the 15% in full time emplyment

I think this is an interesting statistic and it is a sad reflection on society that so many people with this disability are not working. I am, however, more dismayed by the difficulty that people report in getting to the diagnosis. This is one of my main observations from frequenting this forum for the last year. People are put off by the nature of the process and by the hurdles raised by having the condition. Those with the condition are least able to argue for a diagnosis. This is a real Catch-22.

The difficulty in getting a diagnosis means that many people who are struggling but keeping in work do not have a diagnosis and this is a major reason why the 15% figure (or whatever the number actually is) is so low. More severely affected people often have more obvious traits and issues and in more need of a diagnosis and are therefore more likely to be accepted by the system. This latter group of people are less likely to be in work and a sample of diagnoses in an NHS mental health unit will likely reflect this.

OK, I may have misunderstood. I was thrown by the latter part.

But the thing is, the fact someone is in full time employment doesn't get passed on anywhere, if indeed adequate records are being kept of all diagnoses. And that doesn't cover for people moving to new locations.

So to ask people if they are in full time employment you have to find all those diagnosed.

NAS hasn't got that information. Local authorities are supposed to find out but mostly haven't (but that data wont have employment status either). DHS/DWP might have records of people seeking employment/on benefits, but by the sound of things not reliably whether they have an autism diagnosis.

The likely source of NAS's 15% is a membership survey (apparently 8 years ago), with the limitations I explained above.

Which remains a grave concern.

longman said:

What you've just said confirms the Government notion that a lot of people declining or failing to get a job are malingerers and skivers and benefit cheats. Unless you've got a really obvious disability you shouldn't refuse or fail to get work.

I don't see the connection between what I said and any thoughts about government, malingerers etc. It was in my mind that the most severely affected are most likely to get a diagnosis and they are also most likely to be unemployed.

A further point needs to be made here.

The Conservatives are back for another five years, without whatever ameliorating effect there ever was in the previous coalition.

This Government has pledged to half the employment/disability gap.

That means that a figure of only 15% in full time work will be viewed by them as a challenge. They'll want to make it 45% or at least 30%.

It has been clear from the benefits and PIP reviews that this Government (with Nazi-like proficiency) adores targets. It was quite clear, despite denials in the press, that the decisions over who should get benefits or PIP were based on substantially reducing the numbers claiming. They want to get the costs down.

NAS constantly waving at them this 'out of thin air' just 15% in full employment,  isn't going to get any sympathy from this Government. It will be 'like a red rag to a bull'.

So I wish NAS would be more careful.

Hi recombinantsocks,

Interesting you've opened up the whole debate again. We've been round this theme a good many times over the years. But it is at the root of the problem.

The Government/Department of work and pensions wants people with autism to work and not claim benefits.

What you've just said confirms the Government notion that a lot of people declining or failing to get a job are malingerers and skivers and benefit cheats. Unless you've got a really obvious disability you shouldn't refuse or fail to get work.

The review of benefits and PIP has resulted in a lot of people with an autism diagnosis being told that doesn't stop them working, and they've been forced onto various schemes to get them back to work. But there has been little research on what prevents them working, and mostly it is assumed that the Social Model of Disability, making general accommodations for all, will suffice.

Now I had mostly held down a job for 25 years by the time I was diagnosed. I was diagnosed as having good coping strategies already and being able to use the information well, which I did. I've never claimed any dispensations. And yes, I had difficulty getting a diagnosis exactly for the reasons you've indicated. I didn't and still don't look the part.

The fact that I had development difficulties, staggered puberty, suffered prolonged bullying, have always had great difficulty connecting socially, and a tendency to get fixated on things, and sensory overload problems may be down to a variety of causes, not just autism. But I'm a survivor and I just get on with it.

By your argument all my life difficulties may just be "imagining things" or "being over-dramatic". Does rather pull the rug out from under all those years of struggle - but I'm sure that's what a lot of people think - just another malingerer.

It doesn't remove the problem I introduced in this thread. Where does the 15% come from and how valid is it from year to year?

The 15% dates back to research in 2007. We don't know what the research was. The 15% hasn't changed at all over the last 8 years. That's unusual. Especially as we are looking for outcomes (improvements?) from the Autism Act.

There are a lot of people with a diagnosis who have been in work long term There are others with a pattern of short duration jobs and long gaps. But the issue is knowing who has been diagnosed.

Part of the Autism Act asks local authorities to assess the numbers diagnosed. We still don't know those numbers, as financial cuts have held up this process. There are a lot of people who are 'off the radar' because they are not claiming services. A good number of people have private diagnoses which seem to be off-record and they also have trouble accessing services. Because autism changes through a lifetime, people who were markedly affected in childhood may be managing as adults.

How do you survey an unknown population? The 15% should ideally identify everyone diagnosed. How?

I suspect that NAS sent a questionnaire to NAS Members asking, amongst all the other questions, "are you in full time employment?" or are you a parent or carer for someone with autism, and are they in full time employment? That might produce 15% yes from the members who responded. But it would only be valid in 2007, when they could answer that correctly. But are all people with diagnoses members of NAS, or represented by parents who are members of NAS.

I'm guessing that is what NAS did, but such a survey is only valid for the date when it was obtained. They cannot keep using it irrespective of what has happened since the Autism Act. What we need to know is whether the act has made any difference. The 2007 figure isn't helpful.

Also it undermines our credibility with a government hell bent on villainising disability

But you've also raised the old cookie - if you are managing - ie in work, doing well - you can't really have autism.

I would guess that the figure suggests that 15% of people with a diagnosis of autism are unemployed. (not shouting, just emphasizing!) The majority of autistic people in employment probably don't have a diagnosis. Also, the fact of being unemployed may make doctors more likely to take it seriously. If you have held down a job for 20 years the doctor is more likely to suggest that there is nothing wrong and that you may be imagining things or you are being over-dramatic.

Wel done for the detective work Longman.

So much that is put forward as fact about autism is just cut and pasted from another site and can be traced back to ancient and often dubious sources.

What is certain is that more autistic people want to work than are in employment. Getting autistic people into employment is one thing but providing the support and trianing for their employers that allows them to stay in work is another thing altogether.

Yea i initially had a similar reaction, Just because i finished school and got into uni, even though id missed nearly a third of classes due to the so-called stress fever caused by me being unable to cope with the day to day school life, and i never did finish either of the uni courses, and the fact i got a job, even though i work only about 10-20 hours a week max(and often not even that), as i cant cope with full time the initial reaction was if i were autistic, idve never have neither finished school nor be able to have a job of any shape or form. !!!! ASD in itself does not mean you gotta have learnig disabilities or be somekinda dimwit!! Luckily they still let me go through with it and after completing half the assesment was told they dont even need me to finish them as am clearly well on the spectrum, lol

Someone on here said that their GP had told them that they could not be on the spectrum, because they were in work.

We know that many older adults have missed out on diagnosis and many are currently going through the process, or have recently been diagnosed. The ones coming on to the forum, are the tip of the iceberg.

If the 15% figure is 10 years old, then I would say that 15% is the tip of a very large iceberg.

"Born Naughty" keeps saying that 1% of the population are on the spectrum.

These figures need looking at again, quite urgently.

I've back tracked it to B. Reid (2007) "Moving on up? Negotiating the Transition to Adulthood for young people with autism" a NAS Report.

He says it is based on new research by NAS in 2007. That's 8 years ago. But I've seen this written as far back as 2005.

So maybe the "new research" is based on older research? What kind of research?

I looked up Redman et al. On pages 6 and 8 they give it as 15%. On page 8 it says "with our research showing that just 15% of adults with autism in the UK are in full time paid research".

But unlike other statements in the report, which have sources given, nothing tells us about the NAS research. What research? When?

Inanely brandishing out-of-date statistics, with no clear source, is doing people with autism nothing but harm. NAS really needs to sort its act on this.

Alarming too that it is one of their own publications six years ago. And where did that publication get its info? And why are they still saying 15% if the website says 10%?

If we are to persuade the Government/Department for Work and Pensions to address the issues facing people on the spectrum in the workplace, we need to give them accurate data.

NAS is undermining this by being so indifferent to accuracy and currency of statistics.

The NAS site says the figure is 10% and say they got it from:

 Redman, S et al (2009). Don't Write Me Off: Make the system fair for people with autism. London: The National Autistic Society, p8

Which is one of their publications and gives o clue as to how they arrived at the figure.

I work for a local council that doesn't think it important to monitor how many employees are autistic, if someone asked them how many autistic people they employed they would be unable to answer. They probably be surprised there were any at all. They aren't unusual so where do these figures come from?