Does de‐escalation training work?

• Author: Hannah D. McManus,Tamara D. Herold,Robin S. Engel
• Date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12467
• Published date: 01 August 2020

DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12467

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH IN POLICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

Does de-escalation training work?

A systematic review and call for evidence in police use-of-force

reform

Robin S. Engel1Hannah D. McManus1Tama ra D. Her ol d2

1University of Cincinnati

2University of Nevada,Las Vegas

Correspondence

RobinS. Engel, IACP/UC Center for Police

Researchand Policy, P.O.Box 210389, Univer-

sityof Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221.

Email:robin.engel@uc.edu

Thisresearch was funded by Arnold Ventures,

inpar tnership with the International Associa-

tionof Chiefs of Police (IACP). The informa-

tionand comment ary in this article are from

the authors and do not necessarily represent the

officialpositions or policies of Ar nold Ventures

ort he IACP.

Research Summary: De-escalation training has been

widely implemented by U.S. police agencies in the wake

of adverse public reaction to recent controversial police

use-of-force incidents. Despite vast promotion from politi-

cians, academics, expert panels, and the public, we know

little about the effects of de-escalation training on officers

and police–citizen interactions. In this article, we offer

findings from a multidisciplinary systematic literature

review that demonstrate limited knowledge concerning the

impact of de-escalation training across all professions. We

identified 64 de-escalation training evaluations conducted

over a 40-year period, primarily in the fields of nursing

and psychiatry.

Policy Implications: Although assessment outcomes

reveal few adverse consequences and provide some

confidence that de-escalation trainings lead to slight-to-

moderate individual and organizational improvements,

conclusions concerning the effectiveness of de-escalation

training are limited by the questionable quality of almost

all evaluation research designs. As such, important ques-

tions regarding the impact of de-escalation training for

police remain. Given the critical impact that de-escalation

training could have on officers and the public they serve,

we conclude with a direct call to academics, practitioners,

and funders across the field of policing to prioritize as soon

as possible the testing of de-escalation and other police

use-of-force policies, tactics, and training.

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19:721–759. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp © 2020 American Society of Criminology 721

722 ENGEL ET AL.

A series of high-profile incidents involving the killing of unarmed citizens by American police in the

last several years has sparked public protests,civil unrest, widespread media attention, and heightened

public scrutiny of police. Members of the public, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are voicing

concerns about what they perceive as overly aggressive tactics and abuses of force disproportion-

ately directed toward minorities. Although anxieties about police bias and use of force continue

to grow, apprehension regarding police officers’ safety is also entering the national conversation.

Recent increases in the number of officers injured or killed through ambush-style attacks add to this

trepidation (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 2018). Practitioners, policy makers,

academics, and citizens concerned with these emerging crises continue searching for solutions to

reduce the frequency and severity of violent encounters between police and the public they serve.

Legal scholar Frank Zimring (2017) suggested the 2014 death of Michael Brown, killed during an

encounter with a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, and the subsequent aftermath represented a

turning point in our collective national conscience regarding police killings. Widely referred to as a

“Ferguson effect”—a term used to describe a variety of perceived changes in both police and citizen

behaviors after this high-profile incident—Zimring suggested killings by police are no longer treated

as singular events but as a pattern of problematic behavior by police nationally. He further noted a

change from considering fatal uses of force by police as an issue of crime policy or police conduct to

a national question of civil rights. The importance of this incident and its subsequent national impact

is echoed by other scholars. Walker(2018) argued that after t he 2014 police shootingin Ferguson, the

country entered a “National Police Crisis” and that this crisis is developing a “new conversation” about

policing and police reform. Likewise, Sherman (2018) highlighted the entrance of the United States

into the “Second Great Awakening” concerning fatal police shootings where, fedby a stream of online

videos, the nation has witnessed police-involved shootings firsthand.

Similar reflection and discussions occurred after several officers were injured or killed in ambush

attacks, including the murder of five police officers and the wounding of nine others in Dallas, Texas,

in July 2016, followed by ambush attacks killing three officers and wounding three more in Baton

Rouge, Louisiana (Fernandez, Perez-Pena, & Bromwich, 2016; Visser, 2016). It was during this time

that the “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement was pitted against a trending retort that “Blue

Lives Matter,” ultimately resulting in the widespread adoption of the axiom that “All Lives Matter”

(Craven, 2017; Garza, 2014; Victor, 2016).

During this tumultuous time, a general sentiment has emerged across the country that meaningful

reforms in policing are desperately needed to protect both officers and the citizens they serve. One

of the most prominent recommendations for police organizational reform is the incorporation of use-

of-force de-escalation policies and training. With the possible exception of implicit bias training, no

other training is more often demanded by policy makers, politicians, police executives,academics, civil

rights activists, and citizens than de-escalation training for police. De-escalation training also received

a hefty endorsement from the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) when it was

identified as the only action item related specifically to police use of force.Even informal conversations

regarding current events and social media commentary inevitably turn to the perceived need for police

to de-escalate potentially violent situations. As a result of these coalescing influences, de-escalation

training is quickly becoming widely accepted by experts and the public as a common-sense approach

to reduce unnecessary police use of force.

De-escalation policies and training are not without critics, however, with many voicing serious

concerns about perceived risks to officer safety (Blake, 2017; Jackman, 2016a; Landers, 2017;

Williams, 2015). Several tactics common in de-escalation training are counter to more traditional

policing operational responses. For example, in many de-escalation trainings, the need for officers to

slow down during potentially volatile situations and consider a range of options before rushing into

ENGEL ET AL.723

action is emphasized. In contrast, in traditional training, quick and decisive action is typically taught

to be the safest approach for officers faced with dangerous or unpredictable circumstances. Critics

argue that changes in this traditional approach could increase the risk of officer injury. Unfortunately,

researchers have not been able to address these concerns adequately because, similar to most other

police training curricula, de-escalation training has not been subjected to rigorous scientific testing. As

a result, little is known about the development, delivery, and impact of police de-escalation training.

As Zimring aptly articulated, “[T]he protection of police from life-threatening assault is a peculiar

mix of high operational priority and low scientific knowledge” (2017, p. 97).

Although in the larger discourse on police reform, criminologists have failed to demand evidence

regarding the effectiveness of police de-escalation policies and training, the development,training, and

implementation of de-escalation techniques have been assessed across other professionsand academic

disciplines for decades. In an effort to betterinform police executives and policy makers, we have under-

taken a systematic, multidisciplinary review of de-escalation training across professions. We seek to

present what is known about the effectivenessof de-escalation training. We identify promising practices

and highlight remaining gaps in knowledge. Importantly, we articulate the urgent need for researchers

to work collaboratively with police executives to generate and disseminate knowledge regarding the

use of de-escalation policies and training. We call on our academic and practitioner colleagues, along

with federal, state, and local agencies and organizations, and the philanthropic community,to prior itize

and fund studies designed to advance rigorous scientific inquiry regarding the efficacy of de-escalation

policies and training. Police executives urgently need this information to guide organizational reform.

We further argue these officials have an ethical obligation to pair the implementation of innovative

strategies and trainings with on-going testing within their agencies to ensure there are no unintended

negative consequences. It is not hyperbole to suggest that the safety of police officers and the individ-

uals they encounter hinge on this collective work.

1POLICE USE-OF-FORCE AND DE-ESCALATION

POLICIES AND TRAINING

More than four decades ago, policing scholar Egon Bittner (1974) argued in the now classic description

of police as Florence Nightingale (a nurse) in pursuit of Willie Sutton (a notorious criminal) that police

are defined by their ability to use force. It is their ability to use force—and the public’s expectation

that they do so if necessary to handle situations—that separates policing from all other occupations

(Bittner, 1980). Bittner concluded by suggesting the police have missed their true vocational calling

because they often define themselves as “crime fighters” rather than as “service providers and solvers

of human problems” (Bittner, 1967). In additional early commentary on the police, Banton (1964)

noted the importance of their peacekeeping role and Muir (1977) noted the need for officers to have

passion and perspective. The proper role of police is still questionednearly half a century later, although

now scholars and practitioners use terms like “warrior” and “guardian” to describe these competing

perspectives (Rahr & Rice, 2015). Likewise,t he use of forcecontinues to be a central—and increasingly

controversial—defining role of the police.

Notwithstanding its importance, we still know little about how,when, and under what circumstances

police officers use force. Unfortunately, one of the most consistently documented findings regarding

police use of force is our lack of knowledge about it, as well as the considerable problems associ-

ated with data collection and analysis to learn more (Engel & Serpas, 2017). Although recent efforts

for the collection of police use-of-force data at the national level have emerged (FBI National Press

Office, 2018), in the existing literature, scholars have continued to demonstrate the significant gaps in