Neurodiversity in Policing: The Retention Problem Leaders Can Fix

British policing does not need a romantic story about neurodivergent officers being uniquely creative, fearless or gifted at pattern recognition. It needs a more basic capability: identify the barriers that stop good people performing, make reasonable adjustments where required and find out whether those people are being retained.

The best directly relevant UK evidence remains modest but useful.

A 2023 peer-reviewed survey recruited 117 UK police employees through the National Police Autism Association: 66 were autistic and 51 had ADHD. Participants reported both benefits and challenges associated with their neurodivergence at work. They also commonly reported requesting workplace adjustments, and those adjustments were frequently not made. Tromans and colleagues, BJPsych Open, 2023.

The study cannot tell us how common autism or ADHD is across policing. It was a self-selected survey of people already connected to a neurodiversity network. It also cannot establish that ADHD or autism makes somebody better at crisis response, investigation or leadership.

It does establish something leaders can act on: people already working in policing describe a mix of strengths and difficulties, and workplace support is inconsistent.

The evidence argues against both deficit and superpower stereotypes

The old version of this article made the case for “cognitive diversity” partly by attributing operational strengths such as pattern recognition, crisis performance and lateral thinking to neurodivergent officers.

That is too broad.

In the 2023 survey, most autistic participants and most participants with ADHD reported benefits from their condition in policing work. Qualitative responses also described challenges around organisation, sensory demands, communication, career progression and workplace support. Tromans et al., 2023.

The correct implication is individual, not categorical.

Some officers may experience intense focus as useful in particular tasks and difficulty switching attention in others. Some autistic employees may value structure and precision while finding ambiguous social demands more difficult. Another person with the same diagnosis may have a different profile entirely.

A manager who assumes “ADHD means creative under pressure” is still stereotyping, even if the stereotype sounds positive.

The better question is: what does this officer do well, where are the barriers, and what parts of the job genuinely require a fixed standard rather than a different route to the same standard?

Reasonable adjustments are not optional goodwill

For employees who meet the statutory definition of disability, the Equality Act 2010 creates a duty to make reasonable adjustments where workplace arrangements or physical features place them at a substantial disadvantage. Equality Act 2010, section 20.

The College of Policing’s guidance translates that duty into the police workplace. Its 2025 workplace adjustments toolkit, developed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, is explicitly intended to help forces recruit and retain colleagues with disabilities and neurodiversities and to help managers remove barriers. College of Policing.

The distinction between a standard and the method used to meet it is important.

An officer may still need to complete accurate case files, attend briefings, meet legal deadlines or communicate effectively with victims. A reasonable adjustment does not remove those essential outcomes. It may change the software, environment, written format, supervision structure, working pattern or other process through which the officer achieves them.

That is a management problem capable of being solved. Treating every difficulty as either poor performance or proof that “neurodiversity is a strength” solves neither side.

Policing is now building infrastructure around the problem

The College’s recent practice library shows several forces moving from informal support towards more structured processes.

West Midlands Police established a reasonable adjustments panel to improve consistency, manager understanding and organisational oversight. The College lists the practice as implemented but untested, which is the right status: it is a plausible model whose effects still need evaluating. College of Policing, 18 March 2026.

Cleveland Police has created a neurodiversity toolkit for staff and managers, covering workplace needs, support routes and practical adjustments. Again, the College describes intended outcomes including retention, engagement and reduced workplace stress, but the practice is not an independently established intervention. Workplace stress in policing is not only a neurodivergence issue: Police Burnout and Fatigue: What Leaders Can Actually Change sets out the organisational-stressor evidence for the whole workforce. College of Policing, 18 March 2026.

The National Crime Agency has also developed neurodiversity workplace e-learning, published by the College as an organisational practice in June 2026. College of Policing.

These developments are useful because they show policing recognising the problem. They should not be cited as proof that a toolkit, panel or e-learning module improves retention until the outcomes are measured.

The missing evidence is workforce data

The policy debate often relies on individual success and failure stories because national police workforce data on neurodivergence is limited.

For a chief constable, that is itself a management gap.

A force should be able to answer basic questions, with appropriate privacy safeguards:

• How many officers and staff request neurodivergence-related adjustments?
• How long do requests take to resolve?
• How often are requested adjustments fully, partly or not implemented?
• Are neurodivergent employees disproportionately entering capability or attendance processes?
• Are they progressing at similar rates?
• Are they leaving at different stages of service?
• Do agreed adjustments remain in place after postings or supervisor changes?

None of these figures requires declaring that neurodivergence is either an advantage or a deficit. They tell leaders whether the organisation is retaining people and removing barriers consistently.

Performance management needs to separate outcome from method

Neuroinclusion becomes most difficult when a genuine performance concern arises.

An organisation still has to manage poor performance. The Equality Act does not require a force to ignore operational standards. It does require the force to consider whether disability-related disadvantage can reasonably be removed before concluding that the person cannot meet the role’s requirements.

That means supervisors need enough confidence to distinguish three questions:

1. What outcome does the role genuinely require?
2. What barrier is preventing this person meeting it?
3. Can a reasonable adjustment remove or reduce that barrier without undermining the essential requirement?

The answer will not always be yes. Some roles impose constraints that cannot be adjusted away safely or reasonably.

But a force that never reaches question three will lose people because it has confused a familiar way of working with an essential policing standard.

Retention is a better strategic argument than “superpowers”

The strongest leadership case is therefore practical.

Policing has already invested in recruiting, vetting, training and developing its workforce. When capable officers or staff leave because manageable workplace barriers remain unresolved, the organisation loses that investment and experience.

The 2023 survey gives a warning signal rather than a national estimate. Participants frequently described unmet adjustment needs and career-progression difficulties. The College’s subsequent toolkits and force initiatives show that policing itself recognises inconsistency in adjustment processes. citeturn551305search0turn152708search0turn152708search3

Leaders should now evaluate the response.

A neurodiversity strategy should be judged by whether barriers are identified earlier, adjustments happen faster, staff remain well and capable, and avoidable attrition falls. It should not be judged by how many awareness sessions were delivered or how many positive stories were collected.

That is less dramatic than saying neurodivergent officers are the hidden strategic capability policing is managing out. It is also a claim the evidence can support.

---

Sources and further reading

• Tromans et al. — A survey of the workplace experiences of police force employees who are autistic and/or have ADHD, BJPsych Open, 2023
• Equality Act 2010, section 20
• College of Policing — Workplace adjustments toolkit
• College of Policing — Reasonable adjustments panel
• College of Policing — Neurodiversity toolkit