Why we need to recognise neurodiversity as multiple disadvantage
By Zahra Wynne, Policy Manager and Andy Williams, Director of Involvement
When we talk about ‘the revolving door’ of crisis and crime, we talk about what drives it – namely: poverty, trauma, mental ill health, problematic substance use and homelessness. Neurodiversity has rarely been thought of as a factor that can pull and keep people in the cycle of crisis and crime, despite it being well-known that a disproportionate number of people who are in contact with the criminal justice system are neurodivergent.
‘Neurodiversity’ refers to the different ways the brain can work and interpret information. People are generally either ‘neurotypical’, meaning that their brain functions and processes information in the way that society expects it to, or ‘neurodivergent’, meaning their brain functions and processes information differently.
What we wanted to figure out is why so many people in the criminal justice system are neurodivergent, and whether better understanding and support of their neurodivergent condition could’ve avoided contact with the criminal justice system.
We asked our lived experience members, who are neurodivergent, why focusing on neurodiversity within Revolving Doors is so important:
It is estimated that approx. fifty percent of people in prison have a neurodiverse condition. Currently, that is just over 40,000 people. The question should be why isn’t it important to everyone?
To better the justice system, and prevent a lot of people going through that revolving door.
Since October 2021, Revolving Doors have been working with the Ministry of Justice to develop their response to the Criminal Justice Joint Inspectorate’s report ‘Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System: A Review of Evidence’, to feed into their cross-departmental action plan, and are continuing to feed into the development of the second iteration of the action plan. Central to all of this has been the 7 members of our neurodiversity forum – people with lived experience of the criminal justice system who are neurodivergent and who are passionate about changing the system.
Regular consultations with our lived experience members about neurodiversity has led us to the position where we feel it is necessary to acknowledge neurodiversity as something that drives ‘the revolving door’, due to systemic failures to respond to neurodiversity appropriately and sensitively. Our policy position, published today and co-produced with our lived experience members, outlines that:
- Neurodiversity is misunderstood and misinterpreted
- Neurodiversity can intersect with problematic substance use
- Navigating the criminal justice system when neurodivergent is challenging, and
- Neurodiversity can exacerbate trauma.
Our policy position details the experiences our members have had, which has driven these themes, and the recommendations that we have made to the Government, Many of these recommendations have featured in the Ministry of Justice’s neurodiversity action plan – such as improved training for frontline workers, timely pre-sentence reports, and all treatment and services being ‘neurodiversity-informed’.
One key recommendation that we have made is for the definition of ‘multiple disadvantage’ to include neurodiversity.
The Changing Futures Programme (funded by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) describes multiple disadvantage in the following way:
“This could include a range of multiple and complex needs like homelessness, substance misuse, mental health issues, domestic abuse and contact with the criminal justice system.”
Whilst the definition of multiple disadvantage is not set in stone and the definition above refers to ‘multiple and complex needs’ beyond those specifically listed, neurodiversity is notable by its exclusion.
This framework for understanding multiple disadvantage therefore, either excludes neurodiversity, or at best sees it as periphery issue. This prevents a true holistic understanding of many individuals who will continue to be let down by the services and the system. Due to a lack of focus on neurodiversity within multiple disadvantage discourse, we don’t know the true extent of how neurodiversity intersects with other forms of multiple disadvantage. What we do know, is that a disproportionate amount of people in contact with the criminal justice system are neurodivergent, and a significant amount of people in contact with the criminal justice system have experiences of other forms of multiple disadvantage. As such, it seems logical to consider neurodiversity within the multiple disadvantage remit.
If neurodiversity was placed at the centre of our understanding of multiple disadvantage – given equity with mental health – then it would draw in services, expertise and knowledge from the neurodiversity sector. This would lead to a truer understanding of multiple disadvantage and more importantly, better outcomes for people.
Services have traditionally struggled to cope with the challenge of supporting people with ‘dual diagnosis’, where there is co-occurring mental health and either problematic alcohol or substance use. Where services have effectively worked in partnership to address both issues simultaneously, then this has enabled recovery. But neurodiversity must also be factored into this approach. We heard numerous examples from listening to our lived experience members of using substances as a coping mechanism for managing situations, symptoms and emotions related to their neurodiverse conditions. These explanations exactly mirror how people with problematic mental health talk about their relationship with drugs and alcohol, yet neurodiversity appears excluded from any understanding and concept of ‘dual diagnosis’. This is something we think needs to change.
We are continuing to work alongside the Ministry of Justice to shape their work on neurodiversity and the criminal justice system, and to ensure that the role of lived experience is central to this. It has been powerful to have officials within the Ministry of Justice work so closely with people with lived experience, and to clearly feedback on the impact that they have had on this ongoing piece of work.
I have found it inspiring and hopeful.
I find working with Revolving Doors and the Ministry of Justice really interesting. It’s great to see the interests of neurodiverse people are being taken seriously to create better support in future years for those who really need it.
Beyond engaging with the Ministry of Justice, there is still much work that needs to be done in this space. We still want to investigate the link between school exclusions, neurodiversity, and the school to prison pipeline, and hope to partner with organisations to explore this further. We also know that we are by no means experts on neurodiversity, and continue to be guided by our lived experience members on what they key issues we need to address are.
The policy position published today does not represent finality in our thinking, rather, it is a first step in beginning to embed neurodiversity into our understanding of and response to the revolving door of crisis and crime.
