the 15% in full time emplyment

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.

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.