Around 70% - 80% of autistic people are unemployed

Post Reply New Topic

The incidence of autistic people in full time employment who have been sampled is 15% according to the above research, leaving 15% in part time employment and 70% unemployed for those who participated in the research.

So really, in general, 85% of autistic people as part of those who were questioned in this research, don't have the means to live independently, in a financial sense, without some kind of support, i.e, from the state or family or both.

Sounds about right. Sure, there must be some undiagnosed autistic people who have jobs, but also undiagnosed people who don't, but no statistics are perfect.

I just checked from Finland's autism association's website, and according to them, only around 30 % of autistic adults are employed. Not sure if it means in Finland or in general, but I don't doubt the number. And of course, there are those of us who are underemployed, too.

Seconded. It's the mark of a civilised society to look after the disabled. They should give people something decent to do as well, but they can't even manage that for the able ones, or they just don't want to.

I was very lucky. I sleep-walked into a relatively cushy science job and survived quite well till I'd saved enough to get out and have a nice early retirement. If I'd thought I could have reliably lived well on benefits I'd have done that, because the whole jobs system seems pretty cruel, and there was always some bigwig jerk trying to mess up what might have been an enjoyable thing. But living on benefits looks like it can be even more precarious and stressful than having a job. It's one step closer to destitution than having a job. The world's pendulum has been gradually swinging to the right and they seem to be making benefits harder and harder to hang onto. One perk of being old is that it's not worth their while to squeeze older people.

I am now one of the statistics. I had a cleaning job for 5 years but the place I worked at closed down two months ago. I get the disability pension now but earning money made my life easier.

I volunteer at a Salvation Army store twice a week. It would be nice to be paid to work there but I'm unable to work the till and deal with customers so I'll stay a volunteer.

A stat like this is senseless BECAUSE:
1. Many HFA/AS, etc... autistics will certainly be employed
2. Some Classicals won't because they are affected too much.
3. SOME will not REALLY be ASD! This will drive the REAL statistics DOWN!
4. Others that are ASD won't be in the statistics. This will drive the REAL statistics UP!

So the 70-80 percent could be a lot higher or a lot lower. WHO KNOWS?

An autism diagnosis is a great help for an adult looking to get unemployment benefits. Otherwise, it might not be as useful. There are plenty of undiagnosed or not fully diagnosed autistic adults, because a diagnosis wouldn't be useful for them. Me included. I got a psychologist's and doctor's diagnosis/opinion, but not the paperwork - not useful from my point of view. I work. I don't apply for accommodations or benefits. It's also faster to earn the money something costs than to go and ask various committees to get something financed - with as moderate needs as mine, of course.

Unaccounted for; those with the diagnostic label under autism yet not necessarily misdiagnosed.
But gets the label because for only to put something for insurance papers to access to referrals deductibles.

Odds of the person, usually a kid, is actually autistic is unknown.
That also skews the stats because even placeholders also counted.

The stats are not senseless as you claim.

1. Yes, HFA/AS people (the types of people described under the old DSM IV system) are more likely to be employed, in fact, they likely account for most of all of the 30% of autistic people who are in any sort of employment as per the research.

2. People with classical autism, who are mid or 'low' functioning as per the descriptions in the old DSM IV likely rarely gain employment and if they do, it is temporary and those people typically have lifelong state support.

3. The majority of people with a formal diagnosis of ASD do in fact have ASD for all intents and purposes.

4. Or it could drive the statistics down. But you can't account for things that cannot be measured. At the very least, the 70% unemployment figure for autistic folk in general is a good guide/ballpark number, even if it might not be entirely accurate in reality.

What is the split in support levels / classical autism vs Asperger's diagnoses then? 50%-50%? 70%-30%?

I think 70-80% unemployed is not surprising.

We don't have a breakdown by type or level of autism, but we know that level 3s are unlikely to be in employment whereas level 1s may have a high percentage in employment.

If we assume the percentage in employment by level might be something like this:
Level 3 - 0%
Level 2 - 20%
Level 1 - 60%

If we also assume that autistic people are evenly distributed between those three levels, the resulting employment rate overall would be: 0.33*(20+60) = 26%. Hence 74% unemployed.

Of course, some of the more disabled autistics might not be counted as unemployed in the statistics, if those statistics are based on those actively looking for work. In that case, the picture painted by that figure may be somewhat bleaker.

Taking out Level 3s from the equation and taking out half the level 2s, to get the same figure,
0.33*20+0.67x = 26%
x = 29%
That is, only 29% of Level 1s in employment compared to my original figure of 60%.

What this means is that the statistic for autistic people as a whole are not the same as unemployment rates amongst Level 1 autistics in particular. The unemployment rate for Level 1s is unlikely to be quite so high as70-80%, and I'm guessing may be between 40-70% (-ish), depending on the method of measurement, and adopting a simplistic assumption on the three levels of support needs being evenly distributed.

Edited to add: Is the statistic 70-80% meaningless? I think it is useful as an indicator but we need to include consideration of who was included or excluded in the sample and how the data was obtained.

I would say the stat is not entirely senseless, as long as it is understood to be lumping together autistics at verying levels of support needs, and hence merely providing an overview to the effect of "unemployment levels amongst (diagnosed) autistics are really high".

Agreed there may be many undiagnosed adults out there who are working, but the stats are referring to diagnosed autistics and are not pretending to include those without a diagnosis.

That would make sense if the support levels were more or less evenly split.