Forensic Focus International Well-Being Study 2026 Report

1. Executive Summary

The Forensic Focus International Well-Being Study surveyed 179 digital forensic investigators across multiple countries to examine the psychological, physical, and occupational impacts of their work. Participants completed a comprehensive battery of validated psychometric measures alongside bespoke questions on AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), supervision, and coping strategies.

At a glance

2. Methodology

2.1 Study design

This study employed a cross-sectional, anonymous online survey design. The survey was hosted on a secure platform and disseminated through Forensic Focus, an international community for digital forensic practitioners. Participation was entirely voluntary, and informed consent was obtained via an explicit opt-in statement prior to the commencement of questions.

2.2 Participants

A total of 179 individuals consented to participate. The sample represents practitioners from a wide range of countries including the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, South Africa and India, reflecting the global reach of the forensic community.

2.3 Validated measures

2.4 Ethical considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical research principles. Participation was anonymous and voluntary, with the right to withdraw at any point. Sensitive sections were preceded by explicit content warnings and opportunities to skip. Signposting to well-being and crisis support services was embedded throughout. Data were used exclusively for academic research purposes.

2.5 Analytical approach

Descriptive statistics are reported as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Qualitative responses from open-text fields were also collected; representative participant quotes are presented throughout this report to contextualise and deepen the quantitative findings.

3.1 Sample Demographics

The sample comprised 179 digital forensic investigators. Gender identity was reported by 178 respondents: 72% (n=128) identified as men (including trans men), 26% (n=46) as women (including trans women), and 2% preferred not to say. Ages ranged from mid-twenties to early seventies.

Years of experience in digital forensics

Nearly half of respondents (46%) reported more than ten years of experience, indicating a sample with substantial professional exposure to the demands of digital forensics.

Average weekly exposure to distressing material

Neurodivergence & disability

73% (n=130) identified as neither neurodivergent nor disabled. Among those who did: ADHD was most commonly reported (17%, n=30), followed by autism (10%, n=18), dyslexia (5%, n=9), and dyspraxia (1%, n=1). Additional disclosures included PTSD, depression, anxiety, epilepsy, MS, and physical disabilities.

This elevated prevalence is unlikely to be coincidental. Digital forensic investigation demands a cognitive profile that closely aligns with known neurodivergent strengths: exceptional attention to detail, capacity to sustain hyperfocus during lengthy and complex case reviews, systematic and pattern-based thinking, high tolerance for repetitive technical processes, and an ability to compartmentalise emotionally charged material in service of methodical analysis. These traits — frequently associated with ADHD and autism — may actively draw neurodivergent individuals toward the profession or confer a meaningful professional advantage within it.

However, this finding carries an equally important cautionary dimension. Despite the growing body of research on occupational stress and trauma in digital forensics, there is currently no published research examining how the known stressors of this role — chronic exposure to distressing material, high workload, lack of supervision, and moral distress around victim identification — may differentially affect neurodivergent investigators. This is a critical and urgent gap in the literature.

Neurodivergent individuals may face compounded vulnerabilities in this context. Sensory sensitivities associated with autism may intensify the psychological impact of exposure to disturbing visual content. Difficulties with emotional regulation — common in both ADHD and autism — may affect the ability to disengage after distressing case exposure. Rejection sensitivity, social communication differences, and challenges navigating organisational hierarchies may make it harder to recognise when support is needed or to seek it when it is. Many neurodivergent professionals also report masking — suppressing neurodivergent traits at significant psychological cost — which in an already high-stress environment may substantially accelerate burnout.

Of the 22% of respondents who reported having workplace adjustments in place, the helpfulness ratings tell their own story. Only 10% (n=4) rated their adjustments as ‘extremely helpful’ and 28% as ‘very helpful’ — meaning a combined 38% found adjustments genuinely beneficial. By contrast, 13% rated them ‘not helpful’ and 23% only ‘slightly helpful’, with a further 26% rating them ‘moderately helpful’. Taken together, 62% of those with adjustments found them no better than moderately helpful — suggesting that existing provision is not adequately tailored to the specific demands of the role or the diverse needs of those within it.

3.2 Occupational Stressors

Respondents rated nine occupational domains using a 1–5 Likert scale (1 = not stressful, 5 = extremely stressful). The results reveal a profession under significant and multifaceted strain, with workload and systemic factors often eclipsing the distress of direct exposure to harmful material.

Qualitative responses vividly illustrate the cumulative strain of working in under-resourced environments:

“I am concerned that the better AI gets, the sheer volume of CSAM available on the internet will greatly increase which undoubtedly will lead to bigger caseloads. Our team is already struggling with the amount of CSAM jobs we do, and there is not room for anyone to ‘take a break’ from the case type as everyone is dealing with their own CSAM jobs. In the last year I have seen staff members seeming quite fatigued whenever the caseload is talked about. The CSAM jobs are relentless.”Digital forensic investigator

“Workload will go up massively as there will be much more CAID unknown images. That will drive down morale and welfare, especially if the expectation is still to generate big counts for the prosecution to take to court.”Digital forensic investigator

Likelihood of leaving current role

Workforce retention is a pressing concern. Within 6 months, 17% (n=29) considered leaving likely or very likely. This rises over a 12-month horizon, with 28% indicating they were likely or very likely to leave.

Sickness absence (past 6 months)

While 41% reported no sickness absence, nearly one in five (19%) took six or more days off in a six-month period — a rate already suggestive of significant occupational health impact. The 7% (n=12) taking more than 15 days off in a single six-month period is particularly striking: extended, potentially recurrent absence that in clinical terms may indicate acute burnout, work-related PTSD, or serious depressive episodes requiring sustained intervention. These figures are likely an underestimate, given the well-documented culture of presenteeism in forensic and law-enforcement contexts, where attending work while unwell is normalised and disclosure of mental health difficulties carries career risk.

3.3 Experiences with AI-Generated Material

A dedicated module explored the growing challenge of AI-generated CSAM, examining emotional impact, trauma reactions, psychological processing, emotional investment under uncertainty, and anxiety arising from AI ambiguity. Responses reveal a nuanced and evolving psychological landscape as technology outpaces both professional guidance and investigators’ established coping strategies.

Emotional impact: AI-generated vs real CSAM (n=176)

The finding that 60% found AI-generated CSAM slightly more distressing than real material is striking and counter-intuitive. Qualitative responses clarify the mechanism: it is not the images themselves, but the deliberate human intent required to generate them, and the growing anxiety about AI’s trajectory, that drives this heightened distress:

“To be honest, the prompts used to create the images can disgust me more than the actual images.”Digital forensic investigator

“With AI CSAM someone has had to physically describe what they want to see and what they want to see happen. This is far beyond just viewing the material.”Digital forensic investigator

A contrasting perspective was also expressed by some investigators, who drew psychological comfort from the knowledge that no real child was directly harmed in AI-generated content — though most acknowledged this comfort is fragile:

“Knowing that there isn’t a real victim out there takes some of the trauma and worry away, but the images themselves are normally mixed in with real CSAM, so the line is blurred.”Digital forensic investigator

Trauma-related reactions to AI material (n=176)

Open-text accounts from those who do experience differential reactions make for sobering reading. The persistence of trauma symptoms regardless of whether content is AI-generated or real emerges as a consistent theme:

“I find the trauma reactions to be the same… I can still remember the AI generated CSAM that I saw, it still pops into my brain at odd times, it bothers me.”Digital forensic investigator

“Nightmares don’t care about AI.”Digital forensic investigator

Anxiety from AI-related uncertainty (n=175)

“Grading material is subjective and with the more realistic AI becomes the harder it is to determine if something is real or AI. The most worrying is what if I miss something, or I can’t grade the image due to not being 100% certain, to stand up in court and argue why I believe it to be illegal.”Digital forensic investigator

Concern about misidentifying real vs AI material (n=175)

“Massive stress. Imagine if I missed a victim and that victim came to harm. I’d struggle to live with myself and it’s a genuine concern.”Digital forensic investigator

“Are we wasting police resources trying to victim ID a child that doesn’t exist?”Digital forensic investigator

Asked how increasing AI sophistication will affect investigator workload, morale, and well-being, responses were largely pessimistic — centred on volume, erosion of professional confidence, and the risk of systemic collapse in victim identification:

“As the inability to easily distinguish artificial from real imagery increases, I think it’s possible that lingering doubts might lead to an erosion of confidence in one’s own abilities.”Digital forensic investigator

“Weirdly, I would feel better about what I do if I knew at the end of every case was just a piece of code, rather than a living, breathing child.”Digital forensic investigator

3.4 Mental Health Outcomes

PCL-5: post-traumatic stress symptoms

The PCL-5 assessed 20 PTSD symptoms across intrusion, avoidance, negative cognitions/mood, and hyperarousal clusters. Key findings:

Hypervigilance (47%), difficulty sleeping (45%), difficulty concentrating (44%), and emotional detachment (44%) were the most prevalent symptom clusters. The spillover of these symptoms into home and personal life is a recurring theme in qualitative accounts:

“Things that are seen that have a traumatizing effect on you once seen can’t be unseen, the thought can’t be unthought, and it stays with you.”Digital forensic investigator

GAD-7: generalised anxiety

GAD-7 responses indicate prevalent anxiety symptomatology across all seven items. Feeling nervous or on edge was endorsed as occurring ‘more than half the days’ or ‘nearly every day’ by 27% of respondents. Trouble relaxing (35%), worrying too much (34%), and becoming easily annoyed (33%) were further common presentations. Feeling afraid something awful might happen was reported at clinically relevant frequencies by 21% of the sample.

PHQ-9: depressive symptoms

PHQ-9 results reveal a meaningful burden of depressive symptomatology across the sample. Fatigue or low energy was the most prevalent symptom, with 47% reporting this on more than several days. Trouble sleeping (55% on several days or more), poor appetite or overeating (58%), and difficulty concentrating (61%) were widespread. These patterns, considered together, are consistent with subsyndromal or clinical depression in a significant proportion of the workforce.

“There was only one time in my career that a supervisor asked if I was okay after a particularly gruesome case. One. Time. No counselling services were ever made available until after I retired.”Digital forensic investigator (retired)

3.5 Physical Health Outcomes (PHQ-15)

The PHQ-15 assessed somatic symptoms over the preceding 7 days. Results suggest significant physical health burden, consistent with occupational stress and the body’s response to chronic psychological strain.

The physical toll of the role is not merely a statistical abstraction. Investigators themselves make the connection between their psychological state and its bodily expression — including in ways that signal acute cardiovascular stress:

“Have been signed off for stress for a month 1 year ago due to case load and amount of CSAM to review. Currently have trouble sleeping, feeling stressed daily and get occasional chest pains and high heart rate.”Digital forensic investigator

3.6 Resilience (Brief Resilience Scale)

Despite the significant challenges documented above, the BRS reveals meaningful resilience capacity within this workforce.

* Reverse-scored items

Resilience in this population appears to be actively cultivated — often through compartmentalisation, professional identity, and finding meaning in victim-centred outcomes — rather than through any formal organisational support:

“Old school. Put it in a box and just get on with it. Never open the box.”Digital forensic investigator

3.7 Coping Strategies (Brief COPE)

The Brief COPE identified the primary strategies investigators employ to manage demands. The workforce predominantly relies on problem-focused and cognitive coping, with limited use of potentially harmful strategies.

The dominance of acceptance and distraction-based coping, alongside low rates of help-seeking, reflects a workforce that has largely internalised stress as ‘part of the job’ — sometimes to their psychological detriment. Peer support stands out as under-utilised but valued when it does occur:

“We work in a very unique field. I feel that a person on the outside might struggle to understand exactly what we do and how it affects us.”Digital forensic investigator

3.8 Supervision and Professional Support

Access to adequate supervision and professional support is a fundamental safeguard for those working in psychologically demanding roles. The findings in this domain are very concerning.

Clinical supervision frequency

“We used to have mandatory 6 month check-ups; this then went to questionnaires and now we have nothing.”Digital forensic investigator

“We get an online form to fill once a year…”Digital forensic investigator

Supervision quality (among those receiving any)

The quality data compound the access problem significantly. 38% of those receiving supervision rated it very poor or poor — but the more telling figure is that 74% rated it no better than adequate. Only 27% rated supervision as good or excellent. The issue is therefore not merely one of access; it is equally one of quality, relevance, and fitness for purpose in a highly specialised professional context.

Peer debrief frequency

Peer debriefing represents one of the most accessible and culturally accepted forms of support available to this workforce, yet the data reveal it is overwhelmingly absent. In aggregate, 86% of investigators are either never or only sporadically engaging in peer support — a form of connection that the broader trauma literature consistently identifies as a meaningful protective factor.

Support services accessed (past 12 months)

Barriers to seeking support

The qualitative data reveal that the obstacles to support are not merely logistical but structural, cultural, and — in some organisations — career-threatening. Several participants described witnessing colleagues leave the profession entirely after disclosure of mental-health difficulties:

“Especially for staff in DF if you have an issue with CSAM, organisations tend to then end your career, or the person leaves after significant mental health breaks. I have witnessed this myself. There is little or no support for staff to be able to switch careers if they do not wish to view CSAM anymore.”Digital forensic investigator

“If the service came to me, during work hours, I would be more likely to take part. I am less likely to seek it out if I have to go outside of work hours.”Digital forensic investigator

The leading barriers — lack of time (48%), fear of career impact (34%), and confidentiality concerns (37%) — point to systemic and cultural issues that no amount of individual well-being provision alone can resolve without structural change.

3.9 Childhood Trauma (CTQ-SF)

The Childhood Trauma Questionnaire — Short Form explored early adversity across emotional, physical, and sexual abuse domains, as well as positive family experiences, to examine whether early adversity moderates occupational resilience and vulnerability.

Emotional abuse was most prevalent, with 27% reporting they were often or very often called demeaning names. Importantly, the majority reported positive family experiences — 73% felt loved, and 61% described family as looking out for one another. 52% of participants also reported experiencing trauma outside of the workplace, meaning occupational exposures frequently compound pre-existing adversity.

4. Conclusions & Recommendations

The Forensic Focus International Well-Being Study presents the most comprehensive snapshot to date of the psychological, physical, and occupational health of digital forensic investigators. The findings paint a picture of a dedicated but increasingly strained professional community, facing compounding demands with inadequate support infrastructure. The voices of investigators themselves make the urgency of this picture undeniable:

“How long can I keep seeing this!”Digital forensic investigator

Where this research goes next

The dataset generated from this study will now undergo further, more advanced psychological analysis to explore the relationships between early-life adversity, resilience, mental-health outcomes, and occupational factors within digital forensic investigators. Planned analyses include inferential statistical modelling, correlation, and regression-based approaches; the outcomes will form the basis of a programme of peer-reviewed publications aimed at strengthening the empirical evidence base in this under-researched area.

Forensic Focus intends to repeat this study, so that the field gains the longitudinal evidence base it currently lacks.

Digital forensic investigators serve on one of the most challenging frontlines in law enforcement and the private sector. They carry the psychological weight of what society’s most vulnerable experience, often in isolation and with minimal institutional recognition. This study makes clear that their well-being cannot continue to be treated as an afterthought. The data demand action — and the investigators themselves deserve nothing less.

Support services

If anything in this report affects you, confidential support is available:

If you are in immediate danger, call your local emergency number first.

© Forensic Focus 2026 · Author: Paul Gullon-Scott BSc MA MSc MSc FMBPsS, Well-Being Lead, Forensic Focus · This report may be quoted with attribution.