“It’s not that we don’t want help, services just aren’t built for us”: neurodiversity and engagement in the justice system
This blog is a write-up of the latest meeting of Revolving Doors’ Neurodiversity Forum, and is part of our latest round of lived experience forums where we’re exploring why people in the revolving door aren’t engaging in services. You can read the first blog from our General Forum here and women’s forum here.
At Revolving Doors, we know that people involved in the criminal justice system face a range of barriers when trying to access support. For people with neurodiverse conditions, these obstacles are often even more pronounced. In our latest Neurodiversity Forum, participants shared their experiences of navigating services and highlighted the changes that would make a real, practical difference.
Neurodivergence is a common factor among people caught in cycles of crisis and crime. A 2021 review by the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorates (CJJI) found that many people with neurodiverse conditions in the criminal justice system remain effectively invisible; they are unsupported and disadvantaged largely because the system is not designed to recognise or respond to their needs. The report made clear that poor engagement is rarely a question of willingness; it is a symptom of systemic failures to identify, accommodate, and provide the tailored support people with neurodiverse conditions need to engage meaningfully with services.
People with neurodiverse conditions often struggle with current service systems
Many participants described services as overwhelming or confusing. It can be exhausting to navigate a myriad of complex processes, grappling with unclear expectations and sensory-heavy environments which all contribute to disengagement.
“I don’t think people realise just how exhausting it is to keep trying to explain yourself when the system isn’t built for you.”
“It’s not that we don’t want help. It’s that the way you offer help doesn’t work for how our brains work.”
Communication style can be a major barrier
Rushed, unclear or overly verbal communication was highlighted as a key challenge. Participants said that services often misinterpret their needs, assuming non-engagement when someone simply processes information differently.
“If you ask me three questions in a row, I’ll probably only answer one because I’m still processing the first one.”
“When people say I’m not engaging, what they really mean is I’m not engaging in the way they expect.”
Predictability, routine, and preparation matter
People with neurodiverse conditions often need clear information and structure, and advance notice. Without this, anxiety and missed appointments are common, and are frequently misread as non-compliance.
“Tell me what’s going to happen, how long it’s going to take, and what you need from me. Then I can actually turn up.”
Trauma and neurodiversity often overlap
Many forum members described previous experiences of trauma – especially in schools or with authority figures – that shape how they engage with services. A fear of judgment, and negative past experiences make accessing support more challenging, with people feeling they need to ‘mask’.
“If every interaction I’ve had with authority has gone wrong, why would I trust this one will be any different?”
Addiction and neurodiversity often overlap
Additionally, many members have common denominators of neurodiversity and substance use (particularly with drugs). They felt their neurodiverse symptoms were confused with addictive behaviours, and this impacted ability for understanding and diagnosis.
“[There’s a problem that] you can’t get tested for mental health when you’re an addict, so I don’t know if the same applies with neurodiversity? Because people do confuse some addictive behaviours with symptoms that you may have for ADHD, like the impulsiveness, poor time management, procrastination […] But I think a lot of mine was probably my ADHD.”
This echoes findings from a recent study of people arrested and taken into custody by the Met Police, which suggest that there are ‘High rates of ADHD and autistic traits in arrestees, particularly among individuals arrested for drug offences.’
The study goes on to say that ‘Screening for ADHD and autism at early stages of police contact could serve as a key opportunity to identify undiagnosed individuals and inform appropriate management.’
People want flexibility, not more rules
Small adjustments could make a big difference, including quieter spaces, written follow-ups, slower pacing and tasks being broken down into manageable steps.
“Give me options, not ultimatums. Then you’ll see the best of me, not the worst.”
Lack of awareness, diagnosis and training
It was a common theme among members that there was a lack of awareness and training on neurodiverse conditions. This contributes to feelings of being misunderstood and falling through the gaps.
“I can honestly say that around the year, and in most places that I’ve been into, they have never really mentioned anything about neurodiversity or people with head injuries and how does that affect their day-to-day life?”
“I think education is a big part of people not being able to identify it […] I think if somebody was mindful or showed understanding, then maybe my engagement would have been much better […] You know, you don’t need to be a therapist, a specialist, you know, as long as you’re recognising someone’s neurodiversity, and steering them to help, you know, that’s what I lacked. Nobody ever showed any attempts, so I just responded in the same way. I felt misunderstood.”
Alternatively, when diagnoses do happen, members explain the transformative impact this has, helping to explain their behaviours and what they’ve been through.
“I got diagnosed in jail me, because of the way I was acting in prison. You know, and as soon as I got diagnosed, and I knew what the problem was, I stopped acting like that.”
“I just felt such a relief to be diagnosed with ADHD, because it kind of explains so many of my behaviours, and complex trauma. I felt constantly misunderstood, and I thought, well, if you can’t effing understand me, if you don’t understand me, I just […] I couldn’t be bothered […] Why have I never been tested for ADHD until I hit 52 years of age when I came into recovery. It’s sad in a way that I’ve […] I fell through the net. I feel sad for myself […] So I think education, just being able to identify it to get somebody into a proper diagnosis [would be helpful].”
Peer support and lived experience are essential
Participants emphasised that services are more effective when delivered by people who truly understand neurodivergence.
“I opened up because the person talking to me understood what ADHD actually feels like, not just what the textbook says.”
The way forward
The message from our Neurodiversity Forum is clear: people with neurodiverse conditions are not inherently “hard to reach”. Services are failing because they are built without understanding the people they are meant to support. Every missed appointment and disengaged client is a system failure.
If we want to improve outcomes and create genuinely inclusive services, we must listen to lived experience and adapt our approaches to match. Small changes, including clear communication, flexibility, peer support and predictable routines, can make a world of difference.
The question for policymakers and practitioners is simple: are we going to change the system to fit the people, or continue expecting people to fit a broken system?
“It’s not just probation, or police. It’s housing, it’s local authorities, it’s social care, it’s so much wider than just the criminal justice system. And I think when you understand that neurodiverse needs are part of the whole person and their whole existence. you can’t just view it solely in the context of criminal justice, because actually everything else sort plays together and kind of intersects and then that will affect somebody’s behaviour, or ability to engage with these services.
So I think the conversations now, shouldn’t solely revolve around this idea of, well, how can we get people engaging? How can we get services to operate appropriately? How can we get the conversation where we have an equal footing? Instead of having decision makers without lived experience, actually having people that might not be in a professional position, but that have an equal voice on decision-making panels.”
