Forgotten, outdated, and absent: PSNI officer’s training, experiences, and confidence with Autism

ABSTRACT

Building on the growing literature examining the multifaceted and complex issues surrounding police interactions with Autistic individuals, this paper examines police officers’ training, experiences, and confidence of policing and interacting with autistic individuals. The paper specifically focuses on the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which has been completely neglected in the literature to date. The findings are based upon a survey completed by 212 serving PSNI officers across a variety of ranks and years of experience. While there are a range of important findings in relation to training, confidence and available adaptations, the key finding of this paper is that less than one-third of the survey respondents reported receiving training on Autism delivered by the PSNI. Perhaps even more worryingly, less than half of those who had received this training stated that they were ‘satisfied’ with it. These findings suggest that the PSNI need to urgently reform the training provided to their officers to ensure that all officers receive Autism focused training. The study findings demonstrate that this new training programme should require periodic retraining throughout officers’ careers; be designed to provide officers with both the knowledge base and skill set to effectively interact with Autistic individuals in ways that protect their human rights; and be delivered by a specialist organisation or professional, such as Autism NI.

KEYWORDS:

• Policing
• Autism
• police training

Introduction

Recent high-profile events, like the death of Elijah McClain, have helped to garner public attention on the complex issues surrounding police interactions with autistic individuals. Elijah McClain was a Black, Autistic man who was walking home from work when he was approached by the police after a 911 caller reported a ‘suspicious’ person (City of Colorado 2021). McClain died three days after this interaction with the police, who used a carotid chokehold on him, and paramedics, who injected him with ketamine. While there are undoubtedly complex, intersecting factors influencing his treatment by the police and paramedics, as Parry and Huff (2022, p. 509) have argued, police encounters with autistic individuals often ‘involve police officers interpreting […] natural behaviours, traits and characteristics as suspicious or dangerous, which result in these individuals being arrested, experiencing physical and emotional trauma and even death’. While this is an extreme example, research, such as that by Young and Brewer (2020), demonstrates that it is not uncommon for autistic individuals’ behaviours to be misinterpreted or misunderstood by police, resulting in misplaced suspicion, inappropriate and sometimes forceful responses, and rights violations.

Morgan’s (2022, p. 493) explanation regarding the visibility of disability offers interesting insight into these interactions. She contends that ‘disability [including Autism] is both hypervisible and invisible […]’, explaining that reactions to disability ‘prompt the police encounter, yet the role disability plays, whether in triggering the encounter or during the encounter, and its role in justifying the use of force, is largely ignored’. While this feeds into broader discussions about the role of police in society (such as the abolition and defunding debates), it also raises questions about police training. It has been suggested that police training focused specifically on Autism can help to address the various issues raised here (Young and Brewer 2020) by helping to combat conscious and unconscious bias; improving knowledge, understanding and empathy; providing skills for de-escalation; and creating the conditions for Autistic individuals to effectively participate in the criminal justice system (Wallace et al. 2021). Thus, inadequate or non-existent Autism focused police training is a cause for concern. As discussed in further detail below, studies of Autism focused police training have been conducted in England and Wales, but this is the first study of its kind in Northern Ireland, which is arguably a contradiction to the human rights centred approach the organisation has adopted since Patten reforms. The Patten report (Independent Commission on Policing 1999) aimed to transform the divisive and militaristic policing model used previously in Northern Ireland into a democratic and human rights focused model, in which equality, transparency and accountability would be woven into the organisation at all levels (Lamb 2008, Martin 2021). The Northern Ireland Policing Board (2015) contend that having the Human Rights Act 1998 inform policing increases public confidence in the police; however, this article demonstrates that human rights focused policing is not reality for Autistic individuals. The following article therefore aims to fill the gap in the literature by examining Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) officers’ training, experiences, and confidence of policing and interacting with Autistic individuals.

Understanding Autism

Autism is a developmental disability. This paper understands Autism through the lens of social model of disability, which views disability as ‘the result of societal oppression’ and ‘sees the behaviours and traits associated with autism […] as alternative forms of behaviour that are not readily tolerated by society’ (Anderson-Chavarria 2022, p. 1330–1331). Autistic individuals may process, understand and react to social situations differently, may have sensory differences, and may have a strong preference for stability in environment and routine (Autism NI 2021; NAS 2022, 2021^[1]). Whilst these traits are commonly reported in Autistic individuals, the degree to which these and other differences are experienced are unique to each individual, hence Autism is described as a spectrum, otherwise called ‘Autistic Spectrum Disorder’ (ASD) (Autism NI 2020).

Communication differences may involve a limited ability to understand and comply with verbal instructions, and recognise and respond to non-verbal cues (for example, understanding body language and making eye contact). This can make it difficult for Autistic individuals to understand and be understood by neurotypical people, particularly in stressful situations, such as encounters with police (Young and Brewer 2020). Autistic individuals may also experience differences in relation to language processing – specifically in terms of a tendency to interpret language literally, meaning that metaphorical, implied, or ironic language can be misunderstood (Kolevzon and Buxbaum 2013). The communication capability and style of Autistic individuals varies, and whilst some may be fully verbal, others may experience periods of selective mutism (an involuntary response to stress) or be non-verbal and rely on alternative communication methods (such as sign language, Makaton, or the use of visual aids) (NAS 2020). Sensory processing differences may take the form of hyper-sensitivity in which sensory stimuli is experienced more intensely in all or some of one’s senses. This can result in an Autistic person experiencing overwhelm at the environment around them, particularly in situations with sirens, flashing lights, and crowds. Other Autistic individuals may experience hypo-sensitivity, requiring more intense stimuli to register and interact with their environment (for example, requiring someone to speak loudly for them to understand) (NAS 2021^[2]). Relatedly, some Autistic people self-stimulate by engaging in a practice known as ‘stimming’, this is where an individual engages in repetitive behaviours such as hand ‘flapping, rocking, or repetitive vocalisations’ (Anderson-Chavarria 2022, p. 1331). As was the case for Elijah McClain, stimming may prompt members of the public to report autistic people to the police (City of Colorado 2021); it can also lead police to interpret repetitive physical behaviours as markers of suspicion (Wallace et al. 2021, p. 405) – for example, causing police officers to believe that the individual has taken illegal drugs (Young and Brewer 2020). The final area of difference refers to environmental or routine changes. Many Autistic individuals have a strong preference for routine and familiar structure which, when interrupted, may make it difficult for them to adapt and predict what is coming next. This can lead to feelings of overwhelm and high levels of anxiety and stress, which can be mitigated by respecting the individual’s routine and providing clear notice of when a change in routine is unavoidable (Mind 2015).

In the UK, research has shown an increase in Autism prevalence rates; Northern Ireland has witnessed the highest prevalence rate in the UK amongst school-aged children from 2010 to 2019 (McConkey 2020). It is estimated that 20,000 people in Northern Ireland are Autistic, or approximately 1/100, although this figure only captures those who were formally diagnosed and recorded within the statistic (DHSSPSNI 2014). This increase in diagnoses reflects an increased awareness of Autism, better diagnostic services, and the development of the diagnostic criteria beyond the traditional male-focused understanding (McConkey 2020, Rodgers and McCluney 2021). In Northern Ireland this was largely due to changes introduced by the ‘Autism Act (Northern Ireland) 2011’, which focused on increasing assessments to reduce waiting times, improving service accessibility, and improving and monitoring Autism services across all sectors – specifically increasing awareness in schools, GP surgeries, and amongst other professionals (Stewart 2014, Rodgers and McCluney 2021).

Recent statistics published by the NI Department of Health have revealed two interesting features of Autism prevalence rates among children (Rodgers and McCluney 2022). First, Autism rates are higher in urban populations than rural populations in NI by a difference of two percentage points. Second, a statistically significant relationship was found between the proportion of children with Autism and living within the most deprived areas of NI (Rodgers and McCluney 2022). These findings are significant for the current research as people from urban areas and people living in the most deprived areas are more likely to come into contact with the police and research from the NIPB (2022) found respondents from these areas were more likely to have lower satisfaction with the PSNI in regard to ‘the job the PSNI do in NI overall’ (p. 8) and ‘the PSNI’s treatment of the public in the local area’ (p. 10). This underlines the importance of investigating PSNI training relating to and understanding of Autistic individuals.

Policing and autism

As briefly discussed above, research examining police interactions with Autistic individuals has found that Autistic individuals are more likely than non-Autistic individuals to come into contact with the police (Debbaudt and Rothman 2001, Turcotte et al. 2018), and that they have a higher risk of experiencing a miscarriage of justice (Hepworth 2017). While further research on this is required, higher rates of police contact are typically explained by higher rates of victimisation amongst Autistic individuals (Brown-Lavoie et al. 2014, Turcotte et al. 2018) and expressions of Autism being interpreted by police as suspicious. As explained by Morgan,

certain expressions of disability – such as flapping hands, low-affect facial expressions, pacing, lack of eye contact, and unsteadiness that may be exhibited by autistic individuals – may draw police attention […] Reactions to police by autistic individuals and individuals with developmental disabilities – including not just fear and anxiety due to the police presence but also expressions of sensory overload stemming from the loud sirens, flashing lights, and shouted commands – can in turn be perceived by officers as nervousness, furtiveness, or evasiveness. In a word, officers may perceive these reactions as suspicious. (2022, p. 527–528)

Similarly, Wallace et al. (2021, p. 405) found that a number of behaviours and characteristics common amongst Autistic individuals are listed in police officer training textbooks as markers of deception, including ‘variability in eye contact (i.e. less eye contact, shifting eye movements, more eye contact, and wide open eyes), characteristics of the individual’s communication (i.e. confusing answers, nonverbal, slow or fast speech, uncooperative, will not respond and verbal pauses) and body movements (i.e. repetitive leg and hand or arm movements)’.

Explanations in relation to Autistic individuals experiencing higher risks of miscarriages of justice are also multifaceted. Largely for the reasons mentioned above, Young and Brewer (2020, p. 2238) found that Autistic individuals have more difficultly ‘allaying police suspicions’ and successfully ‘persuading police of their innocence’ even when they have not committed any criminal activity. Evidence from the Criminal Joint Justice Inspection (2021) supports this, finding that individual’s expressions of neurodivergence are often wrongly perceived, which can make these individuals more likely to be arrested, less likely to be given consideration for diversion from custody, and seen as non-compliant impacting on their access to necessary supports and effective participation in the criminal justice system. Further, Giibs et al. (2021) contend that Autistic individuals may be more susceptible to ‘manipulation and coercion’ due to ‘difficulty in understanding other people’s intentions’. Helverschou et al.’s (2015) work provides evidence for this assertion; in their examination of 48 case reports of police interviews with Autistic individuals, a majority had made a full or partial admission of guilt, with some individuals also admitting further criminal activities to the police. What becomes evident with both the higher likelihood of police contact and higher risk of miscarriages of justice is Morgan’s (2022) conceptualisation of disability as both hypervisible and invisible at the same time. This research demonstrates the role that Autism often plays in prompting police encounters and subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system, and also suggests that its role in police and criminal justice contact and miscarriages of justice is often ignored. This research raises significant concerns in relation to fairness and procedural justice and also invites reflection on potential solutions.

Two of the key strategies employed to address these issues has been providing training to police officers and providing adaptations for individuals with disabilities within all components of the criminal justice system. It is thought that Autism focused police training can equip police officers to interact with Autistic individuals who may be suspects, victims, or witnesses in ways that will lessen the occurrences of miscarriages of justice, reduce bias and discrimination, and also help ensure effectively participation in the criminal justice system and increase victim satisfaction (Hepworth 2017, Holloway et al. 2020). In light of this, research on policing and Autism in England and Wales has explored the importance of training for equipping and supporting police officers as the first point of contact and most visible sector of the criminal justice system. For example, Crane et al. (2016) conducted a survey with police officers in England and Wales to examine Autism-related training that they received. Their study highlighted inconsistency across England and Wales, with a lack of training reported by many police officers, and mixed satisfaction rates amongst those who had received training. Interestingly, they found high demand for Autism training, particularly from police officers who had not received any training.

In Northern Ireland, this area is under researched and publicly available information regarding current PSNI Autism training is vague. A freedom of information request made to the PSNI in 2018 stated that ‘no specific standalone training package is provided’ but that the student police officers are given a general awareness as they encounter different aspects of Autism within their training (Freedom of Information Request F-2018-01328, PSNI 2018). McConkey (2015) reviewed post-training evaluation sheets conducted with criminal justice professionals in Northern Ireland and found that PSNI officers and Department of Justice personnel had the least knowledge of Autism. This gap in NI-based literature relating to Autism and policing is concerning due to the implications discussed above. It raises concerns around PSNI officers’ knowledge of Autism, potential bias, inappropriate or ineffective interactions with Autistic individuals, procedural justice concerns, and effective participation in the justice system.

The second strategy, designed to enable effective participation and combat the invisibility of disability, are the adaptations for individuals with disabilities within all components of the criminal justice system. Witnesses who are under 18 or whose ability to provide quality evidence is limited due to their mental state, having an intellectual or social impairment or physical disability are entitled to special measures under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Crown Prosecution Service 2021). These special measures enable the witness to be screened from the accused, provide their evidence via live link, provide their evidence in private, provide evidence via an intermediary, and other adjustments that are designed to reduce the stress and intimidation that may be experienced by vulnerable witnesses when involved in an investigation or court proceeding (Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999). For suspects who appear to be under the age of 18 or are classed as vulnerable adults in the UK, access to an Appropriate Adult (AA) is provided. The AA scheme is important for a number of reasons; it helps ensure that the individual can access their rights, that they can understand and communicate with police officers and other criminal justice employees effectively, and that evidence is collected fairly (Jessiman and Cameron 2017, National Appropriate Adult Network 2018). In Northern Ireland, the NIAAS (Northern Ireland Appropriate Adults Scheme) assigns professional AAs in cases where the PSNI cannot contact a family member, carer or friend of a vulnerable suspect (Mindwise 2017). For suspects and witnesses in NI who are classed as vulnerable, the Registered Intermediary Scheme provides intermediaries – usually professionals such as speech or language therapists – who can help these individuals to understand and communicate within the criminal justice system (Cooper and Wurtzel 2014, Cooper and Mattison 2017). Another adaptation designed to assist Autistic individuals during interviews with the police are sensory friendly interview rooms. As explained above, sensory differences that may be experienced by Autistic individuals can lead to sensitivity to noise, touch, and light, which can result in an individual experiencing overwhelm. Thus, interview rooms that are designed to be a quiet and calm environment, have lighting that does not buzz or flash, and have sensory tools available (such as fidget spinners) can create conditions that allow Autistic individuals to better attend to the police interviewer and more easily recall events (Maras and Bowler 2014, p. 2685). The lack of scholarship on adaptations in NI must also be highlighted. As discussed above, the lack of availability and/or use of appropriate adaptations raises further concerns over bias, discrimination, ill-treatment, effective participation, and procedural justice. Thus, this study begins to address these gaps in the literature by surveying PSNI officers on their knowledge of Autism, Autism-focused training received, and adaptations available and utilised for Autistic individuals.

Methods

The aim of the research is to understand PSNI officer’s knowledge, experiences, and confidence of policing and interacting with Autistic community members; therefore, a mixed mode online survey was developed. This survey included both open- and closed-ended questions to enable respondents to elaborate on their answers or to provide additional information. The survey was comprised of 26 questions spread across 3 sections. The survey questions were largely inspired by research from Crane et al. (2016) that was conducted in England and Wales in hope that data collected from this survey in the Northern Irish context could be compared with this previous work completed in other parts of the UK. The first section focused on the general background of the respondent (their rank, number of years they have worked for the PSNI, and whether they have any personal experience with Autism). The second section asked about professional experiences with Autism and the final section aimed to measure the knowledge and training of the respondent in relation to Autism. Survey participants were required to be current PSNI officers, with the survey being made available to all current PSNI officers via the internal PSNI online portal. Analysis of the data involved descriptive statistical, thematic, and cross tabulation analysis, as well as qualitative thematic analysis. The sample size was 212; however, as respondents were able to opt out of certain questions and particular questions were not applicable to all respondents, total responses will vary – this will be reflected by the number of respondents to each question (N = ).

It is important to note that selection bias may be present as survey participants may have opted to complete the survey due to an interest in Autism, which may influence their answers. This is at least partially mediated by the content of the survey questions, which focuses on what training and experiences the officers have, rather than the survey being solely focused on knowledge of Autism. To protect the identity of respondents, the survey provided anonymity; the survey’s background section avoided personal questions, and any personal information that was inputted by respondents into open-text boxes was removed and destroyed. Ethical approval for this research was granted in May 2021 by the School of Law Ethics Committee, Queen’s University Belfast.

Findings

The survey data was analysed using descriptive statistics, cross tabulation, and thematic analysis. The survey was completed by 212 PSNI officers, of which, 73% of the respondents identified themselves as constables, 17% as sergeants, 6% as inspectors, 1% as chief inspectors, 2% as superintendent and above, and 1% indicated their rank as ‘other’. This is largely representative of the police force itself, where, as of November 2023, 76% of total PSNI police officers were constables, 16% were sergeants, 6% were inspectors, 1% as chief inspectors, and 1% were superintendent and above (PSNI 2023). The survey respondents worked for the PSNI for a range of years: 35% worked for 12–17 years, 30% worked for 18 years or more, 13% for 6–11 years, and 22% for 0–5 years. Further, 70% of the sample reported having personal experience with Autism, which was most commonly with a family member, partner or child. 11 respondents indicated that they themselves were Autistic. The central themes that emerged from the survey data are broken down into the following sections: police respondents’ professional experiences with Autism, the use of adaptations in respondents’ professional experience of Autism, training and guidance, and knowledge and confidence – each of these is discussed below.

Professional experiences with Autism

The results showed that 69% of police respondents had experiences with Autistic individuals in their professional lives, with the interactions taking place in a variety of capacities, including as witnesses, victims, general community members, and suspects. The most common experience reported was as suspects. Autistic individuals aged 13–17 years old were the most commonly encountered amongst police respondents, with those aged over 55 being the least.

Within these interactions, the most frequent source of disclosure of an individual’s Autism diagnosis was reported to be a friend/family member of the individual or the individual disclosing this themselves. The least reported source of disclosure was via the police respondent asking, or the use of a card/document by the individual to signify their diagnosis. Qualitative responses also highlighted that disclosure from social services, records from previous police encounters, and recognition of Autistic traits by the police respondent themselves were also used to ascertain disclosure of diagnosis. Mixed results were seen in relation to how often respondents were made aware of an individual’s diagnosis of Autism at the first point of contact, with 43% of respondents reporting this as ‘often’, whilst 37% felt this was ‘not often’. Results relating to respondents who were made aware of this from the first point of contact demonstrated positive outcomes, with these respondents indicating a positive impact on the following processes: cooperation of the individual, the respondent's own level of confidence, the management of the distress level of the individual, the outcome of the interaction, and the quality of the information obtained from the individual.

Use of adaptations

Police respondents indicated that the most difficult tasks they faced in their professional interactions with Autism were obtaining written statements, explaining procedures, and managing the emotional distress of the individual. As discussed above, in order to alleviate some of these difficulties, adaptations may be utilised. Adaptations used most commonly by the survey respondents in their professional experiences with Autism were avoiding the use of confusing language or phrases, avoiding long or multi-part questions and providing extra time for the individual when they are answering questions (for the full range of adaptations, see Table 1). Experiences with implementing adaptations were mixed and the reasons for this are varied. In terms of difficulties with implementation, the qualitative responses revealed a lack of knowledge. This was captured well by one respondent, who wrote ‘I didn’t know we had those resources available!’ Others highlighted the lack of resources (‘Due to low numbers on the ground sometimes you have to rush calls to get to another or there may be a long wait for assistance’) and training (‘PSNI do not train us in dealing with people living with Autism or any special needs’). Finally, the difficulty in finding adequate facilities was also raised;

[a]lthough I have used interview suites designed to be a less oppressive environment for children and vulnerable adults. I do not feel that the police estate have a bespoke suite where the best use is made of sensory items to aid communication with persons with ASD

The qualitative responses also revealed two factors that helped to mitigate these difficulties and aid implementation of adaptations. The first was the respondents’ own knowledge, ‘[o]nly through my own experience with family members was I able to change my style and approach’. Second was working with other organisations who mediated these difficulties, ‘I work alongside YJA (Youth Justice Agency) who have fidget toys etc. to provide’.

Table 1. Adaptations used by respondents in their professional experiences with Autism, and how helpful police respondents found these.

Adaptation	Number of respondents who have used the adaptation:	Helpful (%)	Neutral (%)	Unhelpful (%)
Avoiding the use of confusing language or phrases	122	90%	9%	1%
Avoiding long or multi-part questions	112	89%	11%	0%
Extra time for the individual when answering questions	111	87%	13%	1%
Appropriate adult	110	73%	24%	3%
Registered intermediary scheme	65	95%	0%	5%
Turning off lights and sirens	28	35%	65%	0%
Sensory aids (for example, ear defenders, fidget toys, etc.)	25	36%	62%	1%
Visual aids	23	37%	63%	0%
Advice from Autism charities	20	32%	68%	0%
The use of written questions to accompany the verbal ones	20	24%	76%	0%
Use of a sensory-friendly interview suite	8	15%	85%	0%

As outlined in Table 1, the fourth most commonly used adaptation was Appropriate Adults (AAs), with 111 respondents having used these. Of these respondents, the vast majority (73%) indicated that they found AAs helpful, with only 3% stating this as being unhelpful. The survey also showed a high level of awareness of the Registered Intermediary Scheme (RIS) with 69% of the sample indicating an awareness of this, however, a low percentage reporting experience with this (31%). The RIS was rated as ‘helpful’ by 93% of those who had used it, in contrast to 5% who found it unhelpful. The least used adaptation was a sensory friendly interview suite. This adaptation was given a high rating of neutral/unsure (85%) when respondents were asked about how helpful they found this, with the other 15% finding this to be helpful. Respondents expanded on this in the open text box, expressing that they did not feel like sensory friendly interview suites were available in their station.

Training

Two thirds of respondents (66%) reported that they had not received adequate guidance on Autism (such as, informative documents and booklets), and only 15% of respondents felt the PSNI had good Autism practices (disagree = 42.5%, neither agree nor disagree = 42.5%). Only 31% of police respondents reported that they had received training on Autism, which was not correlated to their rank, length of service or geographical location, suggesting that it is not part of the core training. The most common characteristics that training included were general information on Autism, communicating with Autistic individuals, minimising distress to Autistic individuals and input from professionals on Autism; while the least common was that the training was thorough and Autism focused. The training was most commonly provided by a PSNI trainer (34) or a charity/organisation for Autism (25) and least commonly by an Autism accredited PSNI trainer (2) (Other = 17). Satisfaction with training received was mixed; of the 67 respondents, 46% felt satisfied with the training, 43% felt neutral, and 11% felt unsatisfied. Dissatisfaction with the training came through strongly in the qualitative responses. One of the main critiques was that the training was ‘very basic and generalised’, lacking practical applicability and specificity; ‘I have been trained to know what Autism is and how it may affect individuals, but I have only received generalised awareness training and nothing significant with regards to interviewing or interacting with a person with ASD’. Dissatisfaction was also rooted in timing and delivery method. While some respondents were satisfied with the training itself, they problematised receiving it as a ‘one-off’ session, ‘[i]t would be helpful if these modules are updated on a regular basis and obligation by officer to retake the module every 12/18 months as a refresher’. Others were unhappy with the format, ‘[i]t was an online video and that was it’. Those who had received training outside of the PSNI generally spoke highly of this training. For example, on respondent stated,

It was Autism NI that held the information session – at the time I was waiting for an assessment/diagnosis for my son – it opened my eyes in what my son is experiencing (at the time, I knew of Autism, but that was about it). The trainer showed a video which was recorded by a teenager with Autism, but through videography techniques they were able to distort the noise/picture so that you were watching it through the eyes/mind of that person with Autism. That piece has always stayed in my head.

Respondents who indicated they had Autism provided insightful information on the PSNI’s Autism awareness: 7 of the 11 Autistic PSNI respondents disagreed that the PSNI had good Autism awareness practices, in contrast to only 2 who agreed. One respondent wrote in the open text comments section of the survey: ‘The PSNI still have a long way to go in terms of Autism awareness. Some of the managers have absolutely shocking attitudes towards Autistic staff’. Furthermore, only 4 of the Autistic respondents indicated they had received training on Autism, with none of these respondents indicating that they were satisfied with this training (2 unsatisfied and 2 neutral). Open text comments left by these respondents highlighted the gap in training and knowledge of Autism within the PSNI, with one officer writing:

I believe as an Autistic Officer I have a heightened awareness of Autism, how to recognise it and how best to approach and settle someone with Autism. However I have not had any training on the subject in PSNI. I think it's something which would be beneficial to officers.

The theme of drawing on personal experience when interacting with community members who are Autistic was also seen in another respondent's comment: ‘Because I have the condition myself I feel well equipped to break barriers with individuals, but I doubt it would be as easy for other officers’. Another respondent spoke about the absence of updated training on Autism, writing: ‘Neurodiversity is introduced at the college at the beginning of the course but district training for refresh and updating is non existent … ’ These comments raise a number of important issues. They further highlight the inconsistency that is likely experienced by Autistic community members when interacting with PSNI officers. They raise concerns about the treatment of Autistic officers within the PSNI. They also reinforce the need for both mandated and consistent training and a significant improvement in the training provided. Finally, the use of personal experience by PSNI officers who have Autism highlights the wealth of knowledge that the PSNI could draw on within the organisation itself to improve training as well as the treatment of Autistic officers and community members.

A vast majority of respondents, 69%, had not received any training in relation to Autism during their time as PSNI officers (N = 210). Despite this, the survey revealed a strong demand for training, with 97% of respondents indicating they would find this helpful (N = 171). In relation to the specific features that they would like to see this training include, there were high ratings for each option. That said, the most commonly indicated features were, training on communicating with Autistic individuals, de-escalation, and minimising distress techniques for situations involving Autistic individuals (see Table 2).

Table 2. What respondents who have not received Autism training within the PSNI want future training to include:

‘What would you like this training to include? (Tick all that apply)’	Count:
Training on how to communicate with Autistic individuals	168
De-escalation techniques when dealing with an Autistic individual	163
How to minimise distress to Autistic individuals	162
Information on working with Autistic suspects	150
Input from Autistic individuals	144
General information about Autism	143
Information on working with Autistic victims	141
Information on working with Autistic witnesses	137
Information on the adaptations available for Autistic individuals	135
Autism professionals’ input	133
How to approach an individual disclosing Autism	133
Role specific training	117

Knowledge and confidence

Respondent’s knowledge of Autism was self-assessed, with 49% of the 201 respondents viewing themselves as ‘somewhat knowledgeable’; 26% as knowledgeable, 12% as very knowledgeable, and 13% as very unknowledgeable. Cross tabulation analysis showed correlation between more positive self-assessed knowledge and respondents personal experience of Autism (P < .001). In demonstrating their knowledge of Autism aids, 47% of respondents were aware of the Autism Awareness cards produced by Autism NI in conjunction with Northern Irish emergency services, whilst 41% were unaware of these. Having received training within the PSNI was seen to correlate with respondents’ awareness of the cards (P = .001).

‘Confidence’ was measured via respondents’ self-assessment in relation to being confident in being able to identify Autistic individuals and feeling confident in supporting Autistic individuals they encounter in their professional lives. The results showed that 58% of respondents felt confident in identifying Autistic individuals they may come into contact with, whilst 18% felt they were not (N = 211). Respondents who had indicated they had personal experience with Autism or who had rated themselves more knowledgeable regarding Autism were seen to report higher ratings of confidence in identifying Autistic individuals. Regarding respondents’ self-assessed confidence in supporting Autistic individuals, 61% felt they were confident, in contrast to 19% who did not feel confident (N = 211). Cross tabulation analysis showed an interesting result regarding length of time worked for the PSNI and respondents’ confidence in supporting Autistic individuals, with police respondents who had worked 0–5 years indicating the highest confidence. Respondents self-assessed knowledge, training, and personal experience were all seen to have a positive impact on the confidence variable.

Feeling equipped

Respondents reported mixed results regarding how equipped they felt in relation to Autism, 43% indicated feeling equipped to police Autistic community members, while 30% did not feel equipped (N = 210). Personal experience was linked to higher ratings of feeling equipped by respondents: more than half of respondents who reported feeling equipped also indicated they had personal experience of Autism. In contrast, respondents who reported no personal experience reported feelings of being unequipped at a higher rate: only 13% of respondents who had no personal experience of Autism indicated that they felt equipped to police Autistic community members (N = 210) (P = .001). Similar correlations were found in regard to self-assessed knowledge and respondents’ indication of feeling equipped to police Autistic members: with 82% of those who had rated themselves as ‘very knowledgeable’ in relation to Autism indicating they felt equipped, in contrast to 0% of those who had self-assessed as ‘very unknowledgeable’ reporting feeling equipped (N = 202) (P < .001).

In response to whether the respondents felt equipped with the resources to support Autistic individuals who may be in distress, the results showed the majority of respondents disagreed (50%), whilst only 18% agreed (N = 211). Cross tabulation analysis of this data showed that not receiving training on Autism correlated with feelings of not being equipped with the resources to support Autistic individuals who may be in distress. Of those who indicated they had not received training, 58% indicated not feeling equipped, in contrast to only 13% of those who had received training (N = 210) (P = .005).

Discussion

The data collected from the 212 police officers who completed the survey highlights key findings in relation to PSNI officers training and professional experiences with Autism. The results indicated the need for more consistent training for PSNI officers on Autism throughout their career that is not merely offered as part of induction training to new recruits. Further, given the high level of praise for the training provided by Autism NI to the general public (outlined in the open-text responses), it is recommended that the PSNI consider contracting Autism NI and/or Autistic individuals, which could include Autistic PSNI officers, to undertake this training. The survey responses also indicate what training course content officers feel would be most helpful. Respondents highlighted that training which addressed the difficulties they encountered when policing Autistic community members was desired, with training on communicating with Autistic individuals, de-escalating techniques, and minimising distress to Autistic individuals correlating with the most commonly reported areas of difficulty experienced by police respondents. The proportion of respondents who had received Autism training as part of their police training is concerning. Only 66 out of the 212 PSNI officers (31%) surveyed reported receiving training and further, there were very mixed responses regarding their satisfaction with this training – with only 46% (or 31 out of 67 respondents) reporting being satisfied. This also serves to highlight a key issue in the disparity that may exist in experiences of policing by Autistic individuals. As discussed at the outset of this piece, this lack of training could have impacts on their rights, access to adaptations, and an increased risk of miscarriages of justice.

Findings relating to PSNI officers’ professional experiences of Autism indicate that the majority of PSNI officers have encountered Autistic individuals in their role as police, with 69% of respondents reporting contact in a variety of capacities. As the most commonly reported capacity was that of an Autistic suspect, one central issue is raised. The police must be aware that a suspect is Autistic, which usually means that an Autistic individual must disclose their Autism, in order to provide access to adaptations (Crane et al. 2016). An important finding relating to this was the significantly positive effect that knowing about an individual’s Autism diagnosis from the first point of contact had on the cooperation of the individual, the respondent's own level of confidence, the distress level of the individual, the outcome of the interaction and the quality of the information obtained. This result highlights the importance of not only training and equipping PSNI officers to enable them to identify potentially Autistic individuals but also the importance of creating a more Autism friendly police service which would encourage individuals to feel safer in disclosing their diagnosis themselves.

Analysis of results relating to adaptations showed positive experiences of Appropriate Adults and the Registered Intermediary Scheme, which the majority of the sample had experience with. That said, the survey results indicate that adaptations are another area the PSNI should focus on improving. Interestingly, sensory-friendly interview rooms were under-represented as a utilised adaptation and, where they were used, had a high proportion of neutral ratings in relation to satisfaction. Explanations offered in the qualitative responses identified the lack of a suitable facility for this as a barrier to implementing this adaptation. This highlights an opportunity for the PSNI to improve adaptations available to Autistic individuals by improving existing sensory-friendly interview rooms and creating more of them. This may help to create an environment where Autistic individuals can more effectively engage with police interviews (Maras and Bowler 2014) and, if combined with other adaptations and effective training, help to reduce the risk of miscarriages of justice. Every other adaptation that had been used by respondents showed a high rating of being helpful; however, difficulties were identified. Specifically, respondents generally reported a lack of knowledge about the existence of adaptations, a lack of available resources, and a lack of training.

Results on PSNI officers self-assessed knowledge, confidence, and feeling equipped in relation to Autism showed mixed results. Respondents most commonly indicated they were ‘somewhat knowledgeable’ on Autism and ratings of confidence in identifying and supporting Autistic individuals were positive. However, less than half of the respondents felt equipped to police Autistic community members and less than 20% felt they were equipped with the resources to support Autistic individuals who may be in distress, highlighting a disparity between the knowledge and confidence of the PSNI respondents and the resources available to them. Whilst training was seen to correlate with feeling equipped with the resources to support Autistic individuals it is clear that further supports, resources and more in-depth training are necessary. PSNI officers who had personal experience with Autism reported higher ratings in all of these areas, whilst those without personal experience assessed themselves significantly lower. This reinforces the importance of providing consistent and effective training to all police officers to ensure that they are better equipped to interact with Autistic individuals.

Conclusion

This research is the first of its kind in Northern Ireland. As such, the findings and subsequent recommendations provide an important jumping off point for improving interactions between police and Autistic individuals. The central finding of the present study is that less than one-third of the survey respondents (31%) reported receiving training on Autism by the PSNI. Further, less than half (46%) of those who had received this training identified being ‘satisfied’ with it. These findings reveal not only an important gap in the training provided to police officers, but also that the current training provision is in need of improvement. The authors make a number of recommendations on how training should be improved, based on the feedback provided by respondents. The key recommendations include introducing a new training programme that also requires officers to retrain periodically throughout their career; implementing more specific training that is designed to provide officers with a better knowledge base and skill set to more effectively interact with Autistic individuals; and designing and delivering this training by a specialist organisation/professional, such as Autism NI. It is also worth emphasising that the authors anticipate that a redesigned training programme would be well received as 97% of respondents who had not received training expressed a strong desire for it. Further, given the findings that having received training and having personal experience interacting with an Autistic individual both increased respondents’ confidence and feelings of being equipped to respond to an Autistic person in distress, revamped PSNI training could make a substantial improvement to interactions between police and Autistic individuals. Finally, we also recommend that the PSNI improve the adaptations available to officers and better inform officers of their availability. Specifically, we recommend improving the quality and availability of sensory friendly interview suites, improving communication techniques tailored to the specific needs of the Autistic individual, and investing in sensory aids. The authors anticipate that making the changes suggested above will not only help to protect the rights and respect the needs of Autistic individuals, but also improve the feelings about interactions for both parties.

While it is essential to have an understanding of what training the PSNI receive on how to effectively interact with Autistic individuals, what adaptations are available and how they are used, and how confident police feel in delivering policing to Autistic individuals, further research in this area must be prioritised. In particular, researchers must engage with Autistic individuals (and where appropriate, their guardians and professionals) to garner an understanding of Autistic individuals’ feelings and experiences with the PSNI in all types of policing interactions. As the research conducted in other jurisdictions has highlighted, Autistic individuals are more likely to come into contact with the police, are more likely to have their rights violated by police, and are more likely to have force used against them. This serves to reinforce the necessity of gathering a better picture of the situation in NI. It is also anticipated that this would underscore the importance of the findings of the current research on the necessity of improving both training and adaptations available to the police.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).