Research reveals prejudice against people disclosing impairments

The risks of disclosing unseen disabilities and health conditions in the teaching, nursing and social work professions are compounded by the stigma attached to them, according to the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). In a new report* commissioned by the DRC and published today, a supportive workplace or training environment was found to be key in encouraging disclosure among employees and those training within the three professions. Yet participants in the study said that major shifts in attitudes and behaviour were needed in the workplace to overcome their fears about disclosure.

Disclosure of mental health conditions is particularly stigmatised and considered to be a high-risk strategy that could lead to the exclusion of an individual from training or employment and affect progression in these professions. The paradox of non-disclosure is that people may not be able to access reasonable adjustments that could enable them to practice effectively and safely.

The study found that many disabled students and practitioners have limited awareness of the fitness standards for their profession and that the regulatory bodies are seen as remote and threatening. Improved disability awareness is needed by universities and employers in all three professions to ensure a culture of trust, which is felt to support people talking about their impairments or long-term health conditions.

Sir Bert Massie, Chairman of the DRC, commented:

'There are over 70 separate regulations and pieces of guidance across these three sectors, yet the overwhelming majority of them take no account of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA). This means that disabled teachers, nurses and social workers are in danger of experiencing discrimination if they disclose their impairments or long-term health conditions, both at the point of entry when they undertake training and also later on, once they start working.'

The research - part of a year-long DRC investigation - collated the experiences of students and practitioners across nursing, social work and teaching in Britain. Many felt that there were risks involved whether they disclosed or not:

'I am registered with professional bodies and I do not consider disclosing when my registration is updated. My reasons are due to the potential negative impact on my career.' Nurse.

'You get into all sorts of messy situations if you withhold something which is potentially relevant. You find you have negated your contract of employment, so that you have got this cloud hovering around behind you. You may get rumbled at any time.' Student teacher.

'You are legally obliged to disclose and then when you do it is like being shot in the face. It is like: "Oh my goodness. Right, we are going to stop everything."' Student nurse.

Among the positive findings were that when professionals felt informed about the Disability Discrimination Act it gave them confidence to disclose disabilities and long-term health conditions.

'The University has been really good. I think they have a good system going, they are very high up on having disabled students and disabled teachers working with them.' Student teacher.

The research surveyed people on an anonymous basis. However, cases previously known to the DRC involving disclosure include that of 'P', a 35-year old student social worker and former teacher, who did not think twice about telling the regulator for his profession that he was HIV positive when he applied to do his social work placements. However, he ended up in a lengthy and bitter legal dispute with his honesty and integrity questioned by the regulator who accused him of not originally informing his university of his diagnosis when he applied for his BSc course.

'They said that because I told them and hadn't told the university that constituted dishonesty. It was against the best values in social work and brought into question my integrity as a social worker.'

'P' is now taking legal action claiming discrimination under the DDA. Since 2005, people with conditions such as cancer, HIV and Multiple Sclerosis have been protected under the Act from the point of diagnosis.

Four years after 'D', now 47 and a social worker for 20 years, had a breakdown while studying for his finals he had a job offer with social services withdrawn on the advice of a medical officer. 'D' was told that because he had admitted being diagnosed with schizophrenia while at university it had been decided he was 'not fit for practice'. He was eventually compensated for the time he had worked and told not to discuss the matter further. With the support of the British Association of Social Workers (BASW) he fought the decision and eventually won compensation. The experience was extremely traumatic.

'D' says:

'Schizophrenia is a very damaging diagnosis as far as employers are concerned, so it is not something that I discuss too much generally.' When 'D' moved to his next job he did not tell his manager until he had been there two months and felt he could trust her.

'Her attitude changed completely and she just became very negative. I was made to feel there was something wrong with me and she said to me "we now have to decide whether you are fit to practice."'

Sir Bert concludes:

'People who are disabled or have long-term health conditions want to make a contribution to Britain's public services, which employ millions of people and have an impact on all our lives. These vital services benefit from diverse experiences and perspectives. We would not accept any of these professions being all white, all male or all female. They should not be no-go areas for disabled people either.'

The DRC's year-long investigation is the most wide-ranging analysis of professional fitness standards in the public sector yet undertaken. The investigation includes a legal review, two research projects (of which this is one), a call for evidence and an Inquiry Panel which is taking oral evidence from organisations. The final report with findings and recommendations is due in the summer of 2007.