Case for Inclusion Methodology Notes
Generally speaking, the Case for Inclusion aggregates data from an array of credible, national sources that collect data from states or from the federal government and make those data available to the public as a service to the broader disability community.
Data measures typically assess all 50 states and the District of Columbia on 80 measures across seven different issue areas that illustrate the extent to which states are investing in community-based intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) services. In some cases, states may choose not to participate in data collection, in which case data is only furnished for participating states. The issue areas comprising the Case for Inclusion are:
- Addressing a Workforce in Crisis
- Keeping Families Together
- Promoting Independence
- Promoting Productivity
- Reaching Those in Need
- Serving at a Reasonable Cost
- Tracking Health, Safety & Quality of Life
These issue areas are meant to serve only as a sorting mechanism; the vast array of indicators are more easily understood when considered in the context of the broader topic area illuminated by the data. The data for individual indicators are presented as published from their original sources; they have not been altered, nor have calculations been made based on the data.
Because of differences in the cycles on which original data sources collect, publish and disseminate data, the timing of when new data are available on this website is irregular. Generally speaking, we strive to ensure the most recent available data from a given source can be found on this site. In some cases, however, new data has been released by its original source but has not yet been added to this site.
Additionally, users should note that there is typically a lag between the period of time reflected in a particular dataset and when it is published by its original source, as well as between when it is published by its original source and when it is published on this website. For example, if the newest data for Measure X reflects Calendar Year 2022, but the original source for Measure X collected the data in 2023 and published it in 2024, it may not be published here until 2025. In this scenario, there is a 2-3 year gap between when the data appeared on this website (2025) and the time period it reflects (2022).
Why repurpose data that has already been published by other organizations?
A common question we receive is why duplicate the data here when it’s available from the original sources. Two reasons drive this approach. First, most of the original sources of data focus on a particular issue area (e.g., residential supports, employment opportunities, etc.); we aggregate data about different issues so advocates have a one-stop shop for understanding how well states are supporting individuals with IDD. Second, many of the original data sources track dozens or hundreds of measures. While this makes them a gold mine with different data that are useful for a diverse array of audiences, the Case for Inclusion presents a select number of measures that are ideally appealing to a wide audience.
For that reason, we are immensely grateful for the organizations that serve as the sources of the original data, and encourage users of the Case for Inclusion to visit those organizations' websites for new data, data on additional measures, detailed methodology information and more. Typically, the organizations that are the sources of the original data can be found in the citations on the pages of this website that house data applications (i.e., pages accessed by navigating to "Data by State" or "Data by Issue").
Does the Case for Inclusion rank the states on their outcomes?
From 2006 until 2019, the Case for Inclusion aggregated its various data measures by weighting different measures with different values to develop an overall score for each state. Then, it sorted states’ scores from highest to lowest to develop a ranking for each state. However, as the Case for Inclusion became more widely used and grew to include a wider array of measures, it became increasingly challenging and methodologically questionable to aggregate such disparate measures into a single score. Therefore, starting in 2020, state rankings have been abandoned. It should be noted that the data underlying these scores have been preserved as a resource for advocates.