Responding to Neurodivergence in the Youth Justic

3 In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.’ The principle of non-discrimination embedded in both frameworks requires not equal, but equitable treatment for these children. As discussed by Hughes, Sheahan, et al. (2020), non- discrimination is not synonymous with equal treatment for everyone, but instead requires special measures or adaptations as needed to ensure that all children have their rights equally respected, protected, and fulfilled. However, the current evidence indicates that we are falling significantly short of achieving these standards, both in the UK and globally. The table presented in appendix 1 summarises the current evidence base on the prevalence of neurodivergent conditions amongst children in custodial settings, compared with children in the general population. For example, 11-21% of children in custodial settings have Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), compared with 0.7% of children in the general population. Additionally, 60-64% of children in custodial settings have Speech, Language, and Communication needs, compared with 1-9% of children in the general population (although the Youth Justice Board (2020) produced an even higher estimate, 71%). The estimates presented in the table are wide in places – e.g. between 50% and 87% for acquired brain injury. This reflects the variation in methodology of the underlying studies; estimates vary significantly depending on whether children self-report their difficulties, clinical interviews are used, or medical records are used. Moreover, it can be difficult to identify individuals with specific diagnostic conditions, as many such conditions are defined by behavioural traits rather than by markers that can be reliably tested using natural science methods. Further studies are needed to establish more precise estimates, particularly as many existing studies use very small sample sizes due to the difficulties of conducting research in the children’s secure estate. However, even if we take the most conservative estimates of prevalence in justice-involved children, and the most generous estimates in the general population, the pattern of significant over-representation remains. The evidence base indicates that children with neurodevelopmental conditions are being systemically criminalised. 3. Linguistic framework A coherent rights-based response to the over-representation of children with neurodivergent conditions in youth justice systems requires a coherent vocabulary. Language in this field is contested, and it carries identity implications for the children at the centre of the discussion. Many children and young people with lived experience resist ‘disability’ framings to explain their personal experiences. Language should therefore be co-constructed with children themselves, attending to their own voices and preferences rather than being imposed (Lewis- Dagnell et al., 2023). The precise, definitional language appropriate to academic and legal argument will not always be the language that works at the frontline, where more accessible,