• Replies 18 replies
  • Subscribers 79 subscribers
  • Views 3146 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Autism Awareness - funded research

longman

The Government has provided £0.5 million to 8 research initiatives to advance autism awareness.

Seven of the 8 (according to the NAS website under:the autism strategy an overview - autism awareness and training - government commissioned autism awareness training) have produced outcomes of various kinds.

The eighth is NAS which just gives a link back to the page explaining the autism strategy.

NAS is the one heading up the PUSH FOR ACTION campaign. What was the NAS funded research outcome, and why is there nothing set against the NAS contribution in that part of the website?

The Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Psychology Society seem to have produced E-learning packs which as yet I haven't found a way into to find out what they say - I probably have to buy one to see what its about.

Oxford University interviewed 37 people on the spectrum and other groups of parents, siblings and grandparents. Not altogether clear what they found out. Skills for Health/Skills for Care carried out widespread consultation, whatever that means in practice? But they all have something allegedly productive to say, except NAS.

Parents

  • Now I've just read a NAS document that I do like.It is called "Autism: a guide for criminal justice professionals". It has been produced in conjunction with the Cooperative Bank, under the Keeping Safe project.

    Instead of plunging straight into the Triad of Impairments, it deals directly with likely issues, and progresses through likely events. Why cannot NAS do something similar for such contexts as education and health?  I've read fact sheets galore over the past week which seem to stereotype people on the spectrum, and to contradict NAS's assertion we are all different. Now I find something I'm left wondering why all the other stuff is in circulation.

    It explains autism effectively and clearly, and then explains why it is important to know if a person has autism. It clearly explains why people at the high functioning end, being independent of support, are more likely to come into contact with criminal justice professionals. That's something lacking in all the other fact sheets, which seem to go straight into marked autism as if anyone at the abler end is insignificant.

    It tackles behaviours as they might arise and cause difficulty. But something similar could be done for schools or health professionals. It explains behaviours police might initially encounter that draw their attention to someone on the spectrum and how to manage this. They go into the process of interviewing, but similar situations could arise with health professionals or in an educational context.

    Here's an approach I can fully appreciate as a valid one. But why has it only happened for criminal justice professionals?

    And is it reaching the right people? Is this going out to the police, to law courts, custody centres etc.?  If it was being disseminated and its use upheld, then surely we would see an improvement.

Reply

  • Now I've just read a NAS document that I do like.It is called "Autism: a guide for criminal justice professionals". It has been produced in conjunction with the Cooperative Bank, under the Keeping Safe project.

    Instead of plunging straight into the Triad of Impairments, it deals directly with likely issues, and progresses through likely events. Why cannot NAS do something similar for such contexts as education and health?  I've read fact sheets galore over the past week which seem to stereotype people on the spectrum, and to contradict NAS's assertion we are all different. Now I find something I'm left wondering why all the other stuff is in circulation.

    It explains autism effectively and clearly, and then explains why it is important to know if a person has autism. It clearly explains why people at the high functioning end, being independent of support, are more likely to come into contact with criminal justice professionals. That's something lacking in all the other fact sheets, which seem to go straight into marked autism as if anyone at the abler end is insignificant.

    It tackles behaviours as they might arise and cause difficulty. But something similar could be done for schools or health professionals. It explains behaviours police might initially encounter that draw their attention to someone on the spectrum and how to manage this. They go into the process of interviewing, but similar situations could arise with health professionals or in an educational context.

    Here's an approach I can fully appreciate as a valid one. But why has it only happened for criminal justice professionals?

    And is it reaching the right people? Is this going out to the police, to law courts, custody centres etc.?  If it was being disseminated and its use upheld, then surely we would see an improvement.

Children
No Data