Abstract
There is a significant gap in the recognition and appropriate support of autistic people within the criminal justice system, highlighting the need for autism-specific training for police officers. The present study aimed to assess baseline levels of autism knowledge and self-esteem of specialist investigators in Australia, explore whether this knowledge can be enhanced, and examine whether tailored autism awareness training leads to an increase in autism-supportive policing practices. A total of 39 Australian investigators took part in a two-phase training program. Of these, 39 completed a pre-training questionnaire, 18 completed a post-training questionnaire and 3 took part in a follow-up interview. The use of a specifically tailored autism training program was effective in increasing investigators’ knowledge about autism, their self-esteem and their ability to adapt their behaviours to better support autistic offenders. This enabled investigators to consider their interactions with autistic offenders in order to reduce the likelihood of autistic offenders reoffending. Such training could be adapted and delivered to other specialist police areas and frontline emergency personnel who frequently interact with autistic people.
Lay Abstract
Police investigators often receive limited training in how to effectively interact with autistic people. This lack of preparation can lead to misunderstandings and negative outcomes for autistic people during police encounters. This study looked at whether autism-specific training could help specialist police investigators in Australia better support autistic people who were registered offenders. Thirty-nine investigators took part in a training program. Before the training, all completed a questionnaire to assess their knowledge and confidence. After the training, 18 completed a follow-up questionnaire, and 3 participated in interviews. The training helped officers better understand autism, feel more confident in their roles and adjust their behaviour to be more supportive. These changes can make a real difference in how specialist investigators support autistic offenders to reduce the risk of their reoffending. This kind of training could be adapted for other police units and emergency services, helping to build a more inclusive and supportive justice system for autistic people.
Autism is a complex neurodevelopmental condition characterised by differences in social communication and behaviours (American Psychological Association, 2013). Although there are no definitive statistics, available evidence suggests that autistic people are more likely than non-autistic people to come into contact with the criminal justice system, including as suspects, victims or witnesses (King & Murphy, 2014; Lindblad & Lainpelto, 2011; Woodbury-Smith & Dein, 2014). Despite this increased contact, research consistently highlights a lack of recognition, support and the provision of appropriate accommodations for autistic people across justice settings (Crane et al., 2016; Michna & Trestman, 2016; Norris et al., 2020).
Studies examining autistic people's experiences with police suggest that interactions are often challenging. In Australia, Gibbs and Haas (2020) found that 67.5% of autistic people did not disclose their diagnosis during police contact, often due to perceptions that officers lacked autism knowledge. This non-disclosure may contribute to the broader finding, observed across multiple countries, that 62–69% of autistic adults describe police interactions as unsatisfactory (Crane et al., 2016; Gibbs & Haas, 2020). Such negative experiences commonly arise from officers misinterpreting autistic characteristics, communication styles or sensory needs (Gibbs et al., 2023). Further evidence from suspect interviews indicates that autistic people experience heightened stress and anxiety, difficulties with effective participation and a clear need for adaptations (Bagnall et al., 2025). Similarly, police officers report low confidence in their knowledge and ability to work with autistic people and indicate a need for mandatory, role-specific and regularly updated training (Love et al., 2022; Railey et al., 2020a, 2020b). In the context of sexual offending, Margari et al. (2024) note that autistic people may be overrepresented, and that the relationship between autism and sexual offending is complex and sometimes contentious. They further highlight gaps in post-offence support, including limited access to ongoing assistance and rehabilitative services following justice system involvement (Margari et al., 2024).
Given these systemic challenges, the need for autism-specific training becomes particularly salient for specialist investigators, such as Child Protection Offender Registry (CPOR) investigators. These officers work within the legislative framework of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Queensland) and are responsible for monitoring and policing reportable (child sexual) offenders residing in the community. Their primary role is to reduce sexual recidivism risk, which requires advanced investigative expertise, sustained engagement with offenders and long-term risk management strategies. Unlike general police contact, interactions with specialist investigators are often ongoing, legally significant and may involve complex communication considerations when autistic people are involved. While CPOR investigators receive specialist training in legislative compliance, risk management and offender monitoring, there is limited publicly available information regarding whether, and to what extent, this training addresses autism-specific communication and engagement. This distinct context highlights the importance of training tailored to the specific responsibilities and challenges of specialist investigators (Holloway et al., 2022; Love et al., 2022).
Despite the recognised importance of autism-specific training, research in this area remains limited. Emerging evidence synthesised by Railey et al. (2020b) identified only two empirical studies (Murphy et al., 2017; Teagardin et al., 2012). Subsequent research reviewed by Sreckovic et al. (2023) identified three additional studies (Gardner & Campbell, 2020; Hinkle & Lerman, 2021; Love et al., 2020). Building on these reviews, recent research has moved beyond assessing knowledge gains to examine applied preparedness and has increasingly incorporated co-designed training with autistic people (Gardner & Campbell, 2024; Holke et al., 2025; Holloway et al., 2022; Kenney et al., 2025). A summary of the available research is provided in Table 1.
Summary of Available Research Examining Autism-Specific Training for Police Officers.
Findings from this limited research examining the design and impact of autism-specific training for police officers report that a range of different instructional approaches were effective in increasing police knowledge of autism and their confidence in supporting autistic people during encounters. Notably, although the short-video training described by Teagardin et al. (2012) produced measurable gains in officers’ knowledge of autism, participants continued to score below satisfactory levels post-training, suggesting that more in-depth and detailed training is needed to increase knowledge to a satisfactory level.
Holloway et al. (2022) reported the only study in which training was co-developed with autistic people. Delivered to custody staff, feedback highlighted the importance of autistic perspectives and the value of training tailored to the specific demands of custody roles. While several studies have been conducted, they remain limited in number. Only one study employed a standardised measure of self-efficacy (PSEA; Holke et al., 2025), and none used the Autism Stigma and Knowledge Questionnaire (ASK-Q; Harrison et al., 2017). Standardised measures such as the PSEA, which assesses officers’ confidence in supporting autistic people, and the ASK-Q, which evaluates knowledge and stigma, are used in the present study to provide a rigorous evaluation of training effectiveness (Harrison et al., 2017; Holke et al., 2025).
The aforementioned research has primarily focused on first responders and cadet officers, whose experiences and training needs differ from those of specialist investigators. Specialist investigators, in contrast, engage with autistic people in contexts that carry significant legal and procedural responsibilities and often require a nuanced understanding. Effective policing in these contexts depends on upholding the principles of procedural justice – fairness, transparency and respect in interactions with people under investigation (Tyler, 2003). Autism-specific training can enhance officers’ ability to apply these principles when engaging with autistic people, supporting fair, ethical and responsive investigative practices (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Importantly, no research has yet explored autism-specific training tailored to specialist investigators, highlighting a critical knowledge gap.
To address this gap, the present study describes the development of training for specialist investigators and provides an exploratory analysis of its impact on their knowledge, self-efficacy (i.e. confidence in their ability to effectively interact with and support autistic people; Bandura, 1977, 1997) and use of autism-supportive policing practices. The study specifically aimed to address the following questions: (a) What are baseline levels of autism knowledge and self-efficacy of specialist investigators? (b) What changes, if any, are observed in investigators’ knowledge and understanding of autism and self-efficacy for working with autistic offenders following tailored autism awareness training? (c) How do investigators describe the influence of tailored autism awareness training on their use of autism-supportive policing practices during routine police procedures with autistic offenders?
Method
Ethics
This research was a collaboration between Griffith University and the Queensland Police Service. Ethical clearance was therefore gained from Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee and the Queensland Police Service Research Committee.
Participants
To align with the suggestion of Railey et al. (2020b) and advance understanding of similarities and differences of autism knowledge and expertise across specific roles or sections of the police, all investigators for this study were recruited from one specialist area of the police service: those who monitor offenders on the CPOR in <location>. These investigators conduct announced and unannounced visits to those on the CPOR to ensure offenders are complying with their obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting and Offender Prohibition Order) Act 2004 (Queensland Government, 2004).
All CPOR investigators attending the Queensland Police Service jurisdiction annual CPOR conference received an information sheet and consent information and were invited to participate in the research. Participation in the study was not a requirement to attend the training. If investigators consented to participate, they were asked to complete a pre-training questionnaire. Upon completion of the second training session, they were asked to complete a post-training questionnaire. As both the pre- and post-training questionnaires were anonymous, it was not possible to follow up specifically with participants who had not completed the second questionnaire. Additionally, participants were invited to participate in a follow-up interview if they had additional information not previously shared in the open-text sections of the questionnaire. These interviews were undertaken by an independent researcher (who had not delivered the training), so open and honest views about the training could be shared.
In total, 39 investigator participants completed the pre-training questionnaire. They had been within the police organisation for 6–31 years (M = 18.23 years, SD = 6.03 years), and within their CPOR role from 1 month to over 10 years (M = 2.82 years, SD = 2.60 years). Eighteen investigator participants completed the post-training questionnaire, and three completed the post-training in-depth interviews. Those who completed post-training measures had been within the police organisation for 6–31 years (M = 18.67 years, SD = 6.56 years), and within their CPOR role from 1 month to over 10 years (M = 3.83 years, SD = 2.91 years).
Procedure
Training
The training was delivered in two parts to match the availability and requirements of the workforce. The first (delivered face-to-face) focused on what autism is, how investigators can identify characteristics of autism (including diagnostic overshadowing), autistic people's experiences with the police, and how autism may impact offending. The second training session (delivered via Microsoft Teams) was delivered either 3, 4 or 8 weeks after the first session to maximise the opportunity for investigators to attend the second session around investigation requirements, leave, etc. The second session aimed to support investigators to use their newly acquired knowledge on autism to identify how autism may impact policing procedures (e.g. compliance checks, interviews) and how investigators can modify their approach to minimise these impacts. At the end of the second session, they were split into groups and asked to identify role-specific scenarios (e.g. new registered offender visit, compliance check, breach visit) and asked to map out current practices (including required procedures), identify what aspect may be challenging for autistic offenders and hypothesise why (linking back to the content on autism characteristics) and then suggest modifications or accommodations that could be made within operational requirements. This was then fed back to the group so that all participants had the opportunity to hear the content for each scenario.
The training explained the medical, social and neurodiversity-affirming models of autism, and all training content intentionally adopted a neurodiversity-affirming stance. Explicit attention was given to the variability of autistic characteristics within and across autistic people and to the fact that many characteristics discussed (e.g. differences in eye contact, literal interpretation of language, heightened stress responses) may also be present in non-autistic people, particularly under stress. To balance medicalised and stereotypical understandings with neurodiversity-informed perspectives, the training avoided checklist-based approaches and discouraged assumptions about diagnosis or intent. Instead, adaptations were framed as proportionate, person-centred policing strategies that align with principles of procedural justice for many people.
Both sessions were co-delivered by the research team and a police psychologist. The team included a neurodivergent researcher; however, none were autistic or had lived experience of regular police involvement. This was recognised as a limitation, and steps were taken to mitigate this by grounding the training in extensive qualitative interviews as well as observational analysis of police body-worn camera footage, as detailed below.
Interviews with 14 CPOR investigators (Adams, 2025) highlighted that investigators had received no formal autism training and relied on ad hoc strategies to identify if people they encountered were autistic. Three themes emerged: (1) noticing differences without diagnostic certainty, (2) reliance on improvised, experience-based approaches, and (3) recognition that police interactions sit within a broader system of supports. These findings informed the inclusion of training components focused on understanding autism and the diagnostic criteria (to aid with accurate recognition in the absence of diagnosis), practical communication strategies that can be used irrespective of formal identification and the role of police within a multi-agency support context.
Interviews with 20 people on the CPOR register (Simpson et al., 2025) who were diagnosed autistic or scored above the cut-off on a screener for autism characteristics emphasised the lived impact of police interactions. They described feeling criminalised rather than understood and detailed the significant stress experienced during interactions with police. They also highlighted how much they valued respect, clarity and person-centred approaches during police interactions. These findings directly informed the training emphasis on respectful communication, procedural justice, clear and literal language, and reducing unnecessary escalation by supporting a person's communication and sensory preferences and providing consistent, predictable structure to interactions (as far as possible).
The analysis of body-worn camera footage provided an observational complement to interview data, allowing examination of verbal and non-verbal elements of CPOR investigator interactions with autistic and non-autistic offenders. This work was used to highlight some possible supportive interactional strategies and how these are already being used successfully by some officers. This grounded the recommendations in observable practice rather than abstract theory.
Outcome Measures and Analyses
To evaluate the training program, a pragmatic epistemological stance was adopted as mixed-method evaluation prioritises the research question and practical outcomes. This approach aligns with Creswell and Clark's (2017) view that pragmatism supports methodological pluralism to address complex evaluation questions. Combining measurable outcomes with participant perspectives enabled the evaluation to capture both program effectiveness and participant experience. This evaluation incorporated pre- and post-training questionnaires that collected quantitative data through standardised questionnaires and vignette-based items, alongside qualitative data from open-ended survey questions. In addition, follow-up interviews with CPOR investigators were conducted following the training.
Quantitative Data
Standardised Questionnaires
All CPOR investigators were invited to complete a pre-training questionnaire in-person and a post-training questionnaire online. The method of evaluation that was included for the training was the PSEA scale (Police Self-Efficacy for Autism; Love et al., 2021). This was used to measure the self-efficacy of the investigators in working with autistic people. This scale was derived from the research literature and a series of expert reviews (including autistic people and police) and reports good reliability from a sample of 620 police officers in the United States. Furthermore, the ASK-Q (Harrison et al., 2017) was used to evaluate any changes in knowledge around autism. This questionnaire assesses knowledge across four subscales: (a) diagnosis, (b) aetiology, (c) treatment and (d) stigma. ASK-Q items were selected based on ratings of face, construct and cross-cultural validity by a group of 16 international researchers; the questionnaire has been shown to have statistical validity among a lay sample of 617 participants. It has also been used to evaluate autism knowledge interventions in police officers in the United States (Love et al., 2021).
Vignettes
Vignettes were used to evaluate if the training provided enabled CPOR investigators to increase their accuracy of recognition of autism characteristics, and their ability to identify behaviours as characteristic of autism. The pre- and post-training survey contained four different vignettes presented in a randomised order. The vignettes were co-designed with the Queensland Forensic Behaviour Unit team to ensure realism and relevance to the CPOR context (see Supplemental file).
Each vignette depicted a fictional male reportable offender, and they were designed to vary in the presence and type of interactional behaviours that may arise in CPOR encounters. Two vignettes included behaviours commonly associated with autism diagnostic domains; the other two included behaviours or experiences that may be observed in autistic people but are not autism-specific and may also occur in people with other neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions, or in highly stressful situations. These were included to discourage assumptions that any ‘different’ described in the vignette must indicate autism, and therefore, they require participants to engage in reflective judgement about which behaviours may warrant consideration regarding autism and which may not.
To mitigate the risk of reinforcing stereotypes, vignettes deliberately avoided exaggerated or prototypical portrayals of autism and did not include diagnostic labels. Behaviours were presented within situational and contextual narratives, emphasising interactional challenges rather than fixed traits. Participants were not asked to determine whether a person ‘was autistic’, but to reflect on which behaviours might warrant consideration and how confidently they felt in interpreting those behaviours on a scale of 0–100.
Data Analysis
Quantitative data from pre- and post-training questionnaires were checked for normality before being analysed to explore potential changes in autism knowledge and self-efficacy among specialist investigators following the tailored training. Due to the anonymous nature of the surveys, individual participants could not be matched across time points; therefore, independent-samples t-tests were conducted to compare group means on the PSEA and the ASK-Q between pre-training (n = 39) and post-training (n = 18) respondents. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen's d to provide an estimate of the magnitude of observed differences, interpreted according to conventional benchmarks (small: 0.2, medium: 0.5, large: 0.8). Given the pilot nature of the study and limited post-training sample size, results are presented cautiously, focusing on descriptive trends rather than definitive conclusions.
Vignette-related data were summarised descriptively to align with the exploratory aims of the pilot study. Given conceptual limitations and the focus on reflective interpretation rather than diagnostic accuracy, inferential analyses were not conducted on vignette scores.
Qualitative Data
Open-Ended Questions and Interviews
The online pre- and post-training survey contained open-ended questions to identify participants’ understanding of autism, the type of training viewed as important, and how an understanding of autism influences their ability to do their job. The post-training survey also included open-ended questions on what they learnt (if anything) from the training and how this influences their current practice (see Supplemental file). In addition, participants were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews, providing an opportunity to share more detailed responses about their experiences with the training, the impact on their autism knowledge and identification of autistic offenders, and how the training influenced their practice. Sample questions (see Supplemental file) included ‘In what way (if any) has the training changed: What you know or understand about autism? How you now do things?’ Following the completion of all interviews, the deidentified audio recordings of each interview were converted to written text format and checked for accuracy before data analyses.
Qualitative Data Analysis
Open-ended online questionnaire responses were analysed by a researcher with extensive experience in content analysis. Inductive content analysis was conducted using Dey's (1993) four-step approach, as applied in previous autism research (e.g. Adams et al., 2019). The pre-training open responses were segmented into manageable units, responses were grouped based on relevant topics and categories were created to capture similar patterns. These were then reviewed by the team to clarify category names and items. The same categories were used for the post-training open responses. Additional categories were developed for the post-training to cover responses to questions about how training influenced participants’ practice. The interview data were deductively coded using the category descriptions from the post-training open-ended responses. Findings were primarily presented qualitatively through illustrative participant quotations, supplemented by interview excerpts. For categories with categorical responses, frequencies were reported to indicate the level of endorsement.
Results
Questionnaires
As can be seen in Table 2, there was a significant improvement from pre- to post-training on the PSEA scale, t(54) = −4.15, p < .001, d = 1.21. There was also a significant improvement in the ASK-Q total score, t(55) = −2.73, p < .01 d = 0.78, as well as the diagnosis/symptoms subscale, t(55) = −2.72, p < .01, d = 0.78, the treatment subscale, t(55) = −5.90, p < .01, d = 1.68 and the stigma subscale, t(55) = −2.09, p < .05, d = 0.60. Unsurprisingly, given the training did not cover aetiology (i.e. causes), there was no significant change in the aetiology subscale score from pre- to post-training, t(55) = 0.92, p = .18, d = 0.26.
Pre–Post-Training Scores on the PSEA Scale and the ASK-Q.
Note. PSEA = Police Self-Efficacy for Autism; ASK-Q = Autism Stigma and Knowledge Questionnaire.
*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
Vignettes
Participants rated (0–100) their confidence in identifying autism characteristics in the autistic and non-autistic vignettes, pre- and post-training. At pre-training, participants rated themselves as more confident in identifying autism characteristics in the autistic vignette (M = 59.3) than in the non-autistic vignette (M = 42.5). Post-training, ratings for the autistic vignette increased (M = 69.4), while ratings for the non-autistic vignette also increased but remained lower (M = 51.6). Confidence in ratings increased by more than 10 percentage points for both autistic and non-autistic vignettes following training. These descriptive patterns suggest participants became more confident in their judgements post-training and showed greater differentiation between autistic and non-autistic behaviours. However, given the exploratory nature of the study and the conceptual limitations of the severity scale, these findings should be interpreted cautiously.
Open Responses and Interviews
The pre- and post-responses were classified into the following categories: Queensland Police Service training on autism, training requirements on autism, understanding autism was important for their job and training improved their practice. Individual responses were coded as QP to denote questionnaire participants and IP to identify interview participants. Queensland Police Service Training on Autism. Prior to the collaborative training conducted by Griffith University and Queensland Police Service, 65% of the investigators reported having received limited or no prior training in autism, 20% identified on-the-job training through working with their specialist forensic behavioural services team, and 15% reported having attended a department workshop or conference session. At follow-up, most investigators (67%) reported that the training conducted by the research team was the only training on autism they had received in the last 12 months.
Training Requirements on Autism
Prior to training, the investigators were asked what training they would like on autism. Their responses included ‘any/all/whatever is available’ (QP14, 17, 25), and ‘as much as possible’ (QP12). Others stated more specific training requirements focused on identifying and understanding autism behaviour, methods of communicating and strategies they could use to support autistic offenders.
Following the training, IP3 described the training as a ‘kickstarter’, and most investigators (78%) highlighted the importance of ongoing and regular training in autism to support their work. This ranged in from regular refresher training sessions to further training in recognising and supporting autistic offenders. IP2 spoke about the value they found in receiving the training, saying, ‘I don't wanna forget what I've learned so the refresher would be awesome too…I definitely want that to be known’. The training was viewed by IP1 as something that would benefit all police and corrective services personnel.
QP7 considered that the training provided met their current needs, and IP1, who identified as having knowledge of autism, viewed the training as a useful refresher course. In contrast, QP3 felt this level of training was just the beginning of what they needed, saying, ‘I feel like I have only scratched the surface through my level of understanding and subsequent application as to how I can better support ROs with autism’. Including examples of autistic behaviour throughout the training was viewed as beneficial and helped in recognising behaviours. However, these examples were of autistic males; IP3 suggested that including examples of how autistic characteristics may present in females would also be useful in future training.
There were identified benefits in having the training delivered collaboratively by Griffith University and Queensland Police Service, acknowledged by all the investigators who were interviewed. IP1 felt that having their work colleague involved in the training provided more connection and reduced the feeling of ‘us and them’. Although IP2 acknowledged that colleagues had knowledge in the area and that they could provide practical examples, having Griffith Univeristy researchers provided them with more confidence in the training. IP2 said: ‘Obviously we're going to have more trust in an expert in the academic field’.
Understanding Autism to Do Your Job More Effectively
Both pre- and post-training, all investigators felt it was important to understand autism to do their job more effectively. This was due to the high prevalence of autistic offenders on the registry and the need to understand autism to better support autistic offenders and reduce their reoffending risk. For example, QP18 said an understanding of autism was useful as it ‘assists in understanding why a person may have behaved/acted in a way they did’.
Pre-training, investigators reported varying levels of their understanding of autism. The most common response was that autism is viewed as a difference, reported by less than half the investigators. These differences were mostly seen in terms of social behaviour. Over a quarter of the investigators described autism as an intellectual impairment or learning disability or as being characterised by behaviour difficulties. Following training, most investigators (correctly) recognised autism as a neurodevelopmental condition. Their responses included more specific descriptors of behaviours, including behaviours identified under the diagnostic criteria (i.e. restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests), as well as the recognition of co-occurring conditions.
Training Improved Their Practice
The investigators felt that a better understanding of autism resulted in skills to work not only with autistic offenders but also (potentially) with autistic colleagues. Following training, they reported (a) adjusting their communication style/behaviour, (b) recognising the behaviour may be due to autism/recognising characteristics of autism and (c) being more effective in supporting offenders.
Discussion
This study presents preliminary findings from a pilot evaluation of the world's first purpose-designed autism training for CPOR investigators. Quantitative findings suggest a significant improvement from pre- to post-training on the level of autism knowledge and stigma held around autism. Investigators also reported increased self-efficacy for working with autistic people on a questionnaire specifically designed to measure the self-efficacy of police officers working with this population. Descriptive analysis of vignette ratings indicated greater differentiation between autistic and non-autistic fictional offenders following training, suggesting potential for the knowledge gained to inform investigative practice. Given the pilot design and limited post-training sample, these findings are exploratory and intended to inform further refinement and evaluation of the training program.
The improvements in knowledge, confidence, and application of the skills noted in the questionnaire data are also supported by the qualitative comments provided pre- and post-training by the investigators. The investigators identified a clear need for the training to enable them to support reportable offenders and to do their job effectively. They reported that the training made them more effective at their job by informing them how to adapt to working with autistic offenders and by increasing their understanding of what supports may be beneficial for reducing the risk of reoffending in autistic reportable offenders. The investigators also noted the importance of refreshing and updating training, similar to that received in other areas of training.
This is the first study, to the authors’ knowledge, to use a standardised measure (ASK-Q) to report changes in officers’ knowledge pre–post training. Previous studies have used outcome measures tailored towards information provided in their training (Railey et al., 2020b) and self-rating on perceived level of knowledge pre–post training (Holloway et al., 2022), which may be subject to bias. Using a standardised measure provides a method of comparing future training programs to evaluate effectiveness. The effectiveness of this training adds to the limited research showing officers’ knowledge of autism can be increased but requires special training (Railey et al., 2020b).
The training was specifically tailored for CPOR investigators, with the content informed by the priorities identified by investigators and the experiences of autistic offenders. Including the viewpoints of multiple stakeholders is important in better understanding the context and the interactions and experiences of stakeholders within that context (Railey et al., 2020a). The presence of the CPOR officers allowed for discussions around real-life scenarios between investigators and autistic offenders, which was viewed as an important component of the training by the investigators. In addition, it facilitated tailoring the information about autism to the policing context. This is consistent with officers’ and autistic adults’ views of law enforcement training needs (Railey et al., 2020a). Adopting this approach addressed limitations of previous training that provided a general overview of autism, lacking a focus on autism within the policing context and therefore lacking practical application (Crane et al., 2016).
Investigators reported a significant increase in self-efficacy pre–post training based on the PSEA. This would suggest that the increase in autism knowledge may have impacted on investigators’ feelings of self-efficacy in working with autistic offenders. Love et al. (2021) reported an association between knowledge of autism and officers’ self-efficacy using the same measures as this study. These findings are consistent with studies in other fields, for example, health (Clarke & Fung, 2022) and education (Johnson et al., 2021), where the use of specific training programs related to autism has demonstrated effectiveness in increasing professionals’ knowledge and understanding of autism and their confidence to better support autistic people.
The qualitative findings suggest that the outcomes of the training may have extended beyond increasing investigators’ knowledge of autism and self-efficacy to their being able to apply this knowledge to their practice. In particular, investigators could recognise that behaviours may be due to autism and to the way they were interacting with the autistic offender. Autistic behaviour is frequently misunderstood, and this is viewed by autistic people as a barrier they encounter in their dealings with law enforcement agencies (Gardner et al., 2019; Haas & Gibbs, 2021; Railey et al., 2020a). Following training, investigators were able to change the narrative around interactions between investigators and autistic people, where autistic behaviours are often misinterpreted. This led to investigators changing their behaviour to create a more positive experience for both the investigator and the autistic person, and to investigators feeling like they had more understanding of how to support the autistic person.
Limitations and Future Research
The findings from this study identified a change in investigators’ knowledge of autism, their self-esteem and the practices they used when working with autistic offenders. These investigators were from a specific unit, where the need for relevant training had been identified, and they worked alongside the CPOR officer who co-delivered the training. As such, the investigators participating in the training may have been motivated to receive the training and apply this to their practice; thus, the extent to which this training is able to be generalised to other areas of policing to effect the same change requires investigation. In addition, the evaluation of the training and training outcomes was conducted within three months of the investigators receiving the training, so the outcomes need to be considered within this context. Further investigation is required to evaluate the extent to which these outcomes are maintained over time. Although the training was grounded in autistic lived experience through qualitative interviews and analysis of body-worn camera footage, autistic people were not involved in the direct delivery of the training sessions. This represents a limitation of the current study. Gillespie-Lynch et al. (2021) showed how involving autistic people in training enhances outcomes and impact by fostering authenticity, challenging implicit assumptions, and deepening practitioner understanding. Future research should examine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of autistic-led or co-delivered training models for police investigators and could be explored for this group of police investigators in the future.
Conclusion
Prior to the training, the majority of police investigators identified having limited or no training on autism, and their scores on measures of autism knowledge and self-esteem in working with autistic people were low. Findings from this pilot study suggest that a specifically tailored autism training program may increase investigators’ knowledge about autism, their self-esteem and their ability to adapt their behaviours to better support autistic offenders. This increased awareness could enable investigators to consider factors to reduce the likelihood of autistic offenders reoffending. With further refinement and evaluation, this training could be adapted and delivered to other specialist police areas (e.g. counter-terrorism, cybercrime) as well as to other frontline emergency personnel who frequently interact with autistic people.
Supplemental Material
sj-pdf-1-ndy-10.1177_27546330261454550 - Supplemental material for A Pilot Study of Autism Training for Specialist Police Investigators: Development, Impact and Practitioner Perspectives
Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-ndy-10.1177_27546330261454550 for A Pilot Study of Autism Training for Specialist Police Investigators: Development, Impact and Practitioner Perspectives by Dawn Adams, Kate Simpson, Timea Molnar and Cameron Craig in Neurodiversity
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the support and assistance from the Queensland Police Service in undertaking this research. The views expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of the Queensland Police Service, and any errors of omission or commission are the responsibility of the authors.
Ethical Considerations
The Human Ethics Review Committee at Griffith University approved our interviews (approval: GU Ref No: 2020/936) on December 17, 2020. Griffith University conducts research in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Ethics approval was also provided by the Queensland Police Service Research Committee in May 2021.
Consent to Participate
Participants provided written consent to participate in the study and for anonymised data to be used for publication.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The study was funded by the Queensland Police Service as part of QPS#10949 Autism and Sexual Offending Project.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
