Missing links in autism strategy

The Government’s new strategy for adults in England with autism offers important recommendations that, properly implemented, will make a real difference, says Anya Ustaszewski. But what about equality?

On 3 March, the Government announced a landmark strategy to transform adult autism support. I welcome this but I don’t welcome various issues relating to the development of the strategy and the thinking behind the draft report.

First, there was a lack of inclusion of autistics. A few autistic individuals were brought into the External Reference Group, but only after a last-minute meeting with the London Autistic Rights Movement and the National Autistic Society.

In addition, meetings took place in conference rooms with glaring lighting – an inappropriate setting for people with sensory issues.

And then the timescale for producing the draft report was shortened from two months to only three weeks, despite the Department of Health’s awareness that sudden change is very stressful for autistics.

Second, there’s a short-sightedness about the strategy. It cites existing legislation that should apply to autistics, for example, and adds that its approach is “to identify how to make existing policies work better,” but fails to grasp that if existing legislation is proving to be of little help, we need better laws and harsher penalties for disregarding it.

The strategy goes on to give examples of how existing policies could be better used within public services. It overlooks the fact that most of us have lives outside the public services.

There are some promising recommendations, such as training for all frontline staff and more consistent pathways to diagnosis, but from an autistic rights point of view there are many other areas of concern.

Although there are references to including autistics in the delivery of training and commissioning of services, these are very vague. The strategy is clear about recommending the creation of various boards and committees but fails to specify that these boards must include autistics.

The strategy also seems to lose sight of the social model of disability. It recommends that “travel training is made available” to autistics but misses the point that public transport is often hopelessly inaccessible.

There is a strong emphasis on helping autistics find and hold onto employment. What does concern me is that the strategy doesn’t appear to acknowledge that work may not be a possibility for everyone. It’s important that people aren’t judged purely in terms of their economic productivity.

The strategy asserts that increasing awareness through employers “will also begin the process of raising public awareness … reducing stereotypes and misconceptions”. I can’t help thinking this is a little naïve. Just because an autistic has a job, it doesn’t follow that if he or she stims [engages in self-stimulatory or repetitive behaviours] in public, people won’t stare and mock. It doesn’t also mean that the stereotyping that occurs in the media will automatically cease.

The recommendations in the strategy could help autistics gain access to better support and be treated more equally, but I’m disappointed that it doesn’t go far enough to ensure genuine inclusion of autistics in influencing and shaping policy that directly affects us.