Question:
I interviewed a candidate who seems likely to be on the autism spectrum, making him an unsuitable candidate for the position. Given that our goal is not to diagnose, how should I handle this in the report? Should I describe observed characteristics without labeling them, use a general description, or suggest it could be mild autism with necessary disclaimers?

Answer:
This situation has come up in the past, though infrequently. You’re correct in avoiding any formal diagnosis, especially with something as specific as autism, since we don’t have sufficient information to make such a declaration. Instead, focus on describing observable behaviors that would be noticeable even to a non-psychologist. These could include poor eye contact, limited emotional expression, overly rigid decision-making, and other relevant behaviors.

Additionally, illustrate how these characteristics may impact the candidate’s ability to fulfill police duties, such as lacking command presence, difficulty showing empathy to victims, challenges with camaraderie among co-workers, freezing in crisis situations, and difficulty exercising discretion in gray areas of the law.

This approach helps the reader understand the potential challenges without needing DSM labels, making the report clear and actionable.