of survey respondents reported active suicidal or self-harm ideation.

Eight demands for a healthier field.

To protect the well-being of practitioners and ensure the sustainability of this vital work, we are calling for urgent action across eight key areas. These demands set out practical steps to improve standards, strengthen support, reduce unnecessary pressure, and create healthier, more effective working environments.

1. 1Mandate regular, high-quality clinical supervision›

   With 49% of investigators receiving no clinical or psychological supervision whatsoever, and former mandatory processes having been quietly dismantled in many organisations, there is an urgent need to reinstate and formalise regular (minimum monthly) structured supervision for all staff with significant exposure to distressing material. Critically, the quality problem is as acute as the access problem: of those who do receive supervision, 74% rated it no better than adequate, and only 27% rated it good or excellent. Supervision must be delivered by practitioners with specific knowledge of trauma, forensic contexts, and vicarious traumatisation — and its quality actively monitored.

2. 2Remove systemic barriers to seeking support›

   The most-cited barriers — lack of time (48%), fear of career impact (34%), and confidentiality concerns (37%) — demand systemic solutions. Organisations must embed support within working hours, provide unambiguous assurances of confidentiality, and actively address the documented culture in which disclosure leads to career termination rather than care. No investigator should ever feel they do not have time to take care of their mental health.

3. 3Develop AI-specific training and guidance›

   The emerging landscape of AI-generated CSAM is creating novel psychological pressures and investigative challenges for which investigators currently receive minimal preparation or guidance. Dedicated training covering psychological impact, classification protocols, courtroom evidentiary standards, and the unique moral distress of misidentification is urgently needed.

4. 4Urgently address workload and caseload pressures›

   Case-volume backlog and time pressure were the highest-rated stressors in the study — often surpassing the stress of exposure to harmful material itself. Resource allocation, staffing levels, and caseload management must be reviewed at a strategic level. The finding that there is ‘not room for anyone to take a break’ from CSAM cases in some units represents an organisational failure that cannot be addressed through individual resilience alone.

5. 5Implement crisis response and suicide-risk monitoring›

   One in five respondents reported active suicidal or self-harm ideation at clinically significant frequencies — around four times the estimated general workforce rate. Organisations must implement immediate, proactive, and confidential well-being screening with clear crisis referral pathways. Self-referral, annual questionnaires, and EAP signposting alone are wholly inadequate safeguards for this population.

6. 6Establish structured peer support programmes›

   86% of investigators either never or only occasionally access peer debriefs, despite peer connection being a widely evidenced protective factor for trauma-exposed professionals. Structured peer support, delivered by trained supporters who understand the unique demands of digital forensics, may in practice be the most reachable protective intervention available to the greatest number of investigators.

7. 7Commission research on neurodivergence in digital forensics›

   ADHD (17%) and autism (10%) prevalence in this sample is approximately 4–6 times higher than in the general population — yet no published research examines how the role’s stressors affect neurodivergent investigators differently. Research into this population is overdue; in the interim, well-being support must be explicitly designed to be accessible and appropriate for neurodivergent practitioners, not merely formally available to them.

8. 8Commission longitudinal follow-up research›

   Cross-sectional data cannot establish causality or track change over time. A longitudinal study — tracking the same investigators over multiple years — would enable more robust conclusions about cumulative impact, the effectiveness of interventions, and early identification of those at greatest risk of harm or attrition. Forensic Focus intends to repeat this study to begin building that evidence base.