De-escalation

 De-escalation is a process of moving from a state of high tension to one of reduced tension, in an incident in which there exists the potential for a violent outcome. There are four key elements in this definition. First, it is about a process. It is a series of steps towards an end. Second, it is the event that is the subject of the process, not the parties in it. It is about taking the heat out of a situation, not calming one of the parties down. Third, with de-escalation, there is no expectation the matter at hand will be resolved. De-escalation is about a reduction in tension. It is about going from a higher level to a lower level.  There is no set level for high or low. They are relative to each other. This is important to recognize at the onset. Many people think that it is possible to bring a person from a highly agitated state to a calm state, almost at the drop of a hat. Fourth, is the potential for violence. The de-escalation process intends to reduce the chances of someone being injured or killed. Violence does not have to be taking place at the outset, there only needs to be the realistic potential for it to take place.

In a policing context, it is the responsibility of the officer that is involved to manage the process. There is no compunction on the part of the other party to engage in it.  The officer will instigate the process and should continue with it unless there is an imminent threat to any person, or until it reaches a rational conclusion. The most desirable end goal is that the incident ends with no physical harm.

There are three ways that the process will be concluded. First, the incident ends with no harm. The other party involved desists in their undesired behavior or is arrested without the need for physical force. No one is harmed. Second, the amount of harm is reduced. For example, in a situation where a person has been threatening to ‘kill’, the incident is de-escalated to an extent that it takes a limited amount of force to restrain the person. The de-escalation process has been successful. It is not as bad as it could have been. Third, any action taken by the officer is defensible. Any objective person looking at the event in hindsight can see that all reasonable steps were taken to manage the situation but to no avail. Whatever action the officer has taken it is apparent that any rational person would have done the same, under those circumstances. They tried the process, but it didn’t work. It may be that the incident has ended with lethal force being used. That does not mean that de-escalation was not attempted. It will always be down to the officer to justify their actions.  There are several steps in the de-escalation process:

Step 1 Appraisal. The officer appraises the event identifying any imminent threat, the key actors, and a synopsis of what is occurring.

Step 2 Safety. The officer takes any step necessary to ensure the immediate safety of any person. Rarely, will this involve the application of force. At this step, the idea is containment. The officer may need to evacuate the immediate area. They should be prepared to back off and wait for support. Give space and time if possible. Steps 1 and 2 will take limited time. In some cases, they will be almost instantaneous.

Step 3 Self-check. The purpose of the self-check is to address the mental state of the officer. They may be excited. They may be terrified. Facing someone who appears out of control or aggressive naturally heightens anxiety. The brain will be screaming fear. The officer needs to bring their initial internal responses under control. They need to take a breath so that they are thinking logically. At this step, they are de-escalating themselves. When engaging the other party/parties, the officer needs to appear calm and in control. Furthermore, they have to be calm and in control. If not, they will be unlikely to be able to gain sufficient empathy or communicate that empathy.

Step 4 Engagement. Here the officer introduces themselves to the person. If there is more than one hostile party arguing with each other, the officer picks the one that poses the greatest threat. Where there are some different parties the officer must ensure they are as far from this conversation as practically possible. Ideally, the officer will have back up to manage other parties and bystanders. When engaging with a person the officer must respect their personal space. Allowing personal space shows respect and keeps the officer safer. When the person sees their space is being respected, it is likely to decrease their anxiety. The officer needs to be prepared for a torrent of abuse directed at them. This needs to be accepted. In reality, it is not personal. When a person sees that the officer is remaining calm, it is more likely to have a calming effect on them. This is a good time for the officer to give their name. A first name is sufficient and more personal. They should try and get a name for the person. Asking how they want to be addressed is always a safe start.  Having built the foundation, the next three steps are critical.  

Step 5 Validation. The purpose of this step is to identify and acknowledge how that person is feeling. ‘Hey, you seem upset.’ ‘Sir, you seem riled up.’ It is for the officer to choose the words that sound right coming from them. The tone must be genuine and non-threatening. It is about recognizing how the person feels and validating their right to feel that way. The person is mentally out of control, and the officer needs to create circumstances that allow that person the space to bring themselves under control. Other elements that may make this a lot more difficult is the fact that the person may have been abusing substances that are distorting their thinking. They may have a mental illness. However, if the officer is controlled, then they have the time to establish if either of these elements is present. Empathy and using non-judgmental language and voice tone, are key. Some things won’t work. Telling the person to calm down will have the opposite effect. If the officer is emotionally involved, it won’t work. They will take the comments of the other person, personally. Smiling is likely to trigger a negative reaction. Dis-confirming responses imply that the receiver does not value or agree with what the person has said. They include interrupting the person, discounting the issue, or making a response that is unrelated to what the person has said. Dis-confirming responses should be avoided.  Validating the person is not about saying one or two sentences and moving on. The officer cannot move from this step until it is apparent that the person feels validated. This will show out in their spoken word and their non-verbal communication. Applying active listening techniques is critical here. The officer must be able to identify what is distressing this person, namely the cause of their anger. Then, they have to be able to identify when there has been a change in the behavior in response to what the officer is doing and saying. All through this, the officer’s non-verbal behavior will be critical. It is very unlikely that a person will lower their level of anger/anxiety in the presence of an aggressive stance. Only when the officer has noticed a clear change in the person can they move to the next step.

Step 6 Options. The person is invited to provide options as to how they can resolve the matter. There are always options. In many cases, the officer may know that ultimately the incident will end in the person being arrested. However, there are many ways that an arrest can take place. The person has a choice as to how the event ends. The officer needs to allow them to see that there are options and help them in the process. With each option, the officer explores the potential consequences of that option. The consequences must not sound like a threat.  Voice tone is critical, as is the phrasing. ‘Yeah, I guess we could fight this out, but then we would probably both get hurt.’ The person should be allowed time to think. Silence can be a useful tool. Up until this point, the person will likely not even have considered what options there may be. They have not been thinking logically. However, having been validated, they are now in a position to explore other options. Having been allowed to express what the person sees as their options the officer can now bring in alternatives.  The person is more likely to listen to these alternatives because the officer has taken time to listen to how they were feeling and to validate those feelings. Also, the officer first listened to the options they proposed. An officer needs to be honest about what options are not available. Any parameters need to be stated but not over-emphasized. ‘Joe, you walking away from this, is not going to happen. You know that that won’t work. Let’s talk about what can happen.’ We are all entitled to say no. If an officer has provided a person with an option and the person says ‘no’, there needs to be a back-up strategy. Too often the officer takes the refusal as the end of the encounter. They then escalate it to the next level. A simple ploy is to ask the person what will work for them. ‘Ok’. That option is not going to work for you. What would work?’ Alternatively, the officer can ask what problems the person sees with the solution. ‘What’s the downside of that for you?’  The point of these questions is to let the person see they are being listened to and hopefully get them to suggest a concrete solution that they will agree to. If the officer can engage with the person and get them to respond logically then the greater chance there is of a peaceful resolution.  

Step 7 Choice. At this point, the officer gives the person a choice. It is not about telling them what they should do. The person needs to have autonomy (see motives.) They need to know it is their decision. ‘It is up to you to decide, what you want to do. I am here. I respect that you have the right to make the choice.’ What happens here is that the person sees that they are allowed to do what they choose. They do not have to fight for that. Knowing it is their choice makes it easier for them to adopt a different path. They can more easily give up the position they adopted when they were not thinking rationally. The rational stance, ‘Ok. I will get in the car.’ seems more acceptable than the earlier irrational stance, ‘I am going to smash your head in.’ This is because the person has a choice. When we are in a calmer state we are more likely to make better choices. It is for the officer to create the circumstances where a person who is emotionally out of control comes back to a place where they feel emotionally safe.

Step 8 Conclusion. At some point, the officer has to decide on a course of action. If the de-escalation process has been successful such a point will become self-apparent. If it has been less successful a physical intervention may have to be made. Officers should avoid warning someone that they are about to act. It gives them time to prepare. Perhaps the best thing to do is just before acting is to give them one final opportunity.  ‘Is there anything I can do to sort this?’ If the reply is negative, then act decisively.

As a general rule, time should be considered as being on the side of the officer. The officer should use the time to their advantage. A person is likely to become physically tired. They can only shout for so long. Anger will naturally dissipate over time provided it is not rekindled. Officers should not feel time-pressured to act. Time is rarely a reasonable excuse to force action. In policing, officers often mistakenly feel time-pressured. Time is not an excuse to send in a SWAT team and force the person into submission. If there is no threat to any person, contain the situation.  Why is there a need to escalate it to where lethal force may be used? How much time would you want the police to take if it were your child or your brother? Contain and call for a crisis negotiator. Always with the de-escalation process, the desired outcome is no harm.

Whatever the outcome the officer will have to be in a position to defend their decision. A defensible decision will withstand detailed scrutiny should negative outcomes have occurred. The key factor is the ‘reasonableness’ of their actions. Reasonableness is about what ‘ordinary’ people think was reasonable. It is often a lot easier to justify to other officers the reason something was done than it is to the public. However, it is the public that judge.  

This is an extract from our book:

Interpersonal Skills for Police Officers - A comprehensive guide to communication.

460 pages of skills for officers. Available from Amazon on Kindle and in Paperback.