 | This article'stone or style may not reflect theencyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia'sguide to writing better articles for suggestions.(May 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
_(cropped).jpg)
| Conflict resolution |
|---|
| Principles |
| Law |
| Management |
| International relations |
| Models and theories |
De-escalation refers to the methods and actions taken to decrease the severity of aconflict, whether of physical, verbal or another nature. It is the opposite ofescalation. De-escalation may also refer to approaches inconflict resolution, by which specific measures are taken to avoid behaviours that escalate conflict. De-escalation can be modelled withgame theory.[1]
Inpsychiatric settings, de-escalation is aimed at calmly communicating with an agitated client in order to understand, manage, and resolve their concerns. Ultimately, these actions are intended to reduce the client's agitation and potential for present or futureaggression or violence. An insufficient or overdue intervention may leave staff needing to usecoercive measures to manage an aggressive or violent client. Coercive measures, such aschemical ormechanical restraints, orseclusion, are damaging to thetherapeutic relationship and harmful to clients and staff.[2][3]
As of 2016, there are 19 articles inliterature that define or provide a model of de-escalation.[4] Articles converge on a number of themes (i.e. de-escalation should involve safely, calmly, and empathetically supporting the client with their concerns).
Hankin et al.'s (2011) review of four de-escalation studies reflects the somewhat unclear state of de-escalation research. Their review settles on eight goals, seven elements, 15 general techniques, and 15 other techniques divided into three subheadings.[5]
Price & Baker (2012) identify seven themes across relevant papers: three related to staff skills (e.g. empathetic concern, calm appearance and gentle tone of voice) and four related to the process of intervention (e.g. establishing rapport, maintaining safety, problem solving and setting limits).[6]
The available literature provides clinical descriptions of effective de-escalation based onqualitative data and professional observations. However, these thematic analyses need to be supported by more objective data; one hallmark of such objectivity would be an empirical scale orquantitative measure of de-escalation.[citation needed]
An English modified version of the De-Escalating Aggressive Behaviour Scale (DABS) identifies seven qualities necessary for de-escalation:
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing information.(October 2017) |
Starting around 2015, after facing criticism after numeroushigh-profile killings of civilians by police officers, some[which?]police forces in the US adopted de-escalation training, designed to reduce the risk of confrontations turning violent or deadly for anyone involved.[8][9][10][11][12][13]
TheFIRST STEP Actprison reform bill, passed under theTrump administration, mandates de-escalation training, especially for "incidents that involve the unique needs of individuals who have a mental illness or cognitive deficit."[14]
Richards (2007) states that de-escalation is the act of moving from a state of hightension to a state of reduced tension.[15] Bell (2018) points out that the reason there is heightened tension in law enforcement today than ever before is due totechnology.[16]Media reports on theuse of force,racial unrest,riots andinjustice make it seem like conflicts between police and citizens are happening every day. Bell[16] notes that because people can so readily view these conflicts between police and citizens through technology, people have become resistant to or challenging of law enforcement. In response, thepolice have had to become engaged insocial media, ethics training,diversity training and de-escalation programs.[16]
Bell notes that police are different from average citizens. He states that citizens have a "duty to retreat" while trained officers are expected to pursue and makearrests if need be. Sometimes officers have some discretion in how they will handle a situation such as when an encounter has the potential to become violent. It is at these times that "officers can turn to de-escalation tactics and still complete their mission to protect and serve."[16] Olivaet al. note, "As the role of police officers continues to expand from exclusivelycrime fighting to encompass other service-oriented functions, they must be able to recognize the characteristics of individuals incrisis in order to provide an effective and helpful resolution to the situation while reducing liability and risk of injury" (p. 16.) Hence the need for de-escalation tactics on the part of law enforcement officers.[17]
De-escalation tactics predominantly revolved around securing the scene at hand and attempting to calmly communicate with the citizen involved. Andrew Bell describes several de-escalation practices to assist in a potentially violent situation:[16]
Olivaet al. suggest the following basic de-escalation techniques: securing the scene, remove distractions or disruptive people from the area. Further, "The officer should remain calm and speak slowly, in short sentences, to encourage communication. The responding officer should also present a genuine willingness to understand and help".[17] Olivaet al. go on to outline the following specific de-escalation techniques:
Olivaet al. also note behaviours that officers should avoid when attempting to de-escalate a situation which include: Not asking "why" questions as it makes the persondefensive, they shouldn't rush the person, never speak too loudly, they should keep their feelings from interfering, they shouldn't challenge a person if they are havingdelusions orhallucinations but neither should they agree they are real.[17]
One of the most prominent de-escalation programs was developed by TheMemphisCrisis Intervention Team or CIT.[18] This program, which has come to be known as the Memphis Model, provides law enforcement withcrisis intervention training to particularly help those withmental illness. This program is aimed at diverting those in a mental health crisis from ending up in jail. The goal of the program is to improve the safety of officers, family members and people in the community and to direct people with mental illness away from thejudicial system and into thehealthcare system. Through this program, officers are given 40 hours of comprehensive training that includes de-escalation techniques. Officers engage inrole-playing various scenarios as part of this program.
According to The Memphis Crisis Intervention Team, research on the efficacy of CIT shows that it helps officers feel more confident, increases jail diversion for those with mental illness, increases the likelihood that those with mental illness get treatment, and injury to officers is significantly reduced.[18] Compton et al. (2008) conducted a comprehensive review of the existing research on the effectiveness of the Memphis Model of the Crisis Intervention Team.[19] While research is limited, the authors note that there is preliminary support that the Memphis Model may be helpful in connecting those with mental illness to thepsychiatric services that they need. The authors further note that police officers knowledge and confidence improve with such training. Arrest rates also appear to be lower by officers trained in the CIT model.
According to PBS,[20] the Memphis Model has expanded to approximately 3,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States. However, there are shortcomings to the research done on the effectiveness of the CIT programs such as lack ofcontrol groups and smallsample sizes.[19] The CIT programs around the country seem limited to addressing instituting de-escalation interventions with the mentally ill and not with the broader range of offenders that law enforcement officers may encounter. Furthermore, not all officers are trained in CIT; only self-selected police officers participate in this specialized training.[21]
Traditional deescalation training relies on a combination of direct instruction (e.g., lectures, presentations, webinars), group discussion, and live "peer role-play" among class participants. The experiential aspect of role-play (both simulated and with live peers) has been found to be especially important for helping trainees develop core de-escalation skills and be able to deploy those skills in high-pressure situations.[22] Accordingly, in 2023 U.S. Senators introducedS. 2637, to fund the development and distribution of a federal law enforcement training program that uses "live-action simulations and role playing to place law enforcement personnel in an interactive learning environment to replicate real-life scenarios or teach particular skills or techniques." Those skills and techniques must include situational awareness, critical decision-making and problem-solving, crisis intervention, and de-escalation.[23]
Work in other fields (especially healthcare) has drawn into question the value of live peer role-play, over other options for interactive training. Researchers have found that this is because the live peer role-play experience can vary so greatly with the quality of the training facilitator and acting skills of one's partner in role-play exercises. Participants reported that peer role-play is generally inferior to other role-play options that are aimed at greater consistency and authenticity.[24] This has led an increasing number of agencies and organizations in healthcare and law enforcement to adopt simulation-based de-escalation training over peer roleplay. Simulation-based training ensures a consistent and engaging experience for all trainees.
Simulation-based training follows many of the basic de-escalation approaches noted above (e.g. effective communication and assessment of the scene) but is done through screen-based or head-mountedvirtual reality simulator. Notable simulation-based de-escalation training systems includeFAAC's MILO Range System (a screen-based simulator) and Apex Officer's Virtual Reality Training (a head-mounted VR simulator). These training systems address a range of de-escalation situations not limited just to work with the mentally ill.[25]
Screen-based simulators have been in use in law enforcement training for since the 1990s.[26][27] While early systems were rudimentary and focused on a single domain (like marksmanship or pursuit driving), by the early 2000s they'd expanded to include de-escalation and othersoft skills.
Today, screen-based simulators are generally understood to offer the broadest range of training options. They can run either computer-generated simulations, or those filmed in high-definition video using live actors. These simulations can be used for marksmanship (includinglive fire ), use-of-force, driving, or de-escalation/interaction/communication training by single officers, groups of officers, or teams of officers and non-law enforcement personal (such as social workers).[28]
Head-mountedvirtual reality systems like Apex Officer's Virtual Reality Training (introduced to the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) at their 126th Annual Conference and Exposition inChicago, Illinois in October 2019.[29]) are more limited in their offerings. Despite being more immersive according to some studies,[30] the reliance on lower-fidelity computer-generated environments and characters make such systems better suited to single-person training on decision-making and de-escalation.
In the military, de-escalation is a way to prevent militaryconflict escalation. A historic example is the teaching harvested from theProud Prophet war simulation of a conflict between the US and the USSR, which took place in 1983. In war-timediplomacy, de-escalation is used as anexit strategy, sometimes called an "off-ramp" or "slip road". In such cases, an alternative peaceful resolution is offered to a belligerent (i.e. nation or person engaged in war or conflict) in order to avoid further bloodshed.[31][32][33] Restraint orappeasement against interventionism can in some cases lead to escalation instead of de-escalation.[34]Deterrence is one strategy to decrease conflict severity.[35] Inasymmetric conflicts a probabilistic escalation might be rational for one side in some situations, resulting in challenges for de-escalation.[36] "De-escalation through escalation" strategy hopes for increased probability of adiplomatic deal or further de-escalation.[37]
