Search

PROBLEM/CONDITION Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). PERIOD COVERED 2018. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network conducts active surveillance of ASD. This report focuses on the prevalence and characteristics of ASD among children aged 8 years in 2018 whose parents or guardians lived in 11 ADDM Network sites in the United States (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). To ascertain ASD among children aged 8 years, ADDM Network staff review and abstract developmental evaluations and records from community medical and educational service providers. In 2018, children met the case definition if their records documented 1) an ASD diagnostic statement in an evaluation (diagnosis), 2) a special education classification of ASD (eligibility), or 3) an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. RESULTS For 2018, across all 11 ADDM sites, ASD prevalence per 1,000 children aged 8 years ranged from 16.5 in Missouri to 38.9 in California. The overall ASD prevalence was 23.0 per 1,000 (one in 44) children aged 8 years, and ASD was 4.2 times as prevalent among boys as among girls. Overall ASD prevalence was similar across racial and ethnic groups, except American Indian/Alaska Native children had higher ASD prevalence than non-Hispanic White (White) children (29.0 versus 21.2 per 1,000 children aged 8 years). At multiple sites, Hispanic children had lower ASD prevalence than White children (Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, and Utah), and non-Hispanic Black (Black) children (Georgia and Minnesota). The associations between ASD prevalence and neighborhood-level median household income varied by site. Among the 5,058 children who met the ASD case definition, 75.8% had a diagnostic statement of ASD in an evaluation, 18.8% had an ASD special education classification or eligibility and no ASD diagnostic statement, and 5.4% had an ASD ICD code only. ASD prevalence per 1,000 children aged 8 years that was based exclusively on documented ASD diagnostic statements was 17.4 overall (range: 11.2 in Maryland to 29.9 in California). The median age of earliest known ASD diagnosis ranged from 36 months in California to 63 months in Minnesota. Among the 3,007 children with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% were classified as having an intelligence quotient (IQ) score ≤70. The percentages of children with ASD with IQ scores ≤70 were 49.8%, 33.1%, and 29.7% among Black, Hispanic, and White children, respectively. Overall, children with ASD and IQ scores ≤70 had earlier median ages of ASD diagnosis than children with ASD and IQ scores >70 (44 versus 53 months). INTERPRETATION In 2018, one in 44 children aged 8 years was estimated to have ASD, and prevalence and median age of identification varied widely across sites. Whereas overall ASD prevalence was similar by race and ethnicity, at certain sites Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD than White or Black children. The higher proportion of Black children compared with White and Hispanic children classified as having intellectual disability was consistent with previous findings. PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION The variability in ASD prevalence and community ASD identification practices among children with different racial, ethnic, and geographical characteristics highlights the importance of research into the causes of that variability and strategies to provide equitable access to developmental evaluations and services. These findings also underscore the need for enhanced infrastructure for diagnostic, treatment, and support services to meet the needs of all children.

Background Many children and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) need services and support across their lifespans. Currently many residential and community living supports are delivered through state intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) service systems. Method A random sample of 11,947 individual users of adult IDD services from 25 states that included 1,459 individuals with an autism diagnosis was analyzed for this study looking at demographic characteristics and living arrangements. Comparisons were made between adults with and without ASD who receive services through the IDD service system. Results Overall, individuals with an ASD diagnosis were younger on average, had a higher percentage of males, and had higher percentages of the No Intellectual Disabilities (ID) and Severe ID categories compared to individuals without an ASD diagnosis. There was a significant association between the type of living arrangement and ASD status with a higher percentage of participants with ASD living in a family member’s home, but a lower percentage of people with ASD living in agency apartments, in their own home or an “other” living arrangement. However, with age, gender, and level of ID and challenging behavior taken into account, people with ASD had 29% higher odds of living in a family member’s home but 42% lower odds of living in their own home when compared to people with other developmental disabilities who received residential services through state IDD service systems. Conclusions There are key differences in access and utilization of residential services between people with ASD and people without ASD. While state developmental disabilities systems are serving individuals with ASD there are potential influences of state policies regarding ASD eligibility for various residential services. Implications for future research are discussed.

Problem/condition Autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Period covered 2016. Description of system The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network is an active surveillance program that provides estimates of the prevalence of ASD among children aged 8 years whose parents or guardians live in 11 ADDM Network sites in the United States (Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). Surveillance is conducted in two phases. The first phase involves review and abstraction of comprehensive evaluations that were completed by medical and educational service providers in the community. In the second phase, experienced clinicians who systematically review all abstracted information determine ASD case status. The case definition is based on ASD criteria described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Results For 2016, across all 11 sites, ASD prevalence was 18.5 per 1,000 (one in 54) children aged 8 years, and ASD was 4.3 times as prevalent among boys as among girls. ASD prevalence varied by site, ranging from 13.1 (Colorado) to 31.4 (New Jersey). Prevalence estimates were approximately identical for non-Hispanic white (white), non-Hispanic black (black), and Asian/Pacific Islander children (18.5, 18.3, and 17.9, respectively) but lower for Hispanic children (15.4). Among children with ASD for whom data on intellectual or cognitive functioning were available, 33% were classified as having intellectual disability (intelligence quotient [IQ] ≤70); this percentage was higher among girls than boys (39% versus 32%) and among black and Hispanic than white children (47%, 36%, and 27%, respectively) [corrected]. Black children with ASD were less likely to have a first evaluation by age 36 months than were white children with ASD (40% versus 45%). The overall median age at earliest known ASD diagnosis (51 months) was similar by sex and racial and ethnic groups; however, black children with IQ ≤70 had a later median age at ASD diagnosis than white children with IQ ≤70 (48 months versus 42 months). Interpretation The prevalence of ASD varied considerably across sites and was higher than previous estimates since 2014. Although no overall difference in ASD prevalence between black and white children aged 8 years was observed, the disparities for black children persisted in early evaluation and diagnosis of ASD. Hispanic children also continue to be identified as having ASD less frequently than white or black children. Public health action These findings highlight the variability in the evaluation and detection of ASD across communities and between sociodemographic groups. Continued efforts are needed for early and equitable identification of ASD and timely enrollment in services.

Community living used to mean “not living in an institution.” Today, in the USA, community living means much more. It means living in the community in which a person wants to live and it also means participating in a person’s community of choice. Community living means having opportunities to work in the community, to develop skills related to home living, to navigate the community, to ensure self-care, safety, and personal health. It also means participating in community activities and things of personal interest and being able to maintain and expand social networks, friends, family members, and allies. Most children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) live at home with their families or in supported community living arrangements. This is the result of tremendous advocacy on the part of families, people with disabilities and their allies. It is also the result of litigation and policies that provide certain promises and protections related to community, local, national, and in some ways, international levels. This chapter provides an overview of community living and participation for people with IDD with a focus on where they live, work, and have fun, and about the people and processes that support them in having quality lives in their communities of choice.