JCPSLP Vol 21 No 1 2019

speaking English (83%, n = 24); (b) people who have difficulty understanding what you are saying (72%, n = 21); (c) “other” people who are intoxicated or drug affected (69%, n = 20); (d) people unable to use speech (66%, n = 19); and (e) people whose speech is unclear (66%, n = 19). Strategies to support effective communication with community members with communication disabilities or difficulties Respondents were asked to provide short-answer responses to describe strategies they employ to assist when communicating with people with different communication disabilities or difficulties. Respondents were able to identify at least one effective strategy per case. A reliance on modifying verbal communication was noted most frequently by simplifying language or slowing their rate of speech. Offering pen and paper, reading written material, and writing down verbal messages were also identified.

Table 4. Familiarity and perceived usefulness of communication tools by police

Tool

Familiarity n (%)

Perceived usefulness n (%)

Picture board

8 (28)

25 (86)

Spelling board

7 (24)

23 (79)

Sentence board

6 (21)

23 (79)

Communication book

5 (17)

22 (76)

Communication cards

8 (28)

23 (79)

Visual diagrams

3 (10)

23 (79)

Easy to read written information

3 (10)

24 (83)

Communication app

4 (14)

26 (86)

Speak Up and Be Safe from Abuse Toolkit

3 (10)

26 (90)

Table 3. Predominant strategies used by police to support effective communication

Type of communication difficulty:

Predominant strategy

Frequency n = 29 (%)

people with communication disabilities. Although our study was focused on people with communication disabilities, the authors were interested in identifying the complete range of communication challenges that police face, and included options for the police to identify any difficulties with people who speak languages other than English. Despite the fact that 77% of respondents have been in the police force for six or more years, police reported limited access to disability awareness and communication training. These results are comparable to those obtained through a survey of providers of a regional transport service, with 69% never receiving any communication skills training (Bigby et al., 2014). If the results of the police survey are representative of the larger organisation, it is concerning that large organisations across industries have failed to comprehensively consider the needs of community members with communication disabilities and the benefits of communication training for staff that provide essential services. Although 80% of police reported that they experienced difficulty understanding community members on at least a daily or weekly basis, it is unknown as to whether police interpreted this question to include people with hearing impairment, speakers of languages other than English and/or cognitive disability. Regardless of the aetiology, differentiated strategies are required to address the needs of these discrete populations. One of these strategies may be to provide additional, communication skills training for police, which was indicated as needed by 79% of staff. Bearing in mind the limited success of training reported in the research, the evidence suggests training would need to be customised to the specific needs of the police, co-presented with people with a lived experience of communication disability and include interactive role-plays. Despite the low frequency of reported police interactions with people with limited or no speech, police reported experiencing difficulty with this group. The need for people with limited speech to be able to communicate directly and independently with police is evident in the literature on abuse (Bornman, 2017; Nelson Bryen et al., 2003) and may be enhanced through providing direct resources with customised training. The training would need to include communication aids with crime-specific vocabulary to

People who

are unable to use speech

Pen and paper

23 (79)

have difficulty speaking English

Interpreters

22 (76)

experience difficulty hearing

Writing

21 (72)

experience difficulty reading

Reading

19 (65)

have speech that is unclear

Writing

14 (52)

experience difficulty writing

Verbal communication

14 (49)

have difficulty understanding

Slow rate of speech

13 (45)

seem generally confused

Simplify language Simplify language

13 (45)

Other (e.g., intoxicated or drug affected)

11 (38)

Familiarity and perceived usefulness of communication tools Respondents were provided with visual images and a brief explanation of a range of common communication tools including picture boards, spelling boards and communication apps. The majority of respondents were unfamiliar with the tools, but indicated that each communication tool “may” or “would be” useful in their role. Currently, six easy-to- read documents are available on the police website (e.g., Reporting crime: Your rights). The majority of respondents indicated they were unaware of the availability of this information. Discussion The survey results indicate multiple areas in which the level of knowledge by police may impact on their ability to interact with, and consequently provide quality services to

22

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 1 2019

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology