Neurodiversity in Policing: Recognising Difference, Strengthening Performance

Imagine an officer who builds trust with a distressed witness but needs considerably longer to turn that conversation into an accurate written statement. Or an investigator who pieces information together to detect patterns few others can see but needs a structured system to calculate elapsed time and organise a chronology.

The question should not simply be: “Why is this taking you longer?” or “Why are some things that seem so easy challenging for you? ” It should also be: “What is making this task difficult, and what would help you complete it accurately and more easily?”

That distinction matters. Supporting neurodivergent officers and staff should be part of maintaining professional standards, not mistaken for lowering them.

The challenge for police leaders is therefore not only whether neurodivergent colleagues are welcome. It is whether the systems, expectations, and everyday decisions around them enable them to succeed.

What The Evidence Tells Us

Research by Stephen Macdonald and Faye Cosgrove surveyed 598 employees in one police force in northern England during 2017–2018. Among respondents, 9% reported diagnosed dyslexia, while another 24% suspected they had dyslexia without a diagnosis. Of the 46 diagnosed respondents who answered the disclosure question in their analysis, 37% had not informed their organisation. This was a voluntary, single-force survey, not a representative estimate for policing nationally or a picture of the workforce today. Nevertheless, it highlights why recorded diagnoses cannot be assumed to capture everyone who may need support.

The more important questions are what happens after someone asks for help, how quickly support is provided, and whether it makes a meaningful difference.

Forces should ask about the demands of the actual role: reading, writing, numerical information, instructions, records, and the systems through which work must be completed. The aim should be to understand the individual’s profile, not to assume that everyone with the same diagnosis needs the same adjustments.

Nor should recognition depend on a “superpower” narrative. We should not assume that neurodivergent people are naturally drawn to policing, universally excel under pressure, or possess a particular set of strengths.

People should not have to demonstrate exceptional talent to justify receiving appropriate support.

Culture Determines Whether People Feel Safe To Ask

Baroness Louise Casey’s March 2023 review of the Metropolitan Police was not a specialist investigation into dyslexia or dyscalculia. However, its findings about disability and organisational culture are highly relevant. Among respondents to the review’s survey, 33% of those with a long-standing illness, disability or infirmity reported experiencing bullying, compared with 22% overall. The review also identified disability discrimination as the most frequent basis of employment tribunal claims against the Met between 2017–2018 and 2021–2022.

For me, the implication is clear: policing cannot reasonably expect people to disclose difficulties confidently while they fear that difference will be treated as weakness, laziness, or incompetence.

An awareness session cannot compensate for a workplace where asking for an adjustment carries a perceived career risk. Recognition needs to be matched with respectful management, trustworthy reporting routes, and accountability.

A qualitative study by Andrew Paul Hill in 2024 explored the experiences of 25 dyslexic police officers in England and Wales. Participants described prejudice, bullying and discrimination, with consequences for self-esteem and wellbeing. The study does not establish how widespread those experiences are, but it provides important insight into what disclosure and working life can feel like for the officers concerned.

This is about wellbeing and careers, but also about how effectively organisations support their workforce. Acas identifies improved wellbeing, reduced employee turnover, and access to a wider range of skills as potential benefits of a more neuroinclusive workplace.

The operational argument is straightforward: help people fulfil their responsibilities accurately and sustainably, rather than leaving them to devise unsupported workarounds or suffer burnout.

What Should Happen Next?

Make assessment accessible, but do not make it a barrier to support.

Forces should provide a clear, confidential route to discuss persistent difficulties and access appropriate assessment, including specialist diagnostic assessment where this would help clarify possible dyslexia or dyscalculia.

A diagnostic assessment and a workplace-needs assessment have different purposes. The diagnostic assessment should clarify the person’s learning profile and the nature of their difficulties. The workplace-needs assessment should translate those needs into practical recommendations for their particular role.

Neither should end with a report that nobody implements.

There should be a named person responsible for coordinating the next steps, explaining what has been agreed and arranging a review.

Crucially, support should not be withheld while someone waits for a diagnosis. Acas states that a diagnosis is not necessary for a person to be considered disabled under the Equality Act 2010, and that employers should offer support, including reasonable adjustments, to workers without one.

Protect Support Through Recruitment, Promotion and Transfers

Adjustments should not disappear when someone changes supervisor, department, or rank.

The College of Policing already provides guidance on workplace adjustment passports, which record an individual’s agreed adjustments.

Used thoughtfully, a confidential record should identify what has been agreed, who is responsible for delivery and when arrangements should be reviewed. Sharing should be carefully managed, with the individual involved in decisions about what others need to know.

A new role may require different support. It should not automatically require starting the entire process again.

Recruitment, training, and promotion also deserve scrutiny. Acas recommends examining recruitment practices for avoidable barriers and making it clear that candidates do not need a diagnosis to request adjustments.

Removing An Unnecessary Barrier Is Not The Same As Changing The Standards

Staff networks should help shape provision, but they should not be expected to carry the organisation’s responsibilities alone.

The Police National Dyslexia Association provides peer support and promotes understanding of individual adjustments across policing. Its work offers an important source of lived experience alongside specialist advice and the perspectives of officers and staff themselves.

That expertise should inform policy, not substitute for a properly resourced system.

Confidential feedback should also explore whether colleagues feel safe asking for help and whether they can access training, specialist opportunities and promotion fairly. Findings should be reviewed in ways that protect individual privacy.

Forces should not set disclosure targets that pressure people to reveal personal information. They should build a working environment in which people can make an informed choice to ask for support, and trust the response.

From Awareness To Dependable Support

The goal is not simply to encourage more officers and staff to say, “I am dyslexic” or “I have dyscalculia.”

It is to ensure that, when they do, there is a clear and dependable answer to: “What happens next?”

For leaders, the practical test is this: Could someone in your team ask for support today and know who would act, what would happen next, and when the arrangements would be reviewed?

Recognising difference is the beginning. Providing effective, sustained support is the responsibility.