When discussions about online extremism involve neurodivergent young people, vulnerability is often mentioned. However, findings from my research suggest that vulnerability is neither consistently defined nor consistently acted upon. Instead, it is interpreted unevenly across roles, agencies, and stages of the criminal justice process, with significant implications for risk, safeguarding, and criminalisation.
Age, neurodivergence, or both?
All participants spoke primarily about young people, which may partly reflect a digital generation growing up online. Neurodivergent young people were described as technologically literate, subtle in how they navigate online spaces, and often difficult to monitor. Families were frequently unaware of their online activity, and digital footprints were sometimes limited or fragmented.
At the same time, practitioners struggled to disentangle whether vulnerability stemmed from age, neurodivergence, or an interaction of both. Young people were often automatically recognised as vulnerable, whereas neurodivergent adults were not, despite presenting with similar needs.
This ambiguity matters, because vulnerability is a gateway to safeguarding. When it is inconsistently recognised, protective responses become inconsistent too.
Neurodivergence as a proxy for vulnerability
Participants frequently identified neurodivergent individuals as vulnerable, but how this vulnerability was interpreted varied widely. In Counter Terrorism policing, the primary mandate is to manage Threat, Risk, and Harm. Within this framework, vulnerability indicators are used to aid decision‑making, and mental health is one such indicator.
Neurodivergence, despite not being a mental health condition, is often subsumed into this category. This is partly influenced by high levels of co‑occurring anxiety, depression, trauma, and suicidality reported among neurodivergent suspects, particularly those in contact with services such as CAMHS.
Yet this blending of concepts creates problems. Neurodivergence could function as a mitigating factor, a safeguarding trigger, or a pathway to criminalisation, sometimes all at once. The lack of clarity around its role appeared to contribute to inconsistent responses across cases.
Fragmented responsibility, concentrated consequences
An unexpected but consistent finding was the role of partner agencies in shaping outcomes. Education, social care, housing, and other services were often described as risk‑averse, which is not a criticism when examining the support materials provided to such organisations. When concerns emerged, referrals to Prevent or Counter Terrorism policing were made quickly, effectively transferring risk management elsewhere.
However, police practitioners reported that ownership rarely travelled with the referral. Responsibility, accountability, and long‑term support often remained with policing, despite practitioners acknowledging they were not experts in supporting neurodivergent people.
This was particularly evident during the transition from child to adult services (18–25), where gaps in provision were most pronounced. Without a coordinated, multi‑agency response, individuals frequently fell into what participants described as a “void of services”, where risk fluctuated in response to a lack of support rather than escalation of ideology.
The consequences of weak partnership working
Several structural issues compounded these challenges:
- limited neurodiversity‑specific intervention providers,
- delays in information sharing,
- uneven engagement from partner services,
- and the absence of a centralised, wraparound support model.
As a result, safeguarding pathways were unpredictable, and criminal justice responses often became the default rather than the last resort.
Many participants expressed frustration at this outcome. Some noted that early education, prevention, and support within partner agencies could significantly reduce later criminalisation but without resources, clarity, and shared responsibility, this remains difficult to achieve.
Reflections for practice
This finding prompts uncomfortable but necessary questions:
- When we label someone as vulnerable, what actually changes?
- Who is expected to hold risk and who steps away from it?
- Are referrals reducing risk, or relocating responsibility?
- And how often does inconsistency itself become a risk factor?
Effective partnership working is not just about information sharing. It requires shared understanding, sustained involvement, and clarity about roles, particularly where neurodivergent people are concerned. Without this, vulnerability becomes a label rather than a protection.
This blog is part of a five-part series exploring how online algorithms, neurodivergence, and systems of response intersect in practice, based on Dr Alice Siberry’s research. To continue the series and access further practitioner resources, sign up here.
If you would like to explore how we could help improve understanding of neurodiversity in your organisation, please get in touch and we would be happy to discuss this with you.