Best & Worst Cities for People with Disabilities (2026)

Adam McCann, WalletHub Financial WriterSep 24, 2025

Adam McCann, WalletHub Financial Writer
Sep 24, 2025

When searching for a new home, people with disabilities often have a longer and more complicated list of considerations compared with other individuals. In addition to common wish-list items, such as reliable public transportation and diverse entertainment options, people with disabilities also must think about things like the accessibility of facilities or even the cleanliness of the air.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29% of U.S. adults have a disability that impacts their major activities. Keeping up with the costs of a disability can be very expensive, too. The average monthly Social Security disability benefit as of August 2025 was only $1,445.72. That makes a yearly income of $17,348.64, only slightly above the federal poverty line for a single individual at $15,650.

Although disability benefits can increase based on inflation, many people with disabilities rely on low cost of living and wages for financial relief. In 2024, over 7.7 million people with disabilities were employed. Naturally, though, a far lower share of people with disabilities are able to work compared to the share of people with no major health issues.

With the physical and economic challenges of managing a disability in mind, WalletHub compared more than 180 most populated cities across 33 key indicators of disability-friendliness. Our data set ranges from physicians per capita to the rate of workers with disabilities to park accessibility.

“More than one in four U.S. adults live with a disability, so it’s extremely important for cities to prioritize becoming a safe, welcoming and affordable place for this demographic. The best cities have highly-accessible public facilities and housing, high-quality medical care, and an affordable cost of living for people on a fixed income.”

Chip Lupo, WalletHub Analyst

Table of Contents

Main Findings

In the overall ranking below, readers who are particularly interested in the best places to live on disability income should focus on the “Economy” category. Likewise, those who place a higher premium on quality of medical care should focus on the “Health Care” category.

Embed on your website

Best & Worst Cities for People with Disabilities

Overall Rank	City	Total Score	Economy Rank	Quality of Life Rank	Health Care Rank
1	Minneapolis, MN	61.62	84	6	1
2	St. Louis, MO	61.19	61	3	13
3	Scottsdale, AZ	59.66	11	53	6
4	Columbus, OH	59.06	5	17	60
5	St. Paul, MN	58.74	113	29	2
6	Chandler, AZ	58.31	6	95	10
7	Peoria, AZ	58.13	4	111	9
8	Pittsburgh, PA	58.08	85	26	11
9	Gilbert, AZ	58.06	2	131	8
10	Huntington Beach, CA	57.94	41	30	18
11	Mesa, AZ	57.16	9	82	15
12	Tempe, AZ	56.99	21	72	14
13	Kansas City, MO	56.87	17	70	22
14	Colorado Springs, CO	56.87	10	80	20
15	Denver, CO	56.80	71	21	35
16	Irvine, CA	55.66	94	51	16
17	Oakland, CA	55.47	155	1	49
18	San Francisco, CA	55.29	159	2	46
19	Plano, TX	55.01	1	107	104
20	Santa Ana, CA	54.99	80	45	38
21	Overland Park, KS	54.81	8	153	19
22	Virginia Beach, VA	54.80	3	77	100
23	Columbia, MD	54.75	7	91	69
24	Wilmington, DE	54.71	111	9	71
25	Philadelphia, PA	54.71	157	11	34
26	Grand Rapids, MI	54.70	105	23	50
27	Portland, ME	54.63	130	42	30
28	Indianapolis, IN	54.44	90	93	12
29	Riverside, CA	54.41	38	35	76
30	Sioux Falls, SD	54.35	27	159	4
31	Lewiston, ME	54.27	37	134	7
32	Glendale, AZ	54.25	83	75	23
33	Buffalo, NY	54.20	115	18	61
34	Phoenix, AZ	54.18	57	87	25
35	Vancouver, WA	54.12	18	22	142
36	Sacramento, CA	53.99	91	14	99
37	Glendale, CA	53.74	171	12	27
38	Garden Grove, CA	53.63	125	63	29
39	Springfield, MO	53.61	32	67	64
40	Madison, WI	53.60	76	54	55
41	Jersey City, NJ	53.44	43	48	88
41	Nashua, NH	53.44	81	68	41
43	Fremont, CA	53.43	50	79	42
44	Spokane, WA	53.34	52	58	70
45	San Diego, CA	53.31	126	33	52
46	Boston, MA	53.27	165	28	31
47	Baltimore, MD	53.15	123	25	74
48	St. Petersburg, FL	53.13	24	62	98
49	Yonkers, NY	53.08	54	38	102
50	San Jose, CA	53.00	101	47	62
51	Austin, TX	52.98	31	49	109
52	Rochester, NY	52.86	118	8	132
53	Seattle, WA	52.81	104	19	107
54	Long Beach, CA	52.73	176	15	37
55	Anaheim, CA	52.56	149	59	33
56	Des Moines, IA	52.52	77	121	28
57	Tucson, AZ	52.48	124	32	80
58	Santa Clarita, CA	52.39	106	110	21
59	Aurora, CO	52.38	59	98	43
60	Cleveland, OH	52.34	161	5	95
61	Orlando, FL	52.33	82	44	97
62	Rancho Cucamonga, CA	52.33	87	69	58
63	Raleigh, NC	52.32	19	89	96
64	Lexington-Fayette, KY	52.32	49	83	63
65	Cincinnati, OH	52.21	121	7	149
66	Fresno, CA	52.20	144	57	40
67	Portland, OR	52.06	127	4	158
68	Toledo, OH	52.04	69	66	78
69	Richmond, VA	51.85	158	27	68
70	Oceanside, CA	51.73	131	52	65
71	Chattanooga, TN	51.66	108	24	130
72	Fort Lauderdale, FL	51.60	56	41	139
73	Salt Lake City, UT	51.60	122	10	146
74	Tampa, FL	51.46	109	46	101
75	Louisville, KY	51.37	53	85	87
76	Columbus, GA	51.19	20	135	66
77	Charleston, WV	51.17	93	102	57
78	Milwaukee, WI	51.13	117	90	45
79	Lincoln, NE	50.99	66	105	67
80	Omaha, NE	50.93	96	97	53
81	Tacoma, WA	50.88	63	65	126
82	Worcester, MA	50.85	129	113	36
83	Jacksonville, FL	50.83	29	120	89
84	Stockton, CA	50.79	116	56	94
85	Bakersfield, CA	50.77	62	88	92
86	Salem, OR	50.69	75	43	150
87	Atlanta, GA	50.52	140	20	138
88	Boise, ID	50.44	142	125	26
89	Billings, MT	50.41	23	161	48
90	New York, NY	50.40	143	40	110
91	Augusta, GA	50.29	40	126	81
92	Los Angeles, CA	50.18	179	39	39
93	Port St. Lucie, FL	50.17	35	148	59
94	Santa Rosa, CA	49.98	120	37	140
95	Chula Vista, CA	49.90	150	84	54
96	Manchester, NH	49.84	128	115	44
97	Charleston, SC	49.82	102	104	72
98	Fargo, ND	49.66	51	163	47
99	Little Rock, AR	49.60	145	152	17
100	San Bernardino, CA	49.53	89	114	84
101	Fontana, CA	49.49	48	137	75
102	Missoula, MT	49.45	178	133	5
103	Modesto, CA	49.43	103	74	117
104	Chesapeake, VA	49.34	12	146	103
105	Las Cruces, NM	49.25	168	170	3
106	Durham, NC	49.12	47	106	131
107	Akron, OH	49.05	107	81	123
108	Moreno Valley, CA	48.95	60	139	79
109	Norfolk, VA	48.94	114	76	116
110	Cedar Rapids, IA	48.91	30	160	73
111	Washington, DC	48.80	163	16	159
112	Dover, DE	48.78	70	78	148
113	Oklahoma City, OK	48.67	16	158	118
114	Ontario, CA	48.55	147	100	76
115	Pembroke Pines, FL	48.54	100	96	128
116	Fort Worth, TX	48.39	26	129	144
117	Chicago, IL	48.36	153	34	155
118	Houston, TX	48.31	74	92	153
119	New Orleans, LA	48.19	160	60	106
120	El Paso, TX	48.12	25	124	165
121	Oxnard, CA	48.12	132	94	112
122	Albuquerque, NM	48.11	174	71	56
123	Detroit, MI	48.04	170	55	90
124	Bismarck, ND	48.04	146	175	24
125	Nashville, TN	48.01	92	117	122
126	Providence, RI	48.01	134	86	114
127	Knoxville, TN	47.99	138	116	83
128	Casper, WY	47.86	68	164	91
129	Miami, FL	47.85	177	13	163
130	Henderson, NV	47.78	67	127	135
131	Dallas, TX	47.72	58	101	169
132	Las Vegas, NV	47.46	136	61	168
133	Newport News, VA	47.45	55	143	113
134	Fayetteville, NC	47.34	33	157	133
135	San Antonio, TX	47.34	42	123	162
136	Grand Prairie, TX	47.28	13	168	145
137	Amarillo, TX	47.04	36	154	137
138	Warwick, RI	47.01	64	166	93
139	Reno, NV	47.01	141	64	170
140	Arlington, TX	46.99	28	142	157
141	Irving, TX	46.95	13	162	161
142	Cape Coral, FL	46.78	46	109	175
143	Nampa, ID	46.72	133	179	32
144	Tulsa, OK	46.70	97	136	121
145	Fort Wayne, IN	46.65	156	118	85
146	Wichita, KS	46.53	98	140	119
147	Lubbock, TX	46.45	86	149	111
148	Corpus Christi, TX	46.45	88	132	136
149	Brownsville, TX	46.44	73	174	86
150	Columbia, SC	46.10	162	99	108
151	Rapid City, SD	46.09	151	122	115
152	Huntington, WV	46.07	169	73	124
153	Charlotte, NC	45.99	78	144	143
154	Aurora, IL	45.96	45	156	154
155	Newark, NJ	45.54	148	103	156
156	Garland, TX	45.29	15	176	172
157	Fort Smith, AR	45.14	152	138	105
158	Tallahassee, FL	45.09	135	151	120
159	West Valley City, UT	45.02	72	141	174
160	Greensboro, NC	44.97	99	147	151
161	Hialeah, FL	44.88	154	108	152
162	Baton Rouge, LA	44.87	164	112	129
163	Cheyenne, WY	44.78	167	150	82
164	Birmingham, AL	44.40	119	130	173
165	Memphis, TN	44.27	110	145	164
166	Honolulu, HI	44.26	139	36	182
167	Anchorage, AK	44.15	65	177	141
168	Huntsville, AL	43.82	22	167	177
169	Bridgeport, CT	43.74	173	128	127
170	Winston-Salem, NC	43.65	95	169	160
171	Laredo, TX	43.59	79	180	134
172	North Las Vegas, NV	43.36	112	165	167
173	Shreveport, LA	42.90	180	172	51
174	New Haven, CT	42.90	175	119	147
175	Mobile, AL	42.23	39	173	180
176	Montgomery, AL	41.49	44	178	178
177	Burlington, VT	41.39	181	31	171
178	Jackson, MS	41.08	166	181	125
179	Pearl City, HI	40.32	34	171	181
180	Gulfport, MS	39.37	172	155	176
181	South Burlington, VT	39.17	182	50	166
182	Juneau, AK	38.44	137	182	179

Note: With the exception of “Total Score,” all of the columns in the table above depict the relative rank of that city, where a rank of 1 represents the best conditions for that metric category.

Cost of Living

Lowest

Lowest
1. Brownsville, TX
2. Oklahoma City, OK
3. Amarillo, TX
T-4. Akron, OH
T-4. Augusta, GA

Highest

Highest
T-167. Santa Rosa, CA
T-167. New York, NY
T-167. San Jose, CA
T-167. Pearl City, HI
T-167. Honolulu, HI

Employment Rate for People with Disabilities

Highest

Highest
1. Sioux Falls, SD
2. Wilmington, DE
3. Billings, MT
4. Nampa, ID
5. Plano, TX

Lowest

Lowest
178. Bridgeport, CT
179. Cleveland, OH
180. Shreveport, LA
181. Glendale, CA
182. South Burlington, VT

% of People with Disabilities in Poverty

Lowest

Lowest
1. Plano, TX
2. Gilbert, AZ
3. Pearl City, HI
4. Henderson, NV
5. Overland Park, KS

Highest

Highest
178. Huntington, WV
179. Detroit, MI
180. New Haven, CT
181. Buffalo, NY
182. Cleveland, OH

Cost of Doctor Visit

Lowest

Lowest
1. Augusta, GA
2. St. Louis, MO
T-3. Riverside, CA
T-3. San Bernardino, CA
T-3. Fontana, CA

Highest

Highest
T-170. Boston, MA
T-170. Fargo, ND
T-170. Madison, WI
T-170. Anchorage, AK
T-170. Juneau, AK

Annual Cost of In-Home Services

Lowest

Lowest
T-1. Columbus, OH
T-1. Laredo, TX
3. Brownsville, TX
4. Huntington, WV
T-5. El Paso, TX
T-5. Winston-Salem, NC

Highest

Highest
T-175. Sioux Falls, SD
T-175. Rapid City, SD
T-179. Amarillo, TX
T-179. Portland, ME
181. Cheyenne, WY

% of People with Disabilities Living in the Area

Highest

Highest
1. Fort Smith, AR
2. Gulfport, MS
3. Huntington, WV
4. Charleston, WV
5. Cleveland, OH

Lowest

Lowest
T-177. Plano, TX
T-177. Gilbert, AZ
179. Jersey City, NJ
T-180. Irving, TX
T-180. Fremont, CA
182. Irvine, CA

% of Population with Walkable Park Access

Highest

Highest
1. Boston, MA
2. San Francisco, CA
3. St. Paul, MN
4. New York, NY
5. Washington, DC

Lowest

Lowest
98. Charlotte, NC
99. Louisville, KY
100. Winston-Salem, NC
101. Jacksonville, FL
102. Indianapolis, IN

Family Medicine Physicians per Capita

Most

Most
T-1. Sioux Falls, SD
T-1. Little Rock, AR
T-1. Fresno, CA
T-1. Oklahoma City, OK
T-5. Boise, ID
T-5. Nampa, ID

Fewest

Fewest
176. Birmingham, AL
177. Corpus Christi, TX
178. Huntsville, AL
179. Baton Rouge, LA
180. Wichita, KS

In-Depth Look at the Top Cities

Minneapolis, MN

Minneapolis is the best city for people with disabilities, in part due to the availability of affordable, quality medical care. The average monthly health insurance premium in Minneapolis is $355, the second-lowest in the country. In addition, the city has the eighth-best public hospitals and the 11th-most hospitals per capita.

Minneapolis has also made strides with accessibility, ranking as the 26th-best city when it comes to the number of wheelchair-accessible grocery stores and 25th-best for arts and entertainment establishments per capita. It has the fifth-most wheelchair-accessible trails as well, and over 98% of residents live within half a mile of a park.

Finally, over 27% of homes listed for sale in Minneapolis are wheelchair-accessible, the 11th-most in the country.

St. Louis, MO

St. Louis, MO, is the second-best city for people with disabilities, in part because the city has earned a strong reputation among healthcare professionals. St. Louis, ranks 12th-best city for doctors and 11th-best city for nurses. In addition, the city has the 19th-highest share of people with disabilities, which improves accessibility within city buildings.

St. Louis offers excellent green space access for people with disabilities, with most parks located near where residents live. Over 97% of parks are accessible, the 10th-most in the country. On top of that, St. Louis has the 14th-highest walkability score.

Scottsdale, AZ

Scottsdale, AZ, is the third-best city for people with disabilities, leading the country when it comes to the number of arts and entertainment establishments, and recreational establishments. In addition, Scottsdale residents have access to Arizona’s state Medicaid program, which ranks as the best in the country.

Scottsdale also offers a great financial environment for residents with disabilities. It has the 20th-highest median annual income for people with disabilities, at $37,309, and the eighth-lowest poverty rate for that demographic.

Scottsdale keeps costs relatively low, too. The average doctor’s visit costs $99, the ninth-lowest in the country, and the average monthly health care premium is $382, the sixth-lowest.

Ask The Experts

Living with a disability can be both financially and physically burdensome. In light of these challenges, we asked a panel of experts to share their thoughts on the following key questions:

What are some unique financial challenges faced by people with disabilities, particularly those who rely on government assistance? How can they be overcome?
In evaluating the best cities for people with disabilities, what are the top five indicators?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was adopted over three decades ago. What 21st-century improvements should be made, if any, to this important act?
What local policies and programs have proven effective in increasing inclusion of and improving the quality of life for people with disabilities?
What can be done to facilitate better access to health care for people with disabilities?

Ask the Experts

Matthew Bogenschutz
Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Director, Virginia LEND, Partnership for People with Disabilities - Virginia Commonwealth University
Read More

Shanna K. Kattari
Ph.D., MEd, CSE, Associate Professor, School of Social Work | Department of Women's and Gender Studies - University of Michigan
Read More

Misty Vetter Parsley
Ed.D. – Executive Director, Office of Accessibility and Learning Supports, Professor of Education - Lipscomb University
Read More

Stephen Glicksman
Ph.D. – Developmental Psychologist; Director of Innovation, Makor Care & Services Network; Director, Makor College Experience Program, Yeshiva University; Adjunct Associate Professor, Yeshiva University
Read More

Katie Crawford
Ph.D., LCSW - Private Practitioner & Consultant - The Journey Home Therapy and Consulting Services
Read More

Tracy Rackensperger
Ph.D. – Public Service Faculty, Employment Initiatives Coordinator and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Outreach Specialist; Project Director, Preparing for Employment (An Advancing Employment Initiative); UGA Training Director, Rehabilitation Research Training Center (RRTC) on Accommodations, Employment Supports and Success for People with Physical Disabilities (ACCESS-PD); CAUSE Facilitator and Resources and Outreach Manager, Advancing Employment; Co-Leader of Training and Dissemination, RERC on AAC; Lead Trainer, Living Well Georgia; Instructor, Disabilities Studies Certificate – University of Georgia, Institute on Human Development and Disability
Read More

More Experts

Methodology

To determine the most livable places for people with disabilities, WalletHub compared 182 cities — including the 150 most populated U.S. cities, plus at least two of the most populated cities in each state — across three key dimensions: 1) Economy, 2) Quality of Life and 3) Health Care.

We evaluated those dimensions using 33 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing the most favorable conditions for people with disabilities. Please note that data for metrics marked with an asterisk (*) were available at the state level only. For metrics marked with two asterisks (**), the square root of the population was used to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for minor differences across cities.

Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample. In determining our sample, we considered only the “city proper” in each case and excluded cities in the surrounding metro area.

Economy – Total Points: 33.33

Housing Affordability: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)
Note: This metric was calculated as follows: Housing Costs (accounts for both rental and sale prices) / Median Annual Household Income.
Cost of Living: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)
Median Earnings for People with Disabilities: Double Weight (~5.56 Points)
Employment Rate for People with Disabilities: Double Weight (~5.56 Points)
Share of People with Disabilities Living in Poverty: Double Weight (~5.56 Points)
Share of Homeless People with Disabilities: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)
Annual Cost of In-Home Services: Full Weight (~2.78 Points)
Note: In-home, or homemaker services, include basic household assistance such as shopping, laundry, personal hygiene and meal preparation.
Presence of CDC Funding for Disability & Health Programs*: Half Weight (~1.39 Points)
Note: This binary metric considers the presence or absence of funding for disability and health programs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Presence of Public-Housing Waiting List for Seniors/People with Disabilities*: Half Weight (~1.39 Points)
Note: This binary metric considers the presence or absence of public-housing waiting lists that are currently open for seniors and people with disabilities. Public Housing is a federal program managed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Presence of “Disability Insurance” Programs*: Half Weight (~1.39 Points)
Presence of Employment First*: Half Weight (~1.39 Points)
Note: This metric measures the presence or absence of employment first activity, executive order or legislation in a state. The Employment First Program facilitates inclusion of people with significant disabilities in the workplace, encouraging integrated employment as the first and preferred option for youth and adults with disabilities receiving assistance from publicly funded systems.

Quality of Life – Total Points: 33.33

Share of People with Disabilities: Double Weight (~6.06 Points)
Special-Education Teachers per 1,000 School-Aged People with Disabilities: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Graduation Rate for Students with Disabilities*: Half Weight (~1.52 Points)
Wheelchair-Accessible Restaurants per Capita**: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Wheelchair-Accessible Grocery Stores per Capita**: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Wheelchair-Accessible Art, Entertainment & Recreational Establishments per Capita**: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Wheelchair-Accessible Trails per Capita**: Half Weight (~1.52 Points)
Share of Population with Walkable Park Access: Half Weight (~1.52 Points)
Walkability: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Effectiveness of State Medicaid Programs*: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)
Note: This metric is based on the annual ranking of how well state Medicaid programs serve Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities (ID/DD).
Share of Young Buildings: Half Weight (~1.52 Points)
Note: This metric considers the difficulty in making older buildings accessible and accounts for buildings built in 2000 or later.
Share of Accessible Homes Listed on Redfin.com: Full Weight (~3.03 Points)

Health Care – Total Points: 33.33

Cost of Doctor Visit: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)
Average Per-Person Health-Insurance Premium*: Half Weight (~2.22 Points)
Family Medicine Physicians per Capita: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)
Occupational Therapists per Capita: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)
Home Health Aides & Personal Care Aides per Capita: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)
Note: Home health aides and personal care aides help people with disabilities, chronic illnesses, or cognitive impairment by assisting in their daily living activities.
WalletHub “Doctors” Ranking*: Half Weight (~2.22 Points)
WalletHub “Nurses” Ranking*: Half Weight (~2.22 Points)
Hospitals per Capita*: Half Weight (~2.22 Points)
Quality of Public Hospital System*: Half Weight (~2.22 Points)
Share of Uninsured Population: Full Weight (~4.44 Points)

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected as of August 27, 2025 from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Council for Community and Economic Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Education Statistics, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Trust For Public Land, Genworth Financial, United Cerebral Palsy, APSE - Association of People Supporting Employment First, WalkScore, Yelp, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Affordable Housing Online, Kaiser Family Foundation, Redfin.com, Mercer and WalletHub research.

Supporting Video Files:

Questions & Answers(2 questions)

Editorial and user-generated content on this page is not reviewed or otherwise endorsed by any financial institution. Please keep in mind that it is not a financial institution’s responsibility to ensure all posts and questions are answered.

Upvotes

Is this ranking about physical, rather than developmental disabilities? Were autistic people, or intellectually disabled people, considered?

Upvotes

Which city in the United States is the most physical disability friendly so far is health benefits and other benefits are concerned?

Was this article helpful?

Expert Commentary

WalletHub experts are widely quoted. Contact our media team to schedule an interview.

Important Disclosures

Ad Disclosure: Certain offers that appear on this site originate from paying advertisers. For full transparency, here is a list of our current advertisers.

Advertisers compensate WalletHub when you click on a link, or your application is approved, or your account is opened. Advertising impacts how and where offers appear on this site (including, for example, the order in which they appear and their prevalence). At WalletHub we try to present a wide array of offers, but our offers do not represent all financial services companies or products.

Advertising enables WalletHub to provide you proprietary tools, services, and content at no charge. Advertising does not impact WalletHub's editorial content including our best picks, reviews, ratings and opinions. Those are completely independent and not provided, commissioned, or endorsed by any company, as our editors follow a strict editorial policy.

WalletHub is not a financial advisor. Our goal is to provide you with top-notch content, data, and tools. You are responsible for deciding what financial products and providers are best for your needs.

Irrespective of whether an institution or professional is a paid advertiser, the presence of information on WalletHub does not constitute a referral or endorsement of the institution or professional by us or vice versa.

We work hard to show you up-to-date product terms, however, this information does not originate from us and thus, we do not guarantee its accuracy. Actual terms may vary. Before submitting an application, always verify all terms and conditions with the offering institution. Please let us know if you notice any differences.