Everyday police work encompasses any kind of deployment that police officers handle daily. These tasks include, for example, interventions in cases of domestic violence, handling of traffic crashes and offenses, and various forms of conflict resolution. Violence may be a part of these routine operations: police officers, when necessary, use varying levels of force to constrain dangerous activities or people or to ensure the safety of community members. At times, other first responders or officers experience violence when attacks are directed against them.1 Defending oneself, repelling dangers from others, and enforcing measures against resistance are, therefore, everyday police tasks. The use of reasonable force is legitimate, but always there is a delicate balance, as the two sides (violence against police officers and by police officers) seem to correlate with each other.2 Using less force can result in police officers being victimized. Excessive force is a crime and turns the police officer into an offender. The responsible task of using force in the line of duty requires a lot from officers and can have severe consequences for individual officers as well as for the general population. This is demonstrated by events such as those following the death of George Floyd in the United States, the debate following the fatal shooting of a 16-year-old in Germany in the summer of 2022, and the riots in France in 2023 after the killing of a 17-year-old by the police. Ultimately, trust in the police also seems to depend on the delicate matter of the excessive use of force, which can then shape future interactions between the public and the police.3 Therefore, both for the prevention of police violence and as a means to reduce violence against emergency responders, effective de-escalation can be incredibly valuable.
Effectiveness of De-Escalation and De-Escalation Training
Numerous techniques exist to serve as de-escalation. However, when and whether these are successful has not been well examined.4 Nevertheless, police officers use these techniques every day.5 In most cases, community members are treated respectfully, police measures are transparently explained, and words are chosen to be easily understood. Listening is also a widespread strategy in daily police work. While at one time, it may have been relatively rare to systematically attempt to calm down an agitated member of the public and show them empathy, these skills are becoming more frequently employed in modern policing.6
“An expression of empathy won’t be credible if the police officer has previously behaved in a manner that demonstrates no respect for or interest in the person.”
Neglecting de-escalating techniques can lead to unnecessarily negative outcomes. However, it remains uncertain which techniques work (and in what circumstances they work). Similar uncertainties about effectiveness exist for de-escalation training. Sometimes, the effect of such trainings lies primarily in the realm of knowledge and changes in personal attitudes.7 Participants could remember the content well and were convinced and motivated to apply the learned skills, but many retained various behaviors and did not change their behavioral habits in some areas.8 This is why a part of the research on de-escalation found that de-escalation trainings did not make violent or aggressive events less frequent. On the other hand, de-escalation training did correlate to a significant decrease in the use of violence, as well as in the number of injured police officers and community members.9
Potential Influence on De-Escalation
Techniques and tactics of de-escalation do not universally work, regardless of the situation and the individuals involved. They are not an algorithm that reliably resolves conflicts. Instead, they are more of a heuristic. Their use and effectiveness can depend on various factors. Some critics argue that police officers face increased danger when they choose to de-escalate rather than use force, fearing violence against police officers may rise.10 If one were to accept this view, de-escalatory behavior would be discouraged and any attempts at it would be hesitant. However, evaluations and analyses of attacks on police officers tend to show the opposite outcome; instead, de-escalation promotes the safety of police officers.11 Police officers are authorized to use force in various forms, so they are trained in hands-on compliance techniques and in the use of tools and firearms. However, de-escalation must be learned and practiced, too. The question arises as to the relationship between training for the use of force and training for the prevention of violence through de-escalation. Do they compete with each other, or do they not influence each other? If competition is assumed, then care must be taken to ensure that there is no significant imbalance, which would result in de-escalation being used less frequently in police practice than may seem possible.12 Research in both the United States and Europe shows that use of force takes up significantly more time and space in training than de-escalation.13
De-escalation techniques are often listed as one item in a collection of different methods and tactics.14 Thus, de-escalation appears as an isolated action rather than a process. However, this does not correspond to the interaction process in which de-escalation may be used. Police interaction must be understood as a process that is always, from the beginning, associated with both escalation and de-escalation. There is, thus, no communicative action of a police officer that does not also affect the course of the conflict. De-escalation or escalation is, therefore, always taking place. This means that, in community-police interactions, de-escalation must be ongoing and cannot be “initiated” only during the interaction. This fundamental understanding may explain why de-escalation techniques sometimes appear ineffective. For example, an expression of empathy won’t be credible if the police officer has previously behaved in a manner that demonstrates no respect for or interest in the person.
“Self-protection is primarily achieved by observing the individual and visually monitoring their hands. Choosing an appropriate position, considering the use of cover options, and maintaining an adequate distance are all important.”
Like doing the right thing at the wrong time, a specification and structuring of the de-escalation process is necessary. This allows police officers to orient themselves in the process of de-escalation and suggest appropriate techniques for the current situation. This structural concept is common in police negotiations, where some models like the Behavioral Influence Stairway Model or the Structured Tactical Engagement Process model are described.15 For everyday operations of police officers, it can, therefore, be assumed that a model designed for de-escalating everyday conflicts can be just as helpful, thus supporting de-escalation in routine operations.
The Model of Communicative De-Escalation in Everyday Conflict Situations (KODIAK)
The Model of Communicative De-Escalation in Everyday Conflict Situations (German: Modell kommunikativer Deeskalation in alltäglichen Konfliktsituationen [KODIAK]) aims to provide police officers with guidance for de-escalating conflict situations so that they can act systematically and purposefully, achieving the police operational goal without neglecting officer safety.
Fundamentals
De-escalation aims to avoid the use of force or at least to minimize the intensity of the force used, even if this requires extra effort in terms of exertion, time, or patience. Conflicts are, therefore, always to be resolved without force if possible. If the use of force is unavoidable, only the minimum amount of force should be used. The self-understanding of KODIAK thus also includes the recognition that not all conflicts can be resolved without the use of force by the police. The potential necessity of use of force in such situations is part of the de-escalation concept because the maximum possible violence-free resolution applies to all parties involved in a conflict: civilians and the police. Without an acceptable level of safety, de-escalation cannot take place.
A Multi-Stage Model
The KODIAK model assumes that during de-escalation, the five stages—Safety, Relationship, Calmness, Situation Clarification, and Solution Search—must be sequentially achieved to implement a police measure at a sixth stage, Solution Implementation. At each stage, it is necessary to assess the current situation. If this assessment concludes that a lower stage is not adequately fulfilled, then the officer must return to that stage. For example, if during the Calmness stage, the situation changes and Safety is no longer sufficient, the officer must revert to the Safety stage and take self-protection measures. Only then can they resume working on the Relationship stage and subsequently return to the Calmness stage.
First Stage: Safety
The central goal of de-escalation is to ensure that all parties involved, including police officers, subjects, and bystanders, emerge from the encounter without physical or psychological harm. While this may not always be possible, it is nevertheless the aim. Therefore, safety is of utmost priority and serves as the foundation for further de-escalation efforts. However, officer safety does not begin only upon encountering the individual targeted in the operation; it starts even before contact is made. This includes coordination with colleagues, mental preparation, readiness with equipment, and attentive approach, which are fundamental for the course of the interaction.16 During contact with the individual involved in the incident, the situation must be “scanned,” meaning an initial assessment of the situation is made, primarily focusing on evaluating the safety of the situation and taking self-protection measures. Self-protection is primarily achieved by observing the individual and visually monitoring their hands. Choosing an appropriate position, considering the use of cover options, and maintaining an adequate distance are all important. Maintaining distance ensures the safety of both officers and the individuals they interact with. This is particularly crucial for individuals with mental health issues, for whom breaching the comfort zone is often more critical and can trigger actions more readily than for others.
In addition to the safety of police personnel, the subject’s safety must also be considered. It will be difficult for people to focus or engage in conversation if they perceive themselves as being in danger. Sometimes, the safety of the police officer and the safety of the person they are interacting with may influence each other in opposing ways: when one has a higher sense of security, the other may feel less secure. In such cases, a compromise acceptable to both parties must be found.
Second Stage: Relationship
A suitable communicative relationship between the interacting parties is the foundation for successful communication, negotiation, and conflict resolution.17 Fundamental techniques for achieving this relationship include respectful interaction, kindness, and politeness.18 Respect involves demonstrating equality, appreciation, and interest.
“If the level of safety is not sufficiently met, and achieving it also appears unfeasible, the proportionality of the use of force is assessed.”
It is also shown by considering the other person’s feelings (e.g., patiently waiting for reactions, repeating sentences). Additionally, asking empathetic questions about the needs and issues of the other person, acknowledging them as important, responding to their questions, and listening attentively all contribute to de-escalation. Thus, showing empathy is a crucial de-escalation technique, as is (active) listening.19
Third Stage: Calmness
In police operations involving violence, all parties involved are often excited and highly emotional. This applies to both sides of the interaction. For example, the police officer may feel tense due to the uncertainty of the situation and the risk of an attack. The victim of violence experiences high stress and fear due to the violent experience. The perpetrator of violence may be angry at the victim or fearful of the consequences of their actions. Alternatively, it could be an agitated individual who is causing disturbance and fear among others, prompting the police intervention, thereby placing all participants under heightened stress. Elevated stress levels can impair performance and decision-making.20 To mitigate this and promote more rational behavior amid emotional turmoil, it is necessary to calm all parties involved and manage stress.21 Techniques to control one’s stress levels during high-stress phases may include breathing techniques.22 The police officer should not display signs of high stress, as this can be contagious (“stress contagion”) and, therefore, exacerbate stress for all involved.23 Additionally, taking time and allowing the individual time to calm down or make decisions is essential, as reducing time pressure reduces stress. Thus, patience is a crucial de-escalation technique.
Fourth Stage: Situation Clarification
Once the situation is relatively safe, a rapport has been established for interaction, and the excitement and stress of all involved individuals have been reduced, efforts can begin to address the conflict itself. To do so, it is necessary to gather information to understand the situation, what has happened, who is involved in what role, and what needs to be done. Key techniques for gathering information include asking questions and (actively) listening. These not only help clarify the situation but also have a de-escalating effect.24 Once again, empathetic behavior can de-escalate the situation and strengthen the relationship. In this context, allowing the subject the opportunity to explain themselves and articulate their position is helpful. Equally important is speaking in a way that is understandable to the individual, not overwhelming them linguistically, and avoiding the use of police jargon.25
Fifth Stage: Solution Search
After essential information has been gathered and is available from the previous stage, the next step involves attempting to shape the further course of the operation together with the police counterpart. If a need for action binds the police officers and has no room for maneuver, the implementation can at least be developed together with the person. By involving the counterpart, acceptance of the measure can be increased and resistance becomes less likely. Also, through the joint search for implementation paths, potential obstacles and problems can be identified before they arise, thus avoiding surprises.
“Although de-escalation always seeks to avoid the use of force, this will not always succeed”
Additionally, it is important to announce, explain, and justify police measures. This transparency in police action is central to de-escalation. With all approaches to solutions, efforts should be made to ensure that the individual can save face and avoid any threat of status loss. Saving face means that self-esteem, self-image, social identity, and thus “face” (according to the concept of “face” in Ting-Toomey’s Face Negotiation Theory) are not attacked.26 This also includes “social face,” meaning social status and reputation in front of others. Experiencing humiliation or disrespect, especially in front of socially significant third parties (peers, partners, children), can be triggers for assaults.27
Sixth Stage: Solution Implementation
In this stage, the focus is ultimately on implementing the decided police measures. To continue to de-escalate during the implementation of conflict resolution or police actions, it is important to maintain transparency about police actions. This can involve mentioning or announcing implementation steps. Similarly, it is important to ensure that the person does not lose face (socially). Patience remains crucial here and aids in de-escalation.
Switching to the Use of Force
The use of force can occur during an operation for two main reasons. First, the use of force serves to repel dangers to oneself or others and thus establish a safe state. Second, force may be necessary to enforce a police measure if the subject provides resistance. In each case, the principle of proportionality must be observed. Although de-escalation always seeks to avoid the use of force, this will not always succeed. As acceptable safety is the basic prerequisite and, therefore, the first stage of the de-escalation model, it may be necessary to use force to some extent. If the level of safety is not sufficiently met, and achieving it also appears unfeasible, for example, because several attempts to make the situation safer have not been successful, the proportionality of the use of force is assessed. If security is perceived as massively endangered and proportionality is not given, a (temporary) withdrawal may be considered.
As described above, possible solutions to the situations and potential conflicts are sought in the stages of problem-solving and solution implementation. If the individual opposes all possible measures and attempts at solutions, according to the legal situation, the use of force to enforce a required police measure may be considered and, if necessary, carried out. If no solution can be found that is accepted by the individual or if they explicitly resist it, force may need to be used.
Although the complexity of the decision to use force has been only briefly outlined here, it should be clear that the use of force is an integral part of the KODIAK model and, above all, not contradictory to it.
Conclusion
To promote the use of de-escalation techniques and reduce the use of force, police officers must be convinced of the effectiveness of these techniques while ensuring safety. Ultimately, police officers need guidance on when each technique can be successful. It is precisely for this purpose that KODIAK was developed. KODIAK enables police officers to act systematically and purposefully, achieving their policing objectives without neglecting personal safety. d
Notes:
1Bruce G. Taylor, Weiwei Liu, and Jackie Sheridan, “Prevalence and Correlates of Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers in the United States: A National Portrait,” in Police Conflict Management, Vol. 1, eds. Mario S. Staller, Swen Koerner, and Benni Zaiser (Palgrave Macmillan, 2023).
2Lisa Van Reemst, Tamar Fischer, and Frank Weerman, “Aggression Against Police Officers and Behavior Toward Citizens: Reciprocal Influence or Common Causes?” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022).
3Christof Nägel and Mark Lutter, “The 2017 French Riots and Trust in the Police: A Quasi-Experimental Approach,” European Journal of Criminology 20, no. 1 (2021): 270–291.
4Natalie Todak and Michael D. White, “Expert Officer Perceptions of De-escalation in Policing,” Policing: An International Journal 42, no. 5 (2019): 832–846.
5Natalie Todak and Lois James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics,” Police Quarterly 21, no.4 (2018): 509–543; Michael D. White, et al., “Moving the Needle: Can Training Alter Officer Perceptions and Use of De-Escalation?” Policing: An International Journal 44, no. 3 (2021): 418–436.
6Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics.”
7Sally Spencer, Paula Johnson, and Ian C. Smith, “De-escalation Techniques for Managing Non-Psychosis Induced Aggression in Adults,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7, no. 7 (July 2018); Robin S. Engel et al., “Assessing the Impact of De-escalation Training on Police Behavior: Reducing Police Use of Force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department,” Criminology & Public Policy 21, no. 2 (2022): 199–233.
8Chris Giacomantonio, Stephanie Goodwin, and Garland Carmichael, “Learning to De-escalate: Evaluating the Behavioral Impact of Verbal Judo Training on Police Constables,” Police Practice and Research 21, no. 4 (2020): 401–417.
9Li Sian Goh, “Did De-escalation Successfully Reduce Serious Use of Force in Camden County, New Jersey? A Synthetic Control Analysis of Force Outcomes,” Criminology & Public Policy 20, no.2 (2021): 207–241; Robin S. Engel, Hannah D. McManus, and Tamara D. Herold, “Does De-escalation Training Work? A Systematic Review and Call for Evidence in Police Use-of-Force Reform,” Criminology & Public Policy 19, no. 3 (2020): 721–759.
10Brian Landers, “Are De-escalation Policies Dangerous?” Police Magazine, October 14, 2017.
11Engel, McManus, and Herold, “Does De-Escalation Training Work?”
12Eric H. Dayley, “Reducing the Use of Force: De-escalation Training for Police Officers” (master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, 2016).
13See, for example, Dayley, “Reducing the Use of Force”; Giacomantonio, Goodwin, and Carmichael, “Learning to De-escalate”; Lisa M. Deveau, “Police De-Escalation Training & Education: Nationally, Provincially, and Municipally,” Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being 6, no. 1 (2021): 2–5; Clemens Lorei et al., “Deeskalation als Thema der polizeilichen Fortbildung in Europa. Ein Vergleich innerhalb der Europäischen Union,” SIAK-Journal 2 (2023): 18–35; Clemens Lorei et al., “Deeskalation als Fortbildungsthema deutscher Polizeien. Teil 1: Grundlagen und Forschungsstand zur Deeskalation,” Die Polizei 114, no. 8 (2023): 257–262; Clemens Lorei et al., “Deeskalation als Fortbildungsthema deutscher Polizeien. Teil 2: Ergebnisse und Diskussion der empirischen Erhebung in Deutschland,” Die Polizei 114, no. 4 (2023): 302–309.
14Clemens Lorei and Kristina Balaneskovic, “De-escalation in Everyday Police Operations,” Salus Journal 11, no. 2 (2023): 101–119.
15Gregory M. Vecchi, Vincent B. Van Hasselt, and Stephen J. Romano, “Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation: Current Strategies and Issues in High-Risk Conflict Resolution,” Aggression and Violent Behavior 10, no. 5 (2005): 533–551; Bard Kelln and C. Meghan McMurtry, “STEPS-Structured Tactical Engagement Process: A Model for Crisis Negotiation,” Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 7, no. 2 (2007): 29–51.
16Arnold Binder, Arnold, and Peter Scharf, “The Violent Police-Citizen Encounter,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 452 (1980): 111–121.
17Vecchi, Van Hasselt, and Romano, “Crisis (Hostage) Negotiation.”
18Didem Ayhan and Duygu Hicdurmaz, “De-escalation Model in the Simple Form as Aggression Management in Psychiatric Services,” Journal of Psychiatric Nursing 11, no 3 (2020): 251–259; Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics”; Todak and White, “Expert Officer Perceptions of De-escalation in Policing.”
19Ayhan and Hicdurmaz, “De-escalation Model in the Simple Form as Aggression Management in Psychiatric Services”; Daniel Pontzer, “Recommendations for Examining Police De-escalation and Use of Force Training, Policies, and Outcomes,” Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 36 (2021): 314–332; Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics”; Todak and White, “Expert Officer Perceptions of De-escalation in Policing”; Michael D. White, Victor J. Mora, and Calena Orosco, “Exploring Variation in Police Perceptions of De-Escalation: Do Officer Characteristics Matter?” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 15, no. 2 (2021): 727–740.
20Cheryl Regehr and Vicki R. LeBlanc, “PTSD, Acute Stress, Performance, and Decision-Making in Emergency Service Workers,” The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 45, no. 2 (2017): 184–192.
21Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics”; Todak and White, “Expert Officer Perceptions of De-escalation in Policing”; Ayhan and Hicdurmaz, “De-escalation Model in the Simple Form as Aggression Management in Psychiatric Services.”
22Ashfaaq Ahmed, Gayatri R. Devi, and Priya A. Jothi, “Effect of Box Breathing Technique on Lung Function Test,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International 33 (2021): 25–31.
23Stephanie J. Dimitroff et al., “Physiological Dynamics of Stress Contagion,” Scientific Reports 7, no. 1 (2017): 6168.
24Kelln and McMurty, “STEPS-Structured Tactical Engagement Process”; Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics”; Todak and White, “Expert Officer Perceptions of De-escalation in Policing”; Ayhan and Hicdurmaz, “De-escalation Model in the Simple Form as Aggression Management in Psychiatric Services.”
25Kelln and McMurty, “STEPS-Structured Tactical Engagement Process”; Todak and James, “A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics”; Ayhan and Hicdurmaz, “De-escalation Model in the Simple Form as Aggression Management in Psychiatric Services.”
26Stella Ting-Toomey, “Facework/Facework Negotiation Theory,” in Sage Encyclopedia of Intercultural Competence, ed. Janet M. Bennett (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 2015): 325–330.
27Ting-Toomey, “Facework/Facework Negotiation Theory”; Raoul Jaccard, and Sébastien Cojean, “Police Checks and Arrests Escalating into Conflict: Coping Principles and Strategies Taught in Swiss Police Academies Drawn From Research in Social Psychology,” in Police Conflict Management: Volume II – Training and Education, eds. Mario S. Staller, Swen Koerner and Benni Zaiser (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2023), 159–185.
Please cite as
Dr. Clemens Lorei & Dr. Kerstin Kocab, “De-Escalation in Everyday Police Operations,” Police Chief Online, January 29, 2025.
