An independent panel has called for workplaces to support neurodivergent people according to their individual needs rather than relying primarily on a diagnosis. Its final report, published on 2 October, places recruitment, day-to-day management and workplace design at the centre of efforts to widen employment participation.
The report sits alongside a government response setting out existing employment programmes and areas still being explored. It is a policy contribution and set of recommendations, rather than a new legal duty on employers.
Barriers across the working life
Led by Professor Amanda Kirby, the Expert Academic Panel on Neurodiversity reviewed evidence on workplace inclusion. The panel’s work was commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions and drew on academic research, policy material, case studies and other evidence across recruitment, adjustments, career development and retention.
It identifies several recurring obstacles: recruitment processes that may overlook talent; rigid or slow adjustments; pressure to disclose in order to receive help; and workplace environments that do not account sufficiently for sensory differences. The panel also says the evidence base remains fragmented, with conditions often considered separately and too little attention paid to intersecting challenges.
Support based on circumstances
A central recommendation is that support should respond to the strengths and challenges a person faces in a particular setting. In practice, that shifts the focus from a label alone to whether a role, process or environment is creating a barrier and what would help remove it.
The panel also urges wider use of Universal Design: building accessibility and flexibility into systems from the outset rather than waiting for an individual to request a retrospective adjustment. It gives examples such as clear language, captions, structured task tools and effective wayfinding. The intended benefit is not simply fewer individual interventions; it is a workplace that is easier to navigate for a wider range of staff without requiring people to disclose personal information.
Programmes and early figures
The government response places the recommendations alongside a wider disability-employment investment programme valued at £3.5 billion by the end of the decade. It highlights Connect to Work, a voluntary, locally commissioned supported-employment programme operating across England and Wales, with a specialist pathway for neurodivergent and learning-disabled participants.
By the end of June, the government said 1,000 people on that specialist pathway had moved into work, including 470 young people. The response adds that 4,100 participants aged under 25 had started on the pathway by that point. Those figures are an early snapshot of one programme, rather than a measure of the employment position of neurodivergent people as a whole.
What remains to be decided
The response supports the report’s needs-led approach and says officials will hold conversations with employers about low-cost practical strategies. A 16-week policy discovery exercise is examining whether workplace design principles covering physical environments, procedures, policies and communications would be useful, manageable and proportionate. The work is due to conclude in the autumn, and no outcome is promised in advance.
The response is equally clear about a limit to the present policy position: it does not propose making sensory-friendly building design a legislative requirement. It also says nearly 500 additional staff are to be recruited to help clear the inherited Access to Work backlog, while wider reforms to employment support continue.
Why the gap matters
In 2024/25, 34% of disabled people with autism were in work, compared with 55% of disabled people overall. The panel argues that this gap cannot be addressed by a single scheme or a one-off adjustment. Its recommendations are aimed at the full employment journey, from hiring to retention and progression.
The practical test now is whether employers, government and research bodies can translate the report’s broad principles into consistent everyday practice. The report provides a framework and the response describes activity already under way, but the scale and durability of change will depend on what follows publication.
