Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity: Final Report and Recommendations

Question 1

Authors

Accepted Answer

Professor Amanda Kirby (Chair)

Dr Nancy Doyle (Occupational Psychologist and Employment Specialist)

Jean Hewitt (Inclusive Environment Specialist)

Prof Kim Hoque (Disability Employment Specialist)

Dr Damian Milton (Sociologist and Autism Specialist)

Prof Huw Williams (Neuropsychologist and Traumatic Brain Injury Specialist)

Question 2

Foreword by Professor Amanda Kirby

Accepted Answer

I was delighted to be asked to Chair this Expert Academic Panel on neuroinclusion in the Workplace. I believe inclusion matters. It serves to improve public health and social justice; and through boosted productivity inclusion will serve the wider growth agenda. Greater employment participation has the potential to contribute to lessening the burden on our health care and welfare systems. We all stand to benefit from this: individuals, employers, and the economy.

Despite progress in some areas on neuroinclusive employment, several challenges remain where support is either weak, or evidence of impact is limited. Recruitment processes often lack appropriate supports and fail to recognise neurodivergent talent and thus may unintentionally exclude people who could be in work. The use of technology may be helpful, but we need to ensure we do not create greater bias if neurodivergent talents are not considered in the design of the systems and tools.

Workplace practices continue to rely on a ‘standard’ way to deliver outputs, leaving individuals having to sometimes mask or adapt, often without small but impactful accommodations being put in place in a timely manner. This can result in a negative confidence/competence cycle starting, and the relationship between employer and employee can deteriorate as a result.

Training and adjustments are often rigid and not always tailored to individual needs and relevant to the context the person is in; or they are not reviewed if task demands or environments change.

Disclosure has been encouraged to gain accommodation but carries risks of stigma or inadequate responses if employees do not engage in dialogue.

There is often little consideration of varying sensory environments. In addition, processes for workplace adjustments remain inconsistent and are often only provided to those who fit and can obtain a specific diagnosis. They remain difficult to access, leading to unpredictable and inequitable outcomes and not related to actual needs.

Finally, the existing formal evidence on workplace inclusion in this context is fragmented and condition siloed with some ‘conditions’ having greater focus than others. Co-occurrence across neurodivergent traits and conditions is common and can be compounded by not considering intersectional challenges, which are common, and which are not often considered in the literature.

There are ways around all these challenges however, and our report elaborates on the overall approaches and practical strategies that can be used by government and employers to improve the current state of play on neuroinclusive employment.

We explore a number of interrelated areas that represent opportunities for intervention and improvement: the need to embed a genuine needs-led approach in this area of work; the need to reconsider a number of government-led support tools and frameworks; the consideration of workspace design and environmental access; a focus on practical tools for individual support and fostering a supportive but informed disclosure culture; inclusive job design and research informed HR practices; and, importantly, accessible communication practices and timely interventions.

We conclude our work with a word on Universal Design principles; and the value of looking increasingly towards these at all stages of the employment lifecycle. Universal Design provides a proactive framework to ensure workplaces are accessible, inclusive, and equitable for everyone from the outset rather than relying on retrofitted adjustments. It makes personalised support more feasible, less stigmatising, and ensures systems are fairer, more resilient, and more human. This should rightly be our aim in all areas of employment, but particularly when it comes to disabilities that may be less obvious to others but may still have an impact on functioning fully in workplace settings. Anything less would mean the loss of huge potential to our employment landscape.

– Professor Amanda Kirby

Question 3

Executive Summary

Accepted Answer

Introduction

1. In January 2025, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) launched an expert independent panel to explore opportunities to improve the inclusion of neurodivergent people in the workplace. Building on the findings from the Buckland Review of Autism and Employment (February 2024), the Panel took a broader view to look at all forms of neurodiversity and identify evidence gaps, core hypotheses for exclusion from paid work, and mechanisms for change. Chaired by Professor Amanda Kirby and made up of leading academics in their field, the Panel relied on long-standing expertise and lived experience, alongside a call for formal evidence targeted at the academic community, to gather their findings and outline their recommendations to government and employers.

2. The Report makes recommendations to policymakers and employers on workplace inclusion for neurodivergent people, advocating for:

the benefits of support in employment that is needs-led, not dependent on a diagnosis
strengthening of existing disability employment policy
further research to address gaps in the evidence base
practical, evidence-based strategies to address common areas of challenge for neurodivergent employees
the promotion of Universal Design principles as a framework for inclusive workplace practice

Experiences in the workplace

3. Neurodivergent individuals bring valuable strengths to the workplace, yet they continue to face a lack of inclusive practices, equitable opportunities, and fair career progression. They are underrepresented in the labour market, have higher rates of unemployment, and experience greater challenges progressing in work, compared with those who can more easily navigate conventional recruitment and employment practices. Some people may also be at increased risk of burnout.

4. Not all neurodivergent traits are disabling but neurodivergent people can face specific challenges that can impact their day-to-day functioning and their performance and wellbeing at work. They may also excel in one area and need support in another. Furthermore, a neurodivergent trait can co-occur with other neurodivergent traits and health conditions.

5. Current approaches that require specific diagnosis further widen the gap: individuals with recognised conditions and clearer diagnostic pathways are more likely to access support, while many others miss out altogether. A needs-led approach focusing on the potential barriers people face, rather than focusing on specific labels offers a fairer, more effective and scalable solution. This needs to be supported by the effective utilisation of Universal Design principles.

Strengthening existing disability employment policy

6. Greater inclusion of neurodivergent people enhances wellbeing, improves staff retention, reduces pressure on welfare and healthcare systems, and drives innovation and productivity. Addressing disadvantage is therefore not only the right thing to do, but also a vital contributor to the government’s growth agenda and to the UK’s long-term economic resilience. Government has a role to play in ensuring employers are aware of best practice, and incentivising and requiring employers to improve the support they provide. Existing disability employment policy should be strengthened to provide the framework to boost equality, diversity, and inclusive practices, in order to increase opportunities.

Messages and practical strategies for employers

7. Employer actions can significantly improve participation and progression for neurodivergent people. Neurodivergent traits and challenges can present in many ways, which can make it seem complicated and challenging to know what support each neurodivergent person needs. Focussing only on “what condition someone has” rather than on “what they need” risks oversimplified tick lists of adjustments that do not always fit the person, the tasks they need to complete, or take into consideration varying work contexts.

8. The Panel have captured common challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace, related workplace impacts, and evidence-based adjustments. Key principles include, where possible, maintaining flexibility, ensuring effective communication, and regular reviews of any adjustments that have been offered to ensure these remain effective and relevant. Many of the practical response options suggested to employers are low cost.

The formal evidence base

9. There is a lack of robust, longitudinal research on neurodiversity and employment, and current policies often fail to understand and address intersectional disadvantages (for example, ethnicity, age, gender, socioeconomic status). The Report identifies 9 priority areas for future research, including longitudinal outcomes, intersectionality, training effectiveness, ageing, strengths-based models, the importance of peer networks, understanding the overlaps with chronic conditions, economic analyses, and improved data systems.

Concluding recommendation to government: Universal Design

10. Universal Design is a proactive, inclusive framework that anticipates human variation and embeds accessibility in workplace practice and environments from the outset. Adopting Universal Design principles reduces the need to retrofit adjustments, supporting all employees, not just those with visible or diagnosed disabilities or health conditions. Universal Design benefits individuals, organisations, and the wider economy by embedding accessibility, reducing barriers, and enabling all employees to thrive. In annexes to the report, the Panel offers practical examples of the how Universal Design principles can be embedded across the employment lifecycle around key themes.

Recommendations for policymakers

1. Approach Neuroinclusion in the workplace through the lens of a needs-led approach, and one which seeks to identify the challenges the individual encounters within a given context.

2. There should be the provision of legal aid and free early advice for Employment Tribunal cases; increased funding for the EHRC to bring legally significant cases; give the EHRC powers to issue financial penalties for non-compliance; increase time limits within which disability cases can be made; allow intersectional claims; increase funding for the employment tribunal system to reduce delays and backlogs.

3. Introduce a 2-week deadline within which employers are required to respond to employees’ reasonable adjustment requests.

4. Introduce mandatory disability employment and pay gap reporting using standardised questions and data collection methods.

5. Reform the Disability Confident scheme so it is based on employers’ disability employment outcomes and introduce limits for how long employers can remain at Level 1.

6. Increase resourcing of Access to Work (AtW) to reduce the backlog in applications. Remove the AtW support cap; introduce ‘in principle’ indicative awards; allow passporting of awards between organisations and from Disabled Student’s Allowance to AtW.

7. Leverage public procurement PPN 06/20 to base contract award decisions in part on tendering organisations’ disability employment outcomes.

8. Promote consultation and negotiation on disability equality and give union Equality Representatives and Disability Champions statutory rights to time off to perform their role.

9. Ensure Universal and sensory‑friendly design in national policy and building regulations. On standards and digital inclusion/addressing digital poverty: and align employment policy with PAS 6463 and WCAG.

10. Fund intersectional, co‑produced, longitudinal research and data‑linkage projects. See more on recommended future research priorities in Chapter 6.

11. Talking Therapies provisions should take into consideration the range of neurodivergent traits and conditions, and staff involved in Talking Therapies should be accordingly assessed and trained.

Recommendations to Employers

12. Build psychologically safe, inclusive cultures through co-designed policies with lived experience.

13. Reframe adjustments as “performance optimisation” for all, not as special privileges.

14. Adopt a triage or graduated response model for adjustments.

15. Use a triage model for adjustments, prioritising urgent needs and reviewing effectiveness.

16. Carry out appropriate due diligence to ensure that the services are not introducing bias or exclusionary practices that disadvantage neurodivergent candidates and employees.

17. Use dashboards and data to monitor retention and identify where gaps in progression or representation may exist across all levels of the organisation.

18. Co-design improvements with neurodivergent staff and establish regular feedback loops to ensure changes are meaningful and effective.

19. Consider the built environment within which their employees operate, taking guidance from set building standards such as PAS6463.

20. Move away from one-size-fits-all solutions and towards tailored support that helps every individual perform at their best.

Concluding recommendation to Government

21. Government should promote Universal Design principles as a proactive framework to ensure workplaces are accessible, inclusive, and equitable for everyone from the outset.

Question 4

Chapter 1: Introduction

Accepted Answer

This document has been authored by the Department for Work and Pensions Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity based on a rapid evidence review across workplace, training, and adjacent literatures.

The document aims to address employers and policy‑makers and identify research gaps.

Its scope included key focus areas such as recruitment, workplace adjustments, skills and career development, and employment retention, while explicitly covering all forms of neurodivergent traits and conditions, both developmental and acquired conditions.

The Panel’s work sought to identify evidence gaps, core hypotheses for exclusion from paid work, and mechanisms for change.

Its aim was also to define critical actions for both employers and government to enhance inclusion, address intersections with other social barriers including ethnicity, social deprivation, and sex, and consider potential success measures. In terms of information sources, the Panel relied on the long-standing expertise of its members in the field, as well as on a call for formal evidence targeted specifically at the academic community. (More on the Panel’s methodology can be seen in the annex.)

The Academic Panel built on the Buckland Review by delivering evidence-based recommendations aimed at improving employment outcomes for neurodivergent individuals. The Buckland Review focused on barriers for autistic people.

This review aimed to widen the scope to neurodivergent traits and conditions more broadly including Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) (also known as dyspraxia), dyslexia, dyscalculia, tic disorders, and acquired conditions such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), recognising high co‑occurrence and the impact of intersectional disadvantage. (More on the Buckland Review can be seen in the annex).

The panel also engaged in cross governmental discussion with taskforce chairs of the NHS Independent Task force on ADHD, the final report of which can be seen here NHS England » Report of the independent ADHD Taskforce; and the DFE Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group. This provided useful discussions regarding agreeing common terminology and understanding common themes that could be utilised across education, health and employment settings. More on definitions are seen in the annex. The panel’s Chair also engaged with Sir Charlie Mayfield during his work on the Keep Britain Working Major Independent Review on Healthy and Inclusive Workplaces: Keep Britain Working: Final report - GOV.UK. Overall, all of these pieces of work are pulling in the same direction in calling for a new way to view and work with health and disability in the workplace, both at an employer and government level.

The Academic Panel was composed of a multidisciplinary group of experts with both academic and lived experience of neurodivergence. Together, the panel’s diverse affiliations and lived experiences ensured a robust, inclusive, and evidence-informed approach to shaping recommendations for improving employment outcomes for neurodivergent individuals. (Detailed biographies are annexed.)

Question 5

Chapter 2: Taking the right approach to neurodiversity and inclusion at work

Accepted Answer

Neurodiversity and Disability

Not all neurodivergent traits are disabling, and not all disabilities are immediately visible.

Some conditions, such as physical disabilities, are more easily recognised and often become the focus for consideration and support in workplace settings. In contrast, many cognitive or neurodivergent traits may be less obvious to others, or people may be less aware of challenges associated with them, leading to misunderstanding, under-recognition, or even dismissal.

This unequal visibility means that while some people receive timely adjustments, others may continue to struggle without adequate recognition of their needs.

Research^{[footnote 1]} indicates that people with developmental (born with) neurodivergent profiles (such as ADHD, Autism, DCD) may present with similar challenges to those with acquired conditions (such as Traumatic Brain Injury) (TBI).

Some individuals may face specific challenges that can impact their day-to-day functioning. These may include for example, varying combinations of communication (spoken language, understanding, or written forms), hyper and hyposensitivity to different environmental stimuli, challenges with numerical skills, motor coordination, balance, and involuntary tics.

Neurodivergent people may also experience difficulties with executive functioning – a set of mental processes involved in organising, planning, focusing attention, switching tasks, remembering instructions, and managing multiple responsibilities. Executive functions may also affect abilities to apply social filters, appraise risk, and regulate emotions. These challenges can impact the person’s performance and wellbeing at work and in other areas of life. This may also be impacted by other external stimuli such as attitudes and actions of other people and the varying workplace settings.

Neurodivergent traits can also co-occur or be present with other conditions such as bipolar disorder and depression and physical conditions, thus adding to the complexity of support needs. This is why it is necessary to take a needs-led approach.

Research^{[footnote 2]} is also starting to highlight that some neurodivergent individuals have specific areas of significant strength^{[footnote 3]} alongside areas of varying challenge. This is often described as a “spiky profile”, highlighting uneven patterns in abilities, where someone may excel in one area and need support in another.^{[footnote 4]} A person’s strengths may often be identified or remain unrecognised because of comparing them to their peers. This may result in their individual areas of strength being not considered. It is important to remember that overall level of ability is not determined by the average of the peaks in their profile, and that a person’s everyday work performance is likely to include examples of both their peaks and troughs.^{[footnote 5]}

Understanding the diversity of skills is essential for creating inclusive policies and practices that are equitable and effective. The goal of all neuroinclusive activity should be to promote the ability of neurodivergent people to align their work to the strengths of their spiky profile and provide scaffolding to minimise the impact of areas of challenge.

We need to value cognitive differences which may sometimes be less obvious to others as much as physical ones, ensuring equity across all forms of disability.

Why neuroinclusive workplaces matter

Neurodivergent individuals represent a significant segment of every workforce, yet many do not have formal diagnoses or identifiable labels that would typically trigger support, or if they do, support may not focus on the ‘whole person’. This includes taking into consideration the individual context such as the environment the person is working in, and the task demands and complexity.

In addition, when provided, adjustments may not always be reviewed if work demands, place or teams change.

There remains a lack of clarity over terminology, appropriate processes, and actions for employers, and this results in many missed opportunities to optimise skills and talents.

To unlock this potential, systems must move beyond reactive adjustments and embrace proactive, needs-led design. In this document we introduce universal design concepts which offer a strategic framework that anticipates human variation from the outset thus reducing barriers, enhancing participation, and enabling more people to contribute meaningfully. This approach not only supports individual wellbeing but also drives economic growth, improves organisational performance, and reduces reliance on public services.

Traditional systems built around the “average” person often fail to accommodate the full spectrum of human ability. The panel believe that ministers have a unique opportunity to lead a shift towards inclusive infrastructure where flexibility is embedded, not bolted on. By designing from the edges, we create environments that work for most, including those ‘in the middle.’ This is not about erasing difference but about making personalised support more feasible and less stigmatising. The result is a fairer, more resilient society and one where diversity is not just accepted but actively enabled.

Taking a needs-led approach

The Academic Expert Panel advocates taking a needs-led approach. There is little value in separating responses for different neurodivergent traits and conditions. Doing so can lead to policies and employment practices that prioritise more visible and/or more well-known conditions over others. Support needs are also not usually neatly segmented from one another.

We believe that the government’s aim should be to improve services and provision for all neurodivergent people, not just those with a specific diagnosis. We recognise that diagnosis for individuals may be helpful in some cases and needed for tailored enablement support. However, in the context of employment we do not see this as essential for gaining adjustments.

We acknowledge the current problem of access to gaining diagnostic assessments is holding up the provision of essential adjustments and makes them more available for some conditions and not for others.

Notably, research^{[footnote 6]} shows that current diagnostic categories do not accurately reflect how differences in brain function present (we can see this from extensive evidence and includes using transdiagnostic mapping techniques). It is possible that in the future, the labels we currently use as neat “diagnostic categories” will represent “symptom clusters” and that there may be different categories to represent the origins of the symptoms.

Evaluating and evidencing the practical support that meets a person’s individual needs would be welcomed, rather than relying on fixed pathways or support packages based solely on a diagnosis. This highlights that policies focused narrowly on diagnostic labels are unlikely to address people’s real needs; a flexible, needs-led approach is likely to be more effective.

A further important issue that is clear from the literature regarding diagnoses is heterogeneity or variable presentation within one diagnosis, which means that presence of one specific diagnosis does not have predictive validity regarding work-related outcomes and importantly, the specific diagnostic label does not determine the degree or specific area of support that person may require in a workplace setting. For example, not all people with Dyslexia or DCD will require the same adjustments.

Also, in practice, there is evidence^{[footnote 7]} to suggest disparities in accessing diagnoses of some conditions compared to others, as well as variable, often significant, delays across the UK. The impact of considering a diagnosis being necessary to gain support in employment, has driven people either to self-diagnose or to gain certain diagnoses over others, depending on local or national availability. For example, getting a publicly funded diagnosis of dyslexia, DLD or DCD as an adult is, in most areas, not possible.

The results of this can in turn create problems as they can increase inequity in recognition of needs, thus driving variation in the level of support for different conditions.

Furthermore, practitioner literature^{[footnote 8]} suggests there is a tendency for inexperienced HR and workplace professionals to use anecdotes as a proxy for understanding conditions. This can result in creating fixed views (and potentially discriminatory stereotyping) of potential capabilities (or lack thereof) such as thinking that all people with ADHD can never stay focused on a task or everyone with Dyslexia will always be creative. This again reinforces the reason for moving towards the needs-led approach.

For these reasons we have taken the decision to avoid focusing on very specific diagnoses. Instead, the needs-led approach we take is distinct from the diagnosis-led approach in that its starting point is to view the assessment and definition of needs as dependent on context (for example, home, education, social care, workplace, health care settings), varying by condition(s), and are dynamic (can change over time). This is consistent with the social model of disability rather than the medical model.

We believe this needs to be better understood by employees, employers, and policymakers.

Importantly, a needs-based assessment does not lead to or require a diagnosis and is consistent with the legal requirements for organisations within the Equality Act 2010.

A needs-led approach thus seeks to identify the challenges the individual encounters within a given context, and to identify how best to provide support to optimise functioning, and importantly, maximise skills and strengths, reducing the negative impact of their condition on their outcomes in ableist contexts.

A needs-led approach is valuable because it recognises the significant overlap in how different forms of neurodivergent traits affect individuals. This perspective enables the development of a practical framework for employers to better understand the challenges individual neurodivergent employees may face, and the types of adjustments that can help address them.

Although many neurodivergent conditions can seem complex and multifaceted, focusing on functional areas of challenge such as supporting communication differences or organisational challenges makes it more straightforward to understand needs and provide appropriate adjustments and support. Communication between employers and employees can target these needs.

In this paper, while we refer to “adjustments” and “accommodations,” the academic panel suggests that framing these as “performance optimisation” is more constructive. This shift in language moves away from seeing support as a favour or a scarce resource directed at a particular group, and instead positions tools, training, and support as enabling strategies that benefit everyone.

Question 6

Chapter 3: Messages and recommendations for policymakers

Accepted Answer

A key message of this report is that while increasing the inclusion of neurodivergent people in the labour market is of paramount importance to neurodivergent people themselves regarding improved major life outcomes such as mental health, social participation and related health outcomes including life expectancy, it is also important for the economy more broadly.

Greater inclusion of neurodivergent people in the workplace of all ages has the potential to help employers’ skills retention, address labour supply shortages, and enhance problem-solving and creativity, thereby increasing organisational growth and performance, which in turn will benefit the UK economy more broadly.

Introducing more robust government policy to enable neurodivergent people to obtain and remain in employment is therefore important not only to neurodivergent people but also to the economy more widely. Hence it is an important feature of the “social cure.” ^{[footnote 9]} (The “social cure” is a theory suggesting that belonging to social groups and having strong social identities positively impacts mental and physical health. It posits that a sense of social connectedness and shared identity provides individuals with psychological resources, such as a sense of purpose, belonging, and social support, which can help them cope with stress and illness).

However, despite legal entitlements under the Equality Act 2010, many neurodivergent people do not receive appropriate adjustments or experience significant delays in securing adjustments, indicating failures in practical enforcement and even greater challenges if there are intersectional cumulative impact. Given this, there is a significant role for government to play in not just ensuring employers are aware of best practice regarding the adjustments that are most likely to improve all neurodivergent peoples’ employment outcomes, but also in introducing policies that incentivise and require employers to improve the support they provide.

While addressing some of the barriers neurodivergent people encounter in society would require the introduction of government policy focused specifically on neurodivergence, their employment outcomes would also likely benefit significantly from the introduction of robust government policy aimed at addressing the barriers encountered by D/deaf and disabled people generally, given these policies would likely have positive spillover effects for neurodivergent people.

Indeed, introducing robust general disability employment policy might be viewed as preferable to introducing national-level labour market policies aimed specifically at neurodivergent people, given there would then be an expectation that government also develops policies aimed specifically at, for example, sight loss, hearing loss, or musculoskeletal disabilities or conditions. This would clearly be an untenable position, and points early on to the merits of Universal Design, discussed later in this report. We also suggest the government reviews existing disability policies and seek to strengthen them.

There should also be consideration for citing neuroinclusive design in Building Regulations. See PAS 6463 for further reading.

Key observations

As mentioned in Chapter 2 , the work of the Panel relied on the existing and longstanding expertise of its members, and a rapid review of formal literature through a call for evidence targeted at the academic community. These have led the Panel to a set of key observations:

Access to justice

Research shows significant barriers to justice within the Employment Tribunal system, with many neurodivergent people who are disabled not having legal representation in employment tribunal cases, and employers having greater expert representation than claimants.^{[footnote 10]} There has been a marked increase of cases coming to the Tribunal system.^{[footnote 11]} Strict time limits also present a problem. Disability cases must be brought within 3 months minus one day, with judges rarely extending the time limit. An understanding of the requirements to access the Tribunal system remains low.

Meeting the legal definition of disability also presents a significant barrier for people with a variety of neurodivergent traits. Research shows a further problem is the lack of intersectional provision in the Equality Act.^{[footnote 12]} Another concern is the resourcing of the Employment Tribunal system, with backlogs having increased significantly in recent years, and there is also evidence of disabled people experiencing difficulties in obtaining the compensation that is awarded by employment tribunals.

Disability employment and pay gap reporting

The Government is currently consulting on disability pay gap and disability employment reporting for large employers in the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. Research shows that mandatory gender pay gap reporting has narrowed gender pay gaps in UK organisations.^{[footnote 13]} Mandatory disability reporting is likely to yield similar improvements in reducing disability pay gaps. Research also shows that 70% of employers believe that mandatory disability reporting should be introduced, with 50% saying this would improve disabled people’s experiences of work.^{[footnote 14]} Reporting would allow disabled jobseekers to identify the organisations that are most likely to hire and retain them and pay them fairly. It would also ensure employers have the data they need to monitor their disability pay and employment gaps, thus prompting them to explore how they might reduce these gaps, including by providing reasonable adjustments and improving disabled peoples’ experience of work.

However, research suggests that the government will need to design the reporting system carefully, as small differences in question wording and different data collection methods can yield large differences in reported figures.^{[footnote 15]} There are also additional challenges with accuracy of reporting for many neurodivergent traits as level of cumulative need or impact may not fall into conditions which are being diagnosed or being recorded, or may be missed altogether if there are no services available to diagnose some conditions.

Disability Confident Scheme

The Buckland Review of Autism Employment recommended an increased role for the government’s Disability Confident scheme, which is currently the government’s primary initiative in supporting employers to improve their disability employment practices. However, there is no evidence that Disability Confident organisations employ more disabled people than non-Disability Confident organisations. Research also shows no evidence that disabled employees in Disability Confident organisations report better experiences of work (job satisfaction, for example.) than those in non-Disability Confident organisations, or that disability gaps in the experience of work in Disability Confident Organisations are smaller. It also shows that very few Disability Confident employers have adopted the sorts of hiring and retention practices a good employer of disabled people would be expected to adopt.^{[footnote 16]}

Access to Work

Access to Work is a key government scheme that provides essential funding for adjustments beyond those employers would be expected to provide under the Equality Act. Research shows high levels of satisfaction with the scheme among disabled employees.^{[footnote 17]} The DWP concluded from its research on disabled people’s views of the scheme that it has ‘levelled the playing field’ and has enabled cost-sensitive employers to hire disabled employees where they might have otherwise been unwilling to do so. Other benefits demonstrated within the DWP’s research include higher productivity, better employee-employer relationships, and confidence that the most appropriate and effective support is being provided.^{[footnote 18]}

However, there is evidence of problems with the scheme particularly regarding a lack of guidance on eligibility and the likely success of a claim, delays in processing applications and payments, an overly bureaucratic application process, the restrictive nature of the Access to Work funding cap, difficulties passporting awards between organisations, and the transition from Disabled Students’ Allowance to Access to Work.

Research also shows limited awareness of Access to Work among both employers and disabled employees^{[footnote 19]}, though the recent growth in applications suggests awareness is now growing. However, this growth in applications has led to significant backlogs in processing Access to Work claims, and there is increasing evidence of concerns regarding greater stringency in relation to the adjustments the scheme is willing to fund.

Provision of adjustments

Research shows the difficulties disabled people including those with neurodivergent traits often encounter in securing adjustments and in agreeing with employers what is, and what is not, ‘reasonable.’^{[footnote 20]}

There is evidence that many people with neurodivergent traits may wait over a year to receive adjustments; often do not receive a reason where requests are refused; and sometimes never receive a response to requests for reasonable adjustments at all. Further, there is evidence that some requests are deemed as unreasonable and may cause conflict, as perceptions of unfairness may arise between fellow employees.^{[footnote 21]}

There is a role for government in ensuring employers are more forthcoming in providing adjustments and in positioning these as routine ways to support and optimise all work performance, rather than as favours that are allocated to a few staff members.

Legally driven guidance on what, and what is not reasonable would be welcome. For example, case law shows that there are reasonable limits to the provision of extra time and compromises in professional communication. There is also a wide variation in what is considered ‘reasonable’ for large versus small employers. These nuances are poorly understood by most people including neurodivergent people (and disabled people more broadly), employers and human resources practitioners alike.

Government could support an increased level of knowledge and clarity by funding research and providing guidance, which would also help establish guidance around adjustments that Access to Work should fund, versus what should be considered as routine provision and in line with universal design principles.

Government procurement expenditure

Gross spending on UK public sector procurement was £434 billion in 2024 to 2025.^{[footnote 22]}

In January 2021, the government introduced PPN 06/20 as an extension to the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. This stipulates that social value must be explicitly evaluated in all central government procurement, with at least 10% of the total score for contract awards based on social value. One of the social value outcomes used to evaluate bids is the firms’ efforts on disability employment. For firms that win contracts, key social value performance indicators are agreed upon, recorded, and monitored.

However, research shows that very little of the increasing social value procurement activity within the UK public sector is dedicated to reducing the disability employment gap.^{[footnote 23]} Instead, central and local public bodies are pursuing other social value themes and sub-themes in tender exercises, given the (likely unfounded) belief that achieving disability-related social value outcomes would be more difficult. This suggests a considerable missed opportunity to reduce the disability employment gap via social value procurement.

Trade unions, Equality Representatives and Disability Champions

Research shows that many employers have not adopted robust disability equality and inclusive practices. However, it also shows these practices are much more widely adopted in unionised than in non-union workplaces, especially where negotiation or consultation over equality occurs.^{[footnote 24]}

In addition, trade unions have recruited and trained Equality Representatives and Disability Champions in recent years, whose role is to encourage employers to improve their equality practices and offer advice to employees.

Research shows that Equality Representatives have impacted positively on their employer’s disability equality practices, and that Disability Champions have positively impacted on employer willingness to conduct disability audits and improve disability equality practices. Research also shows that the impact of both Equality Representatives and Disability Champions increases when they spend at least 5 hours per week on their role.^{[footnote 25]}

The panel suggests potentially extending this approach by ensuring Equality Representatives and Disability Champions receive training in neuro-inclusive practices.

Built Environment

We know that the design of the built environment significantly impacts neurodivergent people’s ability to work and their work performance but also have a wider impact on all. However, national planning policy does not enforce the need to incorporate these features into the design process despite guidance relating to neurodiversity in this context. There is a lot that the Government could do through building regulations to advance improvements in the buildings we use and the PAS6463 has already provided comprehensive recommendations that should be considered to accommodate sensory differences associated with neurodivergence (and some associated medical conditions). As a standard PAS6463 benefits from a steering group of experts, draws upon a wide range of guidance and research, and has had public consultation by the British Standards Institute between 2020 and 2022. It has since been adopted voluntarily by many UK companies as well as uptake in utilisation spreading across the world.

Digital skills and neurodivergence

There remains a skills gap, or variation, in terms of digital skills. When considering digital skills, neurodivergent individuals need to be considered to ensure that we address digital poverty and exclusion. Our digital skills landscape should ideally be neuroinclusive.

Talking Therapies Support

NHS talking therapies (formerly IAPT – Improving Access to Psychological therapies), was originally intended to enable people with mental health issues to be able to gain and maintain employment. It can offer valuable support for some people with neurodivergent traits and specific conditions into and within employment settings.

Talking Therapies provide employment advice and support alongside psychological treatments, recognising the strong link between employment and improved health outcomes. In terms of specific neurodivergent conditions, for example, relating to Autism, such services have been shown to reduce depression and anxiety.^{[footnote 26]}

There have been various ways in which such approaches have been modified to address issues experienced by people with some neurodivergent traits and conditions. For example, IPT-LTC (Improving Access to Psychological Therapies for Long-Term Conditions ^{[footnote 27]}) can address issues such as Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), as it can provide psychological support for individuals with long-term physical health conditions who are experiencing mental health problems, and psychological therapies are an established benefit for people with conditions like TBI.

In sum, although such services need to be further improved to address the needs across a range of neurodivergent individuals, we would advocate for such initiatives to be considered and enhanced.

Key recommendations for policymakers

As referenced in Chapter 2, policymakers should:

1. Approach neuroinclusion in the workplace through the lens of a needs-led approach, and one which seeks to identify the challenges the individual encounters within a given context.