Neurodivergence in the criminal justice system
Neurodivergent people are over-represented within the criminal justice system (CJS) in the UK, experience poorer justice outcomes, and reoffending rates are higher when compared to their neurotypical counterparts (Joint Inspectorate Evidence Review, 2021). This is likely because Neurodivergent people are systematically failed at many points during the course of their lives, including at school and within the Youth Justice System7, leading to what is called the school to prison pipeline. Simultaneously, Neurodivergent people are also more likely to be victims of crime, including being victim-survivors of domestic abuse. Whilst there have been steps taken in recent years to better support criminal justice involved Neurodivergent people, there is still a lack of understanding and appropriate, timely support for Neurodivergent people who come into contact with the CJS (User Voice, 2021). The charitable organisation Clinks (2025) has produced a guide and video on neurodivergence in relation to different aspects of the CJS, which can be accessed in the reading and resources section of this guide.
Neurodivergence and domestic abuse
Research is still in its infancy in the content of neurodivergence, domestic abuse and interventions. However, one study found that individuals with ADHD dropped out of a domestic abuse perpetrator intervention and reoffended at higher rates than neurotypical programme attendees. This study attributed higher attrition, recidivism and programme engagement issues of ADHD individuals to individual deficits. However, this guide’s starting point is that interventions themselves can be inherently disabling (inaccessible) when they are not developed or delivered with Neurodivergent people in mind9. We advocate that interventions must provide a safe space for all in terms of understanding, learning from and embracing difference. Indeed, many criminal justice-involved Neurodivergent people have reported being verbally and physically attacked because they have been misunderstood10. Ensuring interventions are accessible for all could improve attendance, engagement and ultimately reduce the potential for further violence and abuse.
This guide builds on Dr Renehan’s previous research across three projects. The first consisted of research on criminal justice domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in England and Wales (Renehan, 2024b, Renehan and Gadd, 2024). The research identified that Autism and/or ADHD do not cause domestic abuse, illustrating that Neurodivergent men say and do remarkably similar things as their neurotypical counterparts. However, the Neurodivergent men in this study did experience barriers to engaging in and completing interventions distinct to those experienced by neurotypical men on the same programme. The second study consisted of research with domestic abuse perpetrator intervention providers and practitioners from Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, some of whom were also Neurodivergent (Renehan, 2026; Renehan and Fitz-Gibbon, 2022). These practitioners had tailored their practice to be more inclusive of Neurodivergent clients and discussed the challenges both they and service users faced within mainstream interventions that had not considered their needs. Additionally, a key finding from this research was how coercive control and structural control (see below and also Part 3) are both distinct and intersect in the context of domestic abuse with significant implications for practice, including work with victim-survivors. The third project sought the views of Neurodivergent-led organisations (Renehan, 2024a). Participants included lived experience experts who had developed organisations by and for Neurodivergent people. This research project sought to ensure interventions are informed by the communities they seek to reach, with participants stressing that services should be designed from the perspective of lived experience; taking into account “not what neurodivergence looks like from the outside, but what it feels like from the inside” (Renehan, 2024a, pg.3). All three of these projects underscored the imminent need for a guide, to support practitioners in making their interventions more responsive to Neurodivergent clients.
Below are some of the key findings from these research projects, which formed the basis for discussions within the Action Learning Sets and will be returned to as you work your way through this guide.
Key findings: Neurodivergent men who use violence and abuse in their intimate relationships
- Neurodivergence does not cause domestic abuse. Much of what Neurodivergent men say and do is the same as neurotypical men who are abusive and controlling towards their partners. Gendered expectations, entitlement and male privilege still largely shape Neurodivergent men’s justifications for using violence and abuse towards their partners.
- Neurodivergent men may show confusion about and/or invest in neurodivergence as rationalisations for violence and abuse.
- Neurodivergent men and neurotypical men may each experience similar traumatic childhoods, disadvantages and inequalities, and may each have troubled and troubling histories which uniquely shape investments in harmful gendered norms and desire for control.
- However, these experiences are compounded by (and intersect with) further forms of oppression and discrimination because of being Neurodivergent.
- Neurodivergent people may exert control (structural control) over their environment to reduce dysregulation and provide predictability in what is for them an unpredictable, neurotypical and disabling world.
- Practitioners distinguished coercive control – a pattern of domination involving isolation, degradation, exploitation, and control (Stark, 2007) – from structural control, which helps Neurodivergent individuals manage their environment (Pearson & Rose, 2023).
- However, structural control may become coercive in relationships with existing unequal power dynamics; coercive structural control (Renehan, 2026, and also see Part 3) extends male privilege through expectations that partners and children adapt to accommodate the needs of the person using violence and will intersect with other forms of/motivations for coercive control.
- It is important that Neurodivergent people maintain coping strategies to navigate the world.
- However, the person using violence and abuse must be supported to recognise the impact of their behaviour (whatever the motive) on their partner and children, and to develop and take individual responsibility for developing non-abusive coping strategies.
Key findings: Implications for interventions
- Neurodivergent men experience significant barriers to engaging in DAPPs. These include sensory, social, communication and information processing differences that are not considered in the development of DAPPs.
- Mixed neurotype groups are broadly beneficial for all (if reasonable adjustments are in place) and with skilled facilitation. Benefits include
- Listening to mixed neurotype group discussion can be extremely beneficial for everyone involved and may help bridge the double empathy gap.
- The ‘directedness and honesty’ of Neurodivergent people’s communication may be helpful for everyone’s learning.
- Groups are reflective of society at large (they are neurodiverse) and learning in smaller groups to embrace and regulate difference (of being, learning, understanding, opinions) offers opportunities for self-development.
- Managing relational dynamics within neurodiverse groups requires observation and skill
- Some Autistic and/or ADHD people can experience hyper or hypo emotions.
- High levels of hostility, anxiety and shame can be overwhelming for someone who is hypersensitive and has an embodied (nervous system activation) response to emotions.
- Hyposensitivity may present as missing cues and expectations.
- Both states can result in dissociation.
- A therapeutic alliance is needed to build trust and confidence between client and practitioner and to ensure that interventions will be useful and supportive
- There has been little consideration of relational dynamics in the context of within/cross neurotype interactions in DAPPs.
- Neurotypical assumptions may be made about how someone is experiencing their interactions on the programme (e.g., a Neurodivergent individual may be masking discomfort, mirroring body language, finding it difficult to process information, etc).
- The Double Empathy Problem (discussed further in part 2 of this guide) means that the emotional labour/burden is often on the Neurodivergent individual to mirror neurotypical individuals, with breakdowns in communication attributed to neurodivergence.
- (Mis)assumptions about Neurodivergent people’s lives and experiences create barriers to access and make intervention and opportunities for change difficult or even impossible!
Key findings: implications for victim survivors
While this guide has not been informed directly by victim survivors in research, practitioners raised several implications for practice:
- Victim survivors may hold neuro-normative expectations of intimacy, reciprocity or communication, or misinterpret Neurodivergent presentations as personal failings that might be resolved within DAPPs.
- Victim survivors could mistakenly conflate neurodivergence with domestic abuse, believing that coercive behaviours are caused by Autism and/or ADHD.
- This may lead to victim survivors taking on additional caring responsibilities and emotional burden for the Neurodivergent partner who is using violence and abuse (e.g. the abusive partner demands his needs are met by his partner; that his partner should regulate the environment for him).
- Women living under the coercion of a partner who uses abusive behaviour are harmed regardless of the underlying motive (be it male privilege, structural, mental health or substance use). Living with a Neurodivergent man who uses coercion and control can further limit a women’s autonomy – adjusting routines, declining social invitations, and restructuring the home to manage their partner’s dysregulation.
- Some practitioners suggested psychoeducation around neurodivergence and domestic abuse for victim survivors, while others cautioned that, if mishandled, this could wrongly suggest coercive structural control is inherent in neurodivergence.
Integrated partner support must clearly communicate that coercive structural control still constitutes and intersects with other forms and motivations for abuse, uphold perpetrator accountability, and avoid explanations that inadvertently risk placing blame or responsibility on victim survivors that may encourage them to remain in abusive relationships out of duty or care.
References
(7)
Day, A.M. and Rutter, N. (2025) Youth Justice System and Neurodivergent Children and Young People
Back to text
(8)
Romero-Martínez, Á., Lila, M., Sarrate-Costa, C., Comes-Fayos, J., & Moya-Albiol, L. (2023). The interaction between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and neuropsychological deficits for explaining dropout and recidivism of intimate partner violence perpetrators. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 15(1), 33–42.
Back to text
(9)
Renehan, N. (2026). Towards neurodiversity-affirmative provision within domestic abuse perpetrator programs: Exploring the experiences and perspectives of domestic abuse practitioners from Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260526141948
Back to text
(10)
User Voice (2021). Neuro … What? Neurodiversity in the Criminal Justice System. July 2021.
Back to text