De-escalation and the Decision Point

This publication expands on the UOF Decision Point.

The President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing has emphasized the role of de-escalation in modern policing. De-escalation is widely viewed as a necessary function of law enforcement, paralleling that of their inherent ability to use force. It is believed that de-escalation programs may reduce UOF incidents, establish a culture of service within the department, and foster better relationships with the community. As such, it is a vital part of any officer's toolkit. De-escalation has been praised by some as the golden solution to the number of unanswered questions of modern policing - but is it?

The inclusion of specific de-escalation programs into modern policing tactics has contributed to a significant shift in the public's misconception of law enforcement's role and the inherent danger of law enforcement duties. De-escalation is critically important in preventing violence; it is not a suitable method for stopping violence where it is already occurring. Although it may assist officers in bringing a violent confrontation to its conclusion, it is a secondary concern to the safety of all involved. What began as a simple initiative for more compassionate and deliberate policing has become a source of indecision and confusion. In short, de-escalation is an integral part of police tactics but, just as with any tool or program, its improper implementation has halted progression and endanged officers across the nation. It

STUDIES ON DE-ESCALATION

The effectiveness of de-escalation techniques and programs is unknown. Research on de-escalation programs across studies is somewhat mixed, with substantial reasons both for and against the practice (White et al., 2023). Researchers agree that both training and application of de-escalation techniques are largely arbitrary and theoretical (Engel et al., 2020). As with most law enforcement training, de-escalation tactics are largely a loose collection of strategies and tactics with no established system or framework. Definitions vary and no tangible goal or benchmark exists to examine how, why, or when UOF or de-escalation should be used.

WHAT IS DE-ESCALATION?

De-escalation is the act of bringing an incident from a state of high tension to a state of low tension (Richards, 2007; Oliva et al., 2010). What is the appropriate method for successfully decreasing tension in a potentially fatal environment? It depends. However, modern research in crisis intervention techniques supports the separation of the Stable Zone* and the Enforcement Zone* as two distinct points of tension that require two different responses. Effective crisis intervention requires an officer to "dedicate the proper amount of time necessary to de-escalate the crisis and not be rushed" (Richards, 2007; Oliva et al., 2010). Once more we observe time as a subtle, but critically, variable in UOF incidents.

A SYSTEMATIC SOLUTION

Should the profession seek to accept a formal framework for UOF and de-escalation? We can look no further than the overhaul in law enforcement active shooter training in the last decade. The shift toward systematic training has greatly progressed the profession through established systems, research, and training. UOF and de-escalation methods can greatly benefit from the same treatment.

Any effective program must have defined parameters. Establishing these parameters requires an understanding of what the program intends to accomplish. The primary responsibility of a law enforcement officer is to keep the peace - first to protect life, then property, and then to maintain social order and enforce rules and regulations. Therefore, any program that interferes with that pursuit is ineffective.

Numerous case studies show that de-escalation whcombined with enforcement actions - a phenomenon we call soft enforcement - leads to volatile and highly dangerous interactions. The nature of enforcement actions directly contradicts those of de-escalation. While officers can certainly use certain tactics to encourage cooperation, de-escalation becomes an afterthought in the midst of an enforcement action. Traditional de-escalation techniques cannot work when combined with enforcement. The fatal traffic stop involving 2 officers on June 29, 2020 in Tulsa, Oklahoma is a prime example.

Our UOF and de-escalation models resulted from our review of officers who did not act on the decision point. The premature resumption of de-escalation and/or soft enforcement led to further escalation - a recurring theme in fatal encounters.

---

The question we are tasked with answering is not if it works, it is rather when it works. De-escalation is an invaluable tool, but not knowing when to de-escalate can lead to a poorer performance where officers feel

THE UOF DE-ESCALATION ZONE

The UOF De-escalation Zone ©

De-escalation techniques seamlessly integrate into our latest revision of the UOF Decision Point model, providing officers with visual aids, understanding, and tangible goals.

De-escalation efforts should primarily occur within the Stable Zone* and aim to maintain low-risk levels. They are not a replacement for standard police practices that ensure officer safety. De-escalation cannot occur without prioritizing officer safety, especially given the heightened tensions and imbalances that arise when there is inadequate control over the scene. If an

Once a police encounter enters the enforcement phase, it is no longer stable and thus no longer viable for de-escalation. For officers to utilize de-escalation techniques, they must reduce navigate the situation back into the "stable" zone. The encounter is now hostile and officers should take the most efficient and effective action to move the incident back into the stable zone.

A PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE

The question following UOF is always why? Why was force used and was that force reasonable? Yet, the factor that most led to widespread support of officers had nothing to do with force at all. Even particularly nasty uses of force were mitigated by 3 factors: patience, professionalism, and competence. Officers who conducted themselves with the highest levels of professionalism received little, if any, negative feedback. One of our videos shows an officer casually speaking to an subject in one of the friendliest tones witness on BWC. In the blink of an eye, the officer drew and fired on the kid. It was nearly a textbook shooting under the Deadly Force Threshold, although the officer's commands did not indicate whatsoever that he was prepared to use force. Despite the lack of clarity and even apparent unlawfulness of the shoot, the responses were resoundingly positive due to the officer's tone and confident but remorseful tone. The other was patience. Officers who were patient where there was no initial threat factors were far more likely to be supported as well. Finally, officers who were able to explain the laws, even if they could not cite the exact code or statute, were far more supported. The enforcement of First Amendment related issues is highly dependant on an officers ability to explain the law. Overall, officers should care less about using standard officer safety tactics and worry more about their presence and demeanor.

TO BE CONTINUED

References

Engel, R. S., McManus, H. D., & Herold, T. D. (2020). Does de-escalation training work? A systematic review and call for evidence in police use-of-force reform. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 721-759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12467

Oliva, J. R., Morgan, R., & Compton, M. T. (2010). A practical overview of de-escalation skills in law enforcement: Helping individuals in crisis while reducing police liability and injury. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 10(1), 15–29. Retrieved from https://www.de-escalate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/A-Practical-Overview-of-De-Escalation-Skills-in-Law-Enforcement.pdf

Richards, K. J. (2007). De-escalation techniques. In M. T. Compton and R. J. Kotwicki (Eds.), Responding to individuals with mental illnesses (pp. 160–174). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.

White, M. D., Orosco, C., & Watts, S. (2023). Beyond force and injuries: Examining alternative (and important) outcomes for police de-escalation training. Journal of Criminal Justice, 89, Article 102129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102129

Workspace

attack. The findings from previous research aimed at examining the characteristics of police officers more likely to become victims of felonious assault indicate that officers that appear to “have their guard down” are at heightened risk (Pinizzotto, Davis, & Miller, 2006). Furthermore, others have pointed to the serious limitations of de-escalation training on use-of-force outcomes given the psychophysiological constraints on officer decision-making in volatile encounters (Johnson et al., 2014).

Writing in a popular law enforcement officer forum, former Police Lieutenant Brian Landers reminded readers that, “[T]here is no evidence to support a claim that de-escalation policies increase officer safety” and further argued that officer safety could be reduced (2017).

Excessive De-escalation - Time Factor

Officer Danger

Call Volume

Cumulative Stress (officer)

**soft commands / soft enforcement**

We find de-escalation to have a list of compelling reasons in support of modeling.

MODELING Even if modeling has no positive effect on law enforcement, modeling de-escalation may help the public to better understand de-escalation. Deescalation, in its current form, is a modern buzzword used by the public to describe professionalism, respect, and reason. It has no

Defining the points of conflict and appropriate provide greater clarity when discussing UOF incidents. When buzz-words are carelessly inserted into any possible point they can fit into, they lose their meaning. Providing the public with greater understanding of police problems increases transparency while simultaneously increasing the understanding of what police must deal with daily.

Clarifying police processes increases public support. The subjective nature of UOF has tended to lead officers into a negative light. Objective frameworks allow agencies to quickly identify processes and show the public that officers acted within their scope. It is not uncommon to hear things like "the police conducted an investigation and found themselves clear of any wrongdoing." Specific systems, models, and frameworks allow agencies to show precisely how an officer followed protocols or procedures by removing the subjective and vague nature of UOF.

Knowing when to deescalate also teaches us when not to deescalate. In other words, accurate models can save lives. They demonstrate when deescalation is fatal.

De-escalation is the preferred method for all what is de-escalate interactions. However, it has always been a secondary objective.

The curriculum also draws heavily on the LAPD's PATROL model: Planning, Assessment, Time, Redeploy, Other Resources, Lines of Communication.

The traditional understanding of de-escalation suggests:

1) Officers should not always use unnecessary physical force in their duty to enforce the law

2) Officers should treat every citizen professionally and with due care and respect

De-escalation is a practice that embodies professionalism and service.

Mitigating the factors that have a causal link to the higher risk levels will more often than not reduce the danger of escalation.

Workspace

UNFINISHED AND PARTIAL MODEL

Verbal techniques are only a small part of any successful de-escalation strategy. De-escalation techniques largely rely on logical ploys to reduce non-compliance. This assumes that the average suspect who needs yet the average non-compliant subject is not doing so out of rational.

Policies should reflect the danger of de-escalation during the enforcement zone and strongly encourag de-escalation. Policies that allow the officer greater discretion, give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and only enforce failure to de-escalate as severe violations of policies such as professional standards provide for greater offider confidence and less stress. Strong leadership, a culture of service, and high professional standards will have a direct effect on de-escalation.

Policies should clearly state the difficulty of the job and acknowledge the danger provide for greater awareness and context during review and may indirectly increase performance. Policies are a significant source of frustration for officers, as they are required to make decisions

Our working preliminary solution would be similar to:

Law enforcement should engage in de-escalation at all times when not taking an enforcement action.

There should be a clear distinction between simple engagement (use a different word) and enforcement.

UNFINISHED AND PARTIAL MODEL

Verbal techniques are only a small part of any successful de-escalation strategy. De-escalation techniques largely rely on logical ploys to reduce non-compliance. This assumes that the average suspect who needs yet the average non-compliant subject is not doing so out of rational.

Policies should reflect the danger of de-escalation during the enforcement zone and strongly encourag de-escalation. Policies that allow the officer greater discretion, give the officer the benefit of the doubt, and only enforce failure to de-escalate as severe violations of policies such as professional standards provide for greater offider confidence and less stress. Strong leadership, a culture of service, and high professional standards will have a direct effect on de-escalation.

Policies should clearly state the difficulty of the job and acknowledge the danger provide for greater awareness and context during review and may indirectly increase performance. Policies are a significant source of frustration for officers, as they are required to make decisions

Our working preliminary solution would be similar to:

Law enforcement should engage in de-escalation at all times when not taking an enforcement action.

There should be a clear distinction between simple engagement (use a different word) and enforcement.