Reading Assignment

When Less (Force) Is More: De-escalation Strategies to Achieve Officer Objectives and Simultaneously Reduce the Use of Force

David Kurz, Chief, Durham, New Hampshire, Police Department Bryan V. Gibb, Director of Public Education, National Council for Behavioral Health

There is much talk among law enforcement officers about de-escalation and use of force—methods, appropriate use, and risk analysis. Although each officer needs to follow his or her training, individual judgment, and department policy on what response to take in a particular situation, many departments are beginning to see that often “less is more” when it comes to use of force with regard to community relations and responses to individuals with mental illnesses or substance use disorders.

Clear communication is one of the key elements in de-escalation, but poor communication can have the reverse effect, escalating a situation, instead. An example of poor communication occurred when a police officer on a traffic detail at a construction site noticed a stopped vehicle. Four young African American men were in the vehicle, and the driver rolled the window down to ask the officer directions. As the officer pondered the request, it became apparent to him that the directions were going to be difficult to follow, and he said to the driver, “Boy… that’s not an easy drive from here.” One of the men in the car took offense at the word “boy” and responded in an angry and derogatory manner to the officer’s statement.1

The situation escalated from there with the four young men ultimately being arrested, and the community was in turmoil over the incident. This event could have gone in a more positive direction if the officer simply said, “Hey, sorry that I said that so poorly. It was an unfortunate choice of a phrase that I did not mean to be insulting.” It is difficult for anyone to apologize or acknowledge a mistake, and the image of authority, decisiveness, and law enforcement projected by a law enforcement uniform can make it seem even more difficult. However, experience and research has shown that an apology is not a sign of weakness in such circumstances; in fact, it is a demonstration of great strength and professionalism—a de-escalation tool and creative leadership.2 Rather than debate the philosophical underpinnings of who is right in such a situation, officers can benefit from considering what is helpful and expedient.

Another example of de-escalation tactics has to do with law enforcement’s response to persons with mental illnesses or disabilities. Public safety officers, regardless of rank or role, often interact with people experiencing mental health crises, and these encounters can often have a more positive resolution when de-escalation techniques are employed. For example, when officers in Providence, Rhode Island, were faced with a distressed young man brandishing a knife, the leader, “Lieutenant Gannon quickly sought to calm the boy down and end the standoff safely.”3

The youth was on a porch cutting a window screen, but was not otherwise acting in an aggressive manner. When he ignored officers’ commands to drop the knife and, instead, began advancing on them, Lt. Gannon and his fellow officers did not draw their guns and Tasers. Instead, Lt. Gannon picked up a lawn chair and held it between him and the young man. This technique was less threatening to the youth than a gun or a Taser would have been, but it offered a block for Lt. Gannon if the youth charged him with the knife. Meanwhile, Lt. Gannon used a calm voice and reassuring language like, “It’s too hot for this. Let’s go get a lemonade.”4

After a tense 15-minute interaction with Lt. Gannon, the young man dropped the knife and was persuaded to be evaluated at a local hospital. He was not charged with a crime. “There are a lot of people like him who are getting arrested who shouldn’t be,” Lt. Gannon said. “It serves no purpose.”5

From Theory to Practice: Seattle Police Department’s Approach to De-escalation
By Daniel Nelson, Sergeant, Seattle, Washington, Police Department, and Eric Pisconski, Sergeant, Seattle, Washington, Police Department

The Seattle, Washington, Police Department (SPD) began formally incorporating de-escalation principles as a fundamental part of training in 2014. The idea of actively teaching and implementing de-escalation was originally born out of the SPD crisis intervention team (CIT) training. After the first CIT training cycle was completed and had been evaluated, SPD determined that crisis intervention should be viewed as just one pillar of an overall de-escalation strategy. The need to deliver specific de-escalation training was identified and implemented for all sworn members of the SPD in 2015. The training was delivered as a four-hour scenario-based block, focused on defining what de-escalation is (and is not) and how to apply it in a variety of calls for service.

The SPD formalized its expectations regarding de-escalation in 2015, as part of the agency’s overarching use-of-force policy. The policy states,
De-escalation tactics and techniques are actions used by officers, when safe and without compromising law enforcement priorities, that seek to minimize the likelihood of the need to use force during an incident and increase the likelihood of voluntary compliance.

When safe and feasible under the totality of the circumstances, officers shall attempt to slow down or stabilize the situation so that more time, options and resources are available for incident resolution.*

When de-escalation concepts were originally introduced during training, officers’ feedback centered around officer safety and the need to immediately respond to dynamic and rapidly evolving situations—in other words, consistent with policy, it was essential that officers did not misconstrue de-escalation as compromising officer safety. Time was spent focusing on the relevant definitions and outlining exactly what the expectations were, in conjunction with reality-based training scenarios, which allowed SPD officers to gain awareness and practical application of de-escalation techniques for a better understanding. Also included in the training were scenarios where de-escalation was feasible and when de-escalation was not feasible.

SPD’s de-escalation and CIT training has continued to evolve into higher-intensity scenarios that focus on both strategies and their intersection with force options. During the 2016 training cycle, emphasis was placed on how to interact with a person in a behavioral crisis who is also armed with an edged weapon. A total of four scenarios were developed involving an armed individual in which supervisors were required to call for appropriate resources to take the person into custody. While officers were involved acting as contact, cover, less-lethal, shield, hands-on, and other roles, the supervisor was ultimately responsible for developing the team’s strategy, communicating the plan, and putting it into motion. While these scenarios had a high likelihood of a positive resolution, it was still an exercise in the team’s understanding of the strategies and of operating in a manner that complied with the intent and spirit of the policy. De-escalation concepts have also been integrated with other core concepts such as defensive tactics, team tactics, and firearm training. As part of SPD’s overall force review process, all Type II and Type III uses of force assess the following aspects of each incident involving force:
• whether the investigation is thorough and complete
• whether the force was consistent or inconsistent with SPD policy, training, and core principles
• whether, with the goal of continual improvement, there are considerations that need to be addressed regarding, among other concerns:
 De-escalation
 Supervision
 Equipment
 Tactics
 Training
 Policy
 Department best practices

Since formalizing the de-escalation policy, SPD has seen a reduction of incidents in which reportable force is being used. In May 2015, SPD instituted a data collection tool to more fully capture officer interaction with individuals in behavioral crises. The goal of the data tool was to track previously unreported aspects of crisis-related incidents and their outcomes. During a review of 9,271 behavioral crisis incidents from May 15, 2015 to May 15, 2016, SPD found that reportable force was used only 149 times (1.61 percent). Of those instances, SPD found that 113 (75.84 percent) involved only Type I force, “which causes transitory pain, the complaint of transitory pain, disorientation, or intentionally pointing a firearm or bean bag shotgun at a person.”† Within the reporting period, Type II force (causing injury, complaint of injury, or use of less-lethal weapons) occurred 34 times, while only 2 of the incidents involved Type III force (substantial/great bodily harm, loss of consciousness, deadly force). Additionally, for the same reporting period, SPD had a total of 1,061 incidents involving reportable force. This led SPD to determine that reportable force used on individuals in behavioral crisis represents only 14.04 percent of the total reportable force incidents for the entire department.

By focusing efforts on identifying individuals exhibiting signs and symptoms of persons in behavioral crises, as well as training officers on how to safely and effectively interact with people displaying those behaviors, SPD has been able to demonstrate operational effectiveness in employing de-escalation techniques.
Notes:*
*Seattle Police Department Manual, §8.100
De-Escalation, https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8100
—de-escalation.
†Seattle Police Department Manual §8.050 Use of Force Definitions, https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/title-8—use-of-force/8050—use-of-force   -definitions.

When interviewed by the media on-scene, Lt. Gannon credited the Mental Health First Aid Public Safety training he had recently completed as a primary factor in his success at defusing the potentially violent incident, saying:

When I see something that seems off, I take an extra minute to think. We had all the time in the world, so long as nobody was hurt. A lot of it is common sense and not jumping into action too quickly. If you can take the time, take it.6

Mental Health First Aid

Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety, founded in Australia in 2000 and brought to the United States in 2008, is one of the best known and fastest growing mental health training programs for officers. In just 16 years, the program has spread to more than 22 countries, and more than 800,000 people in the United States have taken part in the training. To date, more than 75,000 of those trained have been public safety personnel, and, in October 2016, the IACP included the program as a key component of its One Mind pledge.

The eight-hour Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety course is intended to be an introduction to the signs and symptoms of mental illness and substance use disorders and how to respond safely and effectively to situations involving persons with those issues. Although it is primarily outward focused, the course also emphasizes the importance of officer wellness and how officers can support each other, their families, and themselves.

Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety does not teach trainees how to diagnose or treat mental illness, but, through awareness, diversion, de-escalation, and referral, thousands like Lt. Gannon are able to achieve better outcomes by employing some of the key strategies outlined, modeled, and practiced in the training.

The foundation of the training is an action plan called ALGEE.

  • A: Assess for risk of suicide or harm
  • L: Listen non-judgmentally
  • G: Give reassurance and information
  • E: Encourage appropriate professional help
  • E: Encourage self-help and other support strategies

The de-escalation tactics explored in the training through response to film clips and scenarios involving individuals with mental illness can also be applied to all day-to-day policing and citizen-police interactions.

  • Survey the situation for danger.
  • Consider possible physical crises, and call for rescue, if appropriate.
  • Ask for permission to help—introduce yourself.
  • Remain calm, confident, and firm.
  • Avoid joking and negative reactions.
  • If the person is experiencing delusions or hallucinations and is insulting or disrespectful, try not to take their words personally—remember, the person’s illness might be causing him or her to behave this way.
  • Simplify language and use repetition as the person might have trouble understanding you.
  • Avoid touching the individual unless necessary, lest he or she become more agitated.
  • Be aware of what might be upsetting the person, such as hallucinations, fear of the uniform or vehicle, or a past experience with authority.
  • Listen non-judgmentally and practice acceptance, genuineness, and empathy.
  • Use family or friends to help, or remove them if they are a complicating factor.7

In the situation discussed previously, Lt. Gannon did not know exactly what the young man’s diagnosis was, but by employing some of these best practices, he was able to de-escalate the situation. The young man could have been experiencing psychosis or a negative drug reaction, or he might have been disabled in some way. In the end, it turned out the young man was on the autism spectrum, but regardless of an actual diagnosis, the response often is the same—recognize that the individual is in crisis, de-escalate using appropriate tactics, and hand off or divert to appropriate professional help.

Common Contributors to Escalation

There are a number of factors that can increase the chance of a confrontation or escalate an interaction between and officer and a community member, including (though not limited to) the following issues.

Anxiety or Panic Attack: The most common mental illness type in the United States are anxiety disorders—18.1 percent of the adult U.S. population will experience symptoms of severity or duration that qualify for a diagnosis of an anxiety disorder in any given year.8 Types of anxiety disorders include various phobias, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). Although many individuals with anxiety experience their symptoms quietly, a common crisis associated with this disorder is panic attack, and approximately 2.7 percent of the population will experience a panic disorder where they experience disabling fear, difficulty breathing, elevated heart rate, chest pain, dizziness, sweating, and trembling.9

Psychosis: Disorders that present as psychosis—for example, disorders that can cause hallucinations and disordered thinking—are less common in the population (1–2 percent of U.S. adults) than anxiety disorders, but psychosis is more common among individuals who have contact with the criminal justice system.10 Symptoms of psychosis include hallucinations; delusions; disordered thinking; fear; and, less frequently, aggression.11

Substance Use Disorders: As most officers know, alcohol and drug abuse is a common problem in society. According to the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, in 2010, drugs and alcohol were implicated in 78 percent of violent crimes; 83 percent of property crimes; and 77 percent of weapon, public order, and other crimes.12 The use or abuse of drugs and alcohol can result in bad judgment and escalation—even violent or assaultive behavior.

It is common for law enforcement officers to come in contact with individuals in these types of crises, and in the Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety course, scenarios that feature these issues are outlined, modelled, and practiced.

Mental illness is not the only reason for escalation. As illustrated in the anecdote at the beginning of this article, general conflict between law enforcement and the public—such as a simple misunderstanding or distrust—can cause escalation. Despite careful selection and training, law enforcement officers are still humans who are interacting with other humans, and situations can easily escalate. However, officers can be trained to avoid a problem all together, as well as be trained in proven and effective de-escalation strategies and tactics for when problems arise.

Although it is useful for officers to know exactly what they are facing, in reality, having complete information about a situation is rare. Occasionally, departments have data on individuals at certain addresses or a particular diagnosis or history as part of their record, but, regardless of how or why a situation escalates, the best de-escalation practices are often the same.

General De-escalation Strategies

In addition to applying the guidance of ALGEE, some general strategies apply in most situations.

Patience: Law enforcement officers are often placed in stressful situations where active listening and cooperation are not common traits. While most officers are trained to defuse situations by adding a calming presence, almost all conflicts involve some kind of miscommunication or misunderstanding. Unintended, poor, or misinterpreted communication can easily escalate the underlying issue, and often the gift of time can help an officer better understand others’ behavior and determine how to react. For instance, Lt. Gannon recognized that a 15-minute delay was all he needed for the young man to calm down.

Conflict decreases the ability of people to listen and understand. People in conflict do not communicate with each other as normally, openly, and accurately as they do when interactions are not strained, and appropriate training can help officers recognize and compensate for this factor.

Respect: Often, if an individual is in crisis or just slightly agitated, showing respect or concern can not only establish a positive foundation for the interaction, but de-escalate the situation all together. Although it may sound trite, in the Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety course, instructors frequently point out that just voicing concern about someone, showing a desire to help, and validating a person’s fear or unhappiness can be valuable tactics for officers.

Contrition: Building on this foundation of respect is the concept of contrition. The power of apology is applicable in any situation. Even if someone is hallucinating because of drugs or mental illness, he or she can still understand some of what others are saying. An apology or acknowledgement of a mistake can change the tenor of any interaction.

Concern: The concern that Lt. Gannon showed for the young man took extra time and cost a glass of lemonade, but consider the alternative if more potentially lethal tactics were employed.

Policy, Training, Diversion, and Referral – The One Mind Campaign

An IACP Advisory Group met in March 2016 to discuss improving law enforcement response to persons affected by mental illness. Their report outlines best practices and was the foundation for the One Mind Campaign launch in October of that same year.13

The One Mind Campaign seeks to ensure successful interactions between law enforcement officers and people affected by mental illness. To join the campaign, law enforcement agencies must commit to implementing four practices over a 12- to 36-month timeframe.

  • Establish a clearly defined and sustainable partnership with one or more community mental health organization(s).
  • Develop and implement a model policy addressing police response to persons affected by mental illness.
  • Train and certify 100 percent of the agency’s sworn officers (and selected non-sworn staff, such as dispatchers) in Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety.
  • Provide Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training to a minimum of 20 percent of the agency’s sworn officers (and selected non-sworn staff, such as dispatchers).14

The goals embodied by the pledge support the promotion and use of effective de-escalation tactics. After de-escalating a situation, it is useful to be able to refer the person to appropriate clinical partners; therefore, a department should have a codified policy to guide officers in how to respond to an individual in crisis and refer individuals to partners. Finally, the skills learned in Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety and the training component of a robust CIT are critical in diffusing a situation—or keeping it from escalating in the first place.

Value and Benefits to Agencies

The value of using solid de-escalation tactics by law enforcement officers in a community are numerous. Developing community trust by avoiding the types of conflicts outlined in the traffic stop story at the beginning of this article and being comfortable with contrition in the face of a mistake can pay dividends every day. If the outcome of an interaction with someone in crisis is positive, it can result in saved time, greater energy, and increased officer and public safety. The fundamental goals of training programs are diversion and referral—much more positive outcomes than arrests and incarceration.

Finally, the gratitude shown to the officer and the department when a family or individual has a positive experience is beyond measure, and every officer remembers an experience that reminded him or her of the reason for embarking on a career in law enforcement in the first place. Officers serve because because they care about people and want to help make their communities safe and just. De-escalation tactics offer a way to practice that mission on every patrol. ♦

Notes:

1Frank Amoroso (former chief of police, Portland, ME), personal conversation with author.

2Doug Guthrie, “Creative Leadership: Humility and Being Wrong,” Forbes, June 1, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougguthrie/2012/06/01/creative-leadership       -humility-and-being-wrong/#27240925084b.

3Congressional Briefing: Mental Health First Aid for Public Safety (testimony of Joseph Coffey, captain, Warwick, RI, Police Department, July 16, 2014), https://www.thenationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Captain
-Joseph-Coffey-testimony.pdf.

4Liz Boardman, “First Aid for Mentally Ill or Emotionally Disturbed Persons,” Tactical Response (May–June 2010).

5Ibid.

6Ibid.

7Robyn L. Langlands et al., “First Aid Recommendations for Psychosis: Using the Delphi Method to Gain Consensus Between Mental Health Consumers, Carers, and Clinicians,” Schizophrenia Bulletin 34, no. 3 (May 2008): 435–443.

8Ronald C. Kessler et al., National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS–R), 2007.

9American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5) (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2013), 189–233.

10Kessler, NCS-R.

11Jane Edwards and Patrick D. McGorry, Implementing Early Intervention in Psychosis (London, UK: Martin Dunitz Ltd., 2002).

12National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, “New CASA Report Finds: 65% of All U.S. Inmates Meet Medical Criteria for Substance Abuse Addiction, Only 11%W Receive Any Treatment,” press release, February 26, 2010, http://www.centeronaddiction.org/newsroom/press-releases/2010-behind-bars-II.

13 International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Improving Police Response to Persons With Mental Illness, 2016, http://www.iacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/MissingImprovingPoliceResponsetoPersonswithMentalIllnessSymposiumReport.pdf.

14IACP, “One Mind Campaign,” http://www.iacp.org/onemindcampaign.