An Exploration of Law Enforcement Officers' Training Needs and Interactions with Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Background: In a recent study, one in five individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) reported either being stopped or questioned by police at least once by the time they were in their mid-twenties (Rava et al., 2017). Despite the increased interactions between LEOs and persons with ASD, results from a few studies reveal that LEOs are often not knowledgeable about ASD and report concerns about appropriately handling situations involving persons with ASD. One recent study found that only 42% of LEOs reported satisfaction in their dealings with the ASD community (Crane et al., 2016). However, only 13% of caregivers of individuals with ASD reported “satisfactory” interactions between LEOs and their children with ASD, and a mere 15% of adults with ASD reported a “satisfactory” experience when describing previous interactions with LEOs (Crane et al., 2016). The lack of appropriate support to individuals with ASD could potentially lead to emotional stress, breakdowns in communication abilities, and behavioral regulation difficulties. However, misinterpretation of behaviors during high-stress or tense situations can be improved with proper training, education, and through increasing interactions with persons with ASD in the community.

Objectives: Semi-structured individual interviews were employed to (a) characterize LEOs’ knowledge of ASD, (b) understand previous interactions between LEOs and individuals with ASD, and (c) identify training needs to prepare LEOs for interactions with the ASD community.

Methods: Researchers utilized a grounded theory approach to analyze data from 17 participants: (a) six LEOs, (b) six adults with ASD, and (c) five caregivers. Parallel semi-structured interview schedules were developed for each participant sub-group to better understand perceptions regarding potential or actual interactions between LEOs and the ASD community as well as LEO training recommendations and needs. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, thematically coded, and summarized by researchers using the constant comparative method (Charmaz, 2014).

Results: Participant demographic information is presented in Table 1. Thematic categories and focused codes for LEOs, caregivers, and adults with ASD were summarized and comparisons between groups were made. All participant groups emphasized the importance of mandatory ASD-specific training for LEOs, and all individuals provided recommendations regarding training content and format. Although many caregivers and adults with ASD highlighted fears over LEOs’ potential misinterpretations and/or misperceptions of behaviors, LEOs’ transcripts did not reflect these same concerns. Analysis revealed several commonalities across participant groups. Examples of common themes include the (a) need for LEOs to possess knowledge of ASD, (b) importance of LEOs’ empathic and supportive responses during interactions, and (c) helpfulness of LEOs’ engagement and collaboration with the ASD community.

Conclusions: Findings provide insight into specific strategies that may help increase positive interactions and foster trust between LEOs and individuals with ASD. In addition, these findings have the potential to influence criminal justice policy by identifying current levels of training and specifying training recommendations from the perspectives of LEOs and members of the ASD community. Future research directions and implications are also discussed.