Alameda County panel flags large data gaps and persistent poverty among residents with disabilities

Supervisor Carson convened the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Health Committee on Nov. 25 for the eighth installment of a county series spotlighting health status across specific populations. County presenters and community advocates described persistent disparities for residents with disabilities and urged steps to improve data, services and accessibility.

Colleen Chawla, Agency Director for Alameda County Health, said the county’s presentations use available national and state surveys as well as local program data to identify needs and guide policy. "We have to integrate data and information so that we can follow trends," she said, framing the two-part briefing on disability and LGBTQIA+ health.

Sandy Galvez, who led the historical and demographic portion of the disability presentation, detailed how exclusionary policies in the 19th and 20th centuries shaped current barriers and reviewed definitions used in the county’s analysis (ADA legal definitions, the World Health Organization frame, and American Community Survey functional measures). She told supervisors that older adults show the highest prevalence of disability and that American Indian and Alaska Native residents have comparatively high rates in ACS measures.

Julia Raifman, director of community assessment, planning and evaluation at the Public Health Department, said county data are limited — in particular mortality and some program-level demographic details — and that these gaps make it harder to tailor services. "We have less data than we wish on the health of people living with disabilities in Alameda County," Raifman said, noting that the ACS is the primary reliable county-level source.

Presenters cited several concrete disparities: nearly one in five people with disabilities in the county live in poverty, disabled residents face substantially higher rent burdens (presenters cited roughly 59 percent rent burden and 35 percent severe rent burden on slides), and about 54 percent of adults with disabilities were reported as neither employed nor in school versus 16 percent of people without disabilities.

County staff reviewed existing programs that serve people with disabilities, including the California Children’s Services (CCS) and Medical Therapy Program, behavioral health services and the county’s Functional Assessment and Service Team (FAST) for disaster response. They highlighted the Developmental Disabilities Council, an advisory body that coordinates services across housing, health, emergency preparedness and employment.

Jillian McLeod, a legal fellow at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), urged stronger disability demographic data collection and warned of national legal risks to civil rights protections. McLeod referenced ongoing litigation challenging Section 504 and urged the county to consider a Universal Design ordinance, increase accessibility of medical equipment and expand disability cultural‑competency training for staff and providers.

Supervisors pressed on methodology and local control of data collection. Supervisor Tam asked how the county could shore up collection beyond ACS five‑year files; presenters recommended a multi‑tiered approach that includes influencing state and funder data standards, improving intake systems in county programs, and adding standardized questions about functional limitations and chronic conditions rather than relying solely on self‑identification.

The presentation closed with a set of staff recommendations: adopt standardized disability questions across county programs, invest in ADA technical assistance and accessible materials (ASL interpreters, braille, plain language), expand employment pipelines for people with disabilities, and strengthen coordination with housing and social services to prevent institutionalization.

Next steps noted at the meeting included further work to identify where the county can change intake systems and which policy levers (local ordinances, contract requirements, grant terms) can most quickly improve data and access. The committee did not take a formal vote on the recommendations during the session.