No 6-year-old Here
December 2, 2007 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
“The public’s view of the typical person with autism is a 6-year-old,” according to an article in the November 30th Newsday about how more young adults who have autism are entering the workforce. While the article itself is hopeful—Joanne Gerenser of Eden II cites Walgreens, Home Depot and CVS, all of whom have programs to hire autistic adults—that statement about the general perception of an autistic person as at a 6-year-old level is something that needs to be addressed. Of course autistic children grow up into autistic adults who change and develop. Some might remain interested in Sesame Street for all of their life, but this does not mean that the person who still talks about Elmo is not an adult. Some might still make “inappropriate noises” in public; some non-autistic adults certainly do so……….
Yesterday at a Saturday program for disabled kids at the pool, Charlie was paired with two sophomore girls. Last time he was paired with an eighth-grade girl; all of these young women were just a few inches taller than him and he swam enthusiastically for almost an hour with them, and with a big smile. He wasn’t a 6-year-old-boy being led around by teenage girls; he was a 10-1/2-year-old boy very glad to have some, ahem, girls to swim with.
I think he’s growing up.
Maizie is growing up to. The other day she told me a boy at a dinner she went to thought she was cute. Wow! Sounds like swimming was lots of fun! I can see why most people picture the six year olds. That seems to be a large part of the medias focus.
The agenda of the conference
http://www.eden2.org/Lib/Aging_with_Autism.pdf
it’s disheartening to hear current employment rates of 6%-12%. Does that speak to employer reluctance or that educational programs are not sufficiently preparing students for transition, or both?
(Eleanor would love to work at the neighborhood supermarket right now stacking cans, tidying displays and pushing carts, if someone would let her.)
I’m going to say something politically incorrect here, only because I’ve been yelled at more than a couple of times by younger folk who told me that these employment issues were not interesting because their children would be “recovered” before they had to worry about it. If we have figures of 12% even for the most abled, I think that adult transition is everyone’s business.
Well, my knowledge of teenage boys is limited, but that would seem to be an enjoyable exercise I imagine, apart from the exercise bit of course.
Cheers
I would say that the 88% of unemployed includes, failed interviews, reluctant employers, inadequate training/education, interferring emotional problems that prevent people from seeking jobs and perhaps interferring caregivers that don’t allow the autistic person to receive training or look for work.
I would dare to add that the more employable autistics are not diagnosed because they don’t see a need for dx. So, the ratios may be skewed anyways.
Good point KimJ and I do think Charlie would like to stack cans and even retrieve carts—-well, I guess we have to get a bit better around cars, though Charlie definitely understands about saying on the sidewalk. He also certainly likes to be at grocery stores (just came back from there—-he loves to look around) and his eagerness to help in cooking and putting away things are skills to build on.
I guess Silicon Valley would point to your theory about the skewed ratios, KimJ? There is also a sort of “technology corridor” in central NJ and plenty of the jobs that seem to be codeworded for “possibly on the spectrum,” in the computer, software, engineering fields (not to make too much of stereotypes).
“She said only 12 percent considered high-functioning have jobs while only 6 percent with so-called classic autism are employed.”
I wonder where she gets her numbers. Is that 12% of the people they help? If so, I wonder what that is as a percentage of the overall autistic community. If not, how on earth would she know the employment status of autistic adults not in her case load?
Unemployment rates are tricky. You can only report on those who are actively looking (applying for jobs and/or collecting unemployment). A number of years ago, when our economy was rather dismal, I read an article that said it was hard to figure exactly who wasn’t working because they couldn’t count those who had dropped off the radar-those who weren’t working and not looking for work and not receiving benefits. Likewise, they couldn’t count people who were “underemployed”, jobs that didn’t provide a proper living salary.
Kim J–good question about the employment. I don’t know where Dr. Myles gets the figures, but a couple of years ago I was helping a friend look at the employment after transition from education numbers in our state for diagnoses of Down’s Syndrome ,and Autism. We did have some tracking through Department of Disabilities and Adult Services,
And this is going to sound like I am talking through my hat, because I can’t remember my sources either, but the figures that I had was ~70% not engaged in regular employment of at least 20 hours/week. Any of those reports depend on the source and definition, as do the employment numbers for the general population.
So I suspect that it is based on still being in an IDEA category at the completion of transition services.