Jordan is a teenager from Ridgefield, Connecticut. Jordan was born with a type of autism called Fragile X Syndrome, caused by an X chromosome mutation that disrupts regulation of his nervous system. Jordan’s mother, Stephanie Sarup, says that Fragile X impacts Jordan in a variety of ways, with the biggest effect being difficulty in being calm and relaxed.
Stephanie collaborated with neighborhood friend, Paul Giovanniello, to create giv soft butter, a healthy peanut butter company. Now Jordan works for giv as the company’s inventory manager. His tasks include scheduling meetings and checking emails. Not only has Jordan excelled in his role with giv, but he also enjoys the work and finds it interesting. Stephanie says that Jordan “loves being involved,” and Jordan’s excitement and joy in his role is one of the greatest benefits from starting giv.
Jordan, like many Americans, is considered neurodiverse. Neurodiversity is defined as “a range of variation in mental or neurological functioning.” A neurodiverse individual could be somebody with an intellectual or developmental disability, but could also be somebody with ADHD, dyslexia, autism, or PTSD. No matter who you are, we all see the world differently, and every person possesses different strengths and valuable perspectives for society, community, relationships, and a workplace.
Last legislative term, the Connecticut General Assembly failed to pass House Bill 6754. This is disappointing. The bill would have established incentives for certain businesses and organizations to hire workers with intellectual disabilities. The bill included tax credits, state contracting price preferences, and a competitive grant program for certain organizations employing individuals with intellectual disabilities. This legislation could have benefitted both employers and employees.
[RELATED: For people with disabilities in CT, a path toward workplace inclusion]
In fact, tax credits and incentives are not the only reason businesses should hire a diverse pool of employees. According to research from Robert D. Austin and Gary P. Pisano published in the Harvard Business Review, Hewlett Packard Enterprise recently employed 30 software testers as part of their neurodiversity program. Each of these testers had autism. Preliminary results find that the neurodiverse testing team is 30% more efficient than the other testers. However, the report also found that unemployment amongst the neurodiverse population is as high as 80%! If neurodiverse workers have proven that they can be so efficient, why are they being employed at such low rates?
It is apparent that employers have misconceived notions about neurodiverse candidates. It is possible that an employer could wrongly interpret an interview where a candidate was not making eye contact with them to mean a lack of respect, or inability to focus. Businesses could be concerned that supplemented support systems for neurodiverse candidates could cost a business too much money. Some legislators could also be concerned that businesses could find a loophole in the definition of an intellectual disability, or feel that the incentives presented in House Bill 6754 could displace the meritocracy of a workplace.
Yet diversity has been increasingly accepted in the workplace since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Over the decades, American employers have embraced hiring people of diverse races, genders, and socioeconomic backgrounds, and talent that would have otherwise gone unnoticed has flourished. Just because someone’s behavior in the workplace is different from the generally accepted “norm” does not mean that they do not possess strengths that are valuable to an organization. The neurodiverse workforce is an untapped talent pool that has yet to receive fair opportunity.
Enabling neurodiverse individuals to contribute in the workforce also helps the economy to generate more innovative ideas and tax revenue. In fact, in Germany, having people work in jobs and get off public assistance generated more tax revenue. Germany went as far as to open publicly funded positions in efforts to retain neurodiverse employees. The legislation is structured in a manner that does not put a burden upon organizations to hire anybody they do not want to, but instead rewards certain organizations who take the initiative to expand neurodiversity in their workforce.
I urge our legislators to reconsider and pass a measure similar to House Bill 6754 in this year’s legislative session. Legislators should heed the advice given in the public testimony by Carol Scully, the director of advocacy at the Arc of Connecticut. She advised legislators to expand and clarify the definition of intellectual disabilities to include developmental disabilities as well.
I would also urge legislators to expand the definition to include neurodiverse candidates more broadly to include individuals with communicative abnormalities that may not be considered intellectually or developmentally disabled. This expansion will further strengthen the program by bringing individuals who perceive information or communicate differently into the workforce.
Re-considering an updated House Bill 6754 this term will strengthen our economy, boost businesses and help improve the lives of individuals.
Colin Cunningham is a senior at Trinity College, majoring in Public Policy and Law.