellectual disability employment outcomes vary from the low 20s to the mid-70s, with many states in the 40s, 50s, and low 60s (Policy Research Brief: Table 2). That kind of distribution is useful because it gives readers a real benchmark range instead of a flat average.
Quick reference list
- Highest state: Delaware, 76% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Lowest state: Alabama, 21% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Range: 55 percentage points between the lowest and highest states (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Midpoint reference: New Jersey at 50% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
- Strong cluster above 70%: Delaware, Vermont, North Dakota, Colorado, and Maryland (Policy Research Brief: Table 2)
Data pattern summary
The source statistics show a broad and uneven state-by-state picture of intellectual disability employment outcomes. Some states are firmly above 60%, several sit close to 50%, and a few fall well below 40% (Policy Research Brief: Table 2). That mix is the main story the numbers tell.