What Happens If Access to Work Is Taken Away? ADHD factors to consider

Guest post by Leanne Maskell, who is the founder and director of ADHD coaching company ADHD Works, and the author of AuDHD: Blooming Differently and ADHD Works at Work.

Since 1994, the UK Government’s Access to Work (ATW) grant scheme has funded support additional to reasonable adjustments to help people with health conditions to stay in work. Since the Covid pandemic, there’s been a significant increase in those with health conditions, such as a 400% increase in the number of adults seeking ADHD.

This is a result of greater awareness and education, with 1 in 9 adults with ADHD undiagnosed, and 9 out of 10 of autistic people over age 50 being undiagnosed. In contrast, employers have struggled to catch up with this need, seeing a 40% increase in employment tribunal cases relating to neurodiversity discrimination in a year.

At present, ATW fills in the gap, with workplace assessments and support to help individuals remain in work. A formal diagnosis is not needed, as disability is a legal test, not a medical one – just as within the workplace.

ATW has recently come under fire for this, and amidst a cost-cutting venture from the Government, it is at risk. Here’s what will happen if it is removed, and what employers can do:

Lost productivity

Individuals with untreated ADHD lose around 22 days of productivity per year, and research shows that nearly a quarter of working adults who are on long term sick leave due to stress exhibit symptoms of ADHD.

To not only remove potential future support, but also existing support in place, would mean significant disruption to a workplace and lost productivity. It would simultaneously place immense pressure on employees to adjust to a lack of much needed support, and employers to provide this for multiple people.

As ATW funds support additional to reasonable adjustments based on an external assessment with an individual, this is a grey area. It could be argued that support such as specialist coaching or equipment is in fact a reasonable adjustment that their employer should be covering – resulting in immense time and confusion for employers to navigate such requests.

Only the employment tribunal can determine whether a person is disabled, and what is ‘reasonable’ – and employers do not have the medical expertise to make such decisions.

Having accessible reasonable adjustments policies and processes in place regardless of ATW will minimise this risk, in addition to ensuring that individuals are accessing the support they are legally entitled to from their employer.

Unemployment

Without ATW support in place, employers will be far less likely to employ people who disclose medical conditions – and individuals will be far less likely to disclose.

This will have a significant impact on the already significant employment gap for neurodivergent people, such as just 29% of all autistic people, and 33.9% of people with ADHD in employment, compared to 75% of the general population.

Adults with ADHD are nearly 60% more likely to be fired, 30% more likely to have chronic employment issues, and 3 times more likely to quit a job impulsively. As nearly a quarter of the working-age population are disabled, this move would further stigmatise those who are already disadvantaged, despite offering immense potential to employers.

This also has an impact on employer’s bottom line, as the cost of hiring new employees vs retaining them is much higher. Recruitment alone can cost 20-30% of an employee’s salary, before other factors such as onboarding processes and training costs. This is ironic, given that many reasonable adjustments are free, with an average cost of £75.

Employers can tackle this by implementing mandatory neurodiversity training, and tailoring this as needed, such as for HR. By embracing different ways of working, employers can empower those who think differently to contribute their full efforts to the workforce, reaping the benefits.

Grievances

Employers need to confirm an individual’s employment for an ATW application, providing a tangible reason to disclose their neurodivergence at work. Without this, there is no guarantee of support, and the potential for discrimination, as 63% of neurodivergent adults believe that employers see neurodiversity as a ‘red flag’.

The law requires employers to make reasonable adjustments when they know or should have known that an individual was disabled. This situation is extremely difficult to navigate, especially if an individual is unaware of their own neurodivergence.

This is particularly so in relation to performance issues. If an employee discloses a disability only when a problem arises, it can be very challenging for employers to balance their legal obligations with their business needs. As a result, misunderstandings can easily arise, resulting in grievances, legal costs, and immense pressure on employers.

As employment tribunal awards are uncapped for disability discrimination, this can be a very expensive mistake for employers, complicating routine procedures such as redundancy or resignations. These protections are in place even at recruitment stage, as the unfair dismissal under 2 years’ service does not apply to discrimination.

Examples of this include an employee with ADHD and PTSD being awarded £4.5 million compensation after being dismissed for failing her probationary period. Another with ADHD won a discrimination case against her employer for refusing to rescind her resignation, despite multiple previous attempts to resign from her role.

Employers should have mandatory training in place to ensure that all staff are supported, regardless of disclosure, such as training for managers on reasonable adjustments. Implementing procedures such as reasonable adjustment passports can also offer security for employees, and reduce the risk of misunderstandings, which can easily escalate.

It’s vital that everybody within an organisation understands that reasonable adjustments are not a ‘nice to have’ – they’re a legal responsibility, and should be treated as such.

Ultimately, creating a safe workplace for everybody, benefits everybody. Having clear processes and training in place to ensure emotional intelligence skills such as conflict management and asking for help means that the law is rightly treated as a backstop, instead of an obligation.

In an ideal world, employees would not have to seek external support from the Government to remain in work – but there’s a very long way to go before that’s the reality.

Leanne Maskell is the founder and director of ADHD coaching company ADHD Works, and the author of AuDHD: Blooming Differently and ADHD Works at Work.

See more breaking stories here.