What frontline practice was showing us

 My earlier research explored the experiences of neurodivergent men who had attended perpetrator programmes, alongside the perspectives of practitioners delivering them in the UK and internationally. Across studies, a consistent concern emerged: standard programme models often rely on assumptions about communication, emotional expression, learning styles and group participation that do not hold true for everyone.

Practitioners described situations they will find familiar:

• men being labelled as hostile, disengaged or non‑compliant when they were overwhelmed or confused;
• differences in emotional expression being read as lack of insight or remorse;
• rigid expectations around participation escalating anxiety rather than accountability;
• and uncertainty about when behaviour reflected abuse‑related control versus unmet neurodivergent needs.

Crucially, practitioners were clear that neurodivergence does not cause domestic abuse and should not be used to excuse it. But they were also clear that misunderstanding neurodivergence can lead to poorly informed practice decisions, including decisions that ultimately increase risk or disengagement.

Moving beyond awareness and reasonable adjustments

In recent years, policy and standards have begun to acknowledge neurodivergence. However, in practice this often translates into narrow (though, still, important) conversations about reasonable adjustments – lighting, breaks, written materials – without addressing deeper questions about programme content, facilitation style, assessment processes and power.

Research with neurodivergent‑led organisations reinforced this concern. Participants emphasised that meaningful inclusion cannot be bolted onto existing systems that were never designed with neurodivergent people in mind. Instead, they argued, practice needs to be shaped by lived experience from the outset – particularly in high‑stakes contexts such as domestic abuse interventions.

This raised an important question: how do we translate complex research findings into something that genuinely helps practitioners navigate risk, responsibility and engagement in real‑world settings?

Translating research in practice

This research has now been translated into a web-based toolkit: ‘Supporting Neurodivergent clients: a guide for practitioners facilitating domestic abuse perpetrator interventions’

The guide was co-developed with partners who are experts in domestic abuse perpetrator work, provide advocacy to Neurodivergent people, develop and deliver Neurodiversity/Neurodivergence training, and consult on neuroinclusive service design. Collaborating with experts in the domestic abuse sector ensures that the guide is broadly compliant across a diversity of interventions. Following bespoke training, the guide was then piloted across partner organisations’ delivery sites.

Project partners included:

• Community Justice Scotland
• Probation Service North East
• Respect

Neurodiversity/Neurodivergence consultants included:

• Neurodiverse Connection (Kay Aldred, Development Lead)
• Monika Labich Coaching and Therapy (Monika Labich)

The NDiDA Practice Guide was developed through a series of action learning sets. This approach was deliberately chosen to reflect how practice actually works: through dialogue, challenge and problem‑solving rather than top‑down instruction.

Rather than prescribing answers, the action learning sets focused on questions practitioners were already grappling with:

• how to work neuroinclusively without undermining programme integrity;
• how to assess engagement when communication styles differ;
• how to balance flexibility with clear boundaries;
• and how organisations can support staff working in emotionally demanding environments.

The process itself modelled neuroinclusive practice. Sessions were structured, predictable and flexible, with options for asynchronous contribution. This was not incidental; it reflected a central message from the research – that how we work with practitioners matters just as much as what we ask them to do with service users.

What the guide is – and what it is not

The NDiDA Practice Guide is not a checklist, diagnostic tool or specialist manual. It does not offer exemptions or shortcuts. Instead, it provides:

• practice‑relevant reflections grounded in evidence;
• prompts to support clearer thinking in complex situations;
• guidance on engagement, assessment, facilitation and workplace culture;
• and a framework for thinking critically about how neurodivergence intersects with domestic abuse intervention work.

We developed several accompanying resources, drawing on the Autistic SPACE Framework, and adapted this for domestic abuse perpetrator interventions, including an accompanying resource for those working with victim survivors. The resources include:

• Supporting Neurodivergent clients to engage in domestic abuse perpetrator interventions
• Understanding risk to partners and children and specific challenges in the home environment
• Integrated Support Services to understand risk to partner and children, from a victim survivor perspective
• Supporting safe and effective intervention exit and support

It is designed to be used flexibly, alongside existing professional judgement, safeguarding responsibilities and programme standards.

Importantly, the guide is a living document. It will continue to evolve as practitioners use it, challenge it and feed back into future iterations*. This reflects the reality of criminal justice practice: static guidance rarely survives contact with real‑world complexity.

Why this matters now

Neurodivergent people are disproportionately present within criminal justice systems, yet their experiences are often poorly reflected in intervention design, workforce training and policy development. When this gap is ignored, the consequences are felt by everyone – practitioners, service users and victim‑survivors alike.

The NDiDA Practice Guide represents an attempt to bridge that gap by grounding practice guidance in research, lived experience and practitioner expertise. Designing from the margins, in this context, is not about lowering expectations or avoiding accountability. It is about developing responses that are more accurate, more ethical and more effective.

The guide is available here:
👉 https://ndidapractice.com/home/

I hope it supports practitioners and policy makers to think differently – and more confidently – about how neurodivergence is understood and responded to within domestic abuse interventions.

*The feedback questionnaire has been approved by Durham University’s Research Committee.

Thanks to Arthur Debons for kind permission to use the header image in this post which was previously published on Unsplash.