Научные исследования подтверждают: эффективное обучение деэскалации снижает применение силы и повышает безопасность полицейских

At the height of this debate during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, researchers had little to offer. A review of the research at the time bluntly stated: “Despite vast promotion from politicians, academics, expert panels, and the public, we know little about the effects of de-escalation training on officers and police–citizen interactions.” Questions about de-escalation training haven’t gone away amid more recent shootings by immigration agents and local officers. But one thing has changed: We now have high-quality studies on de-escalation training’s effects. This research shows that, like most criminal justice policy, the devil is in the details. General mandates for de-escalation training often fail to live up to their promises due to dramatic variation in programs’ effectiveness. Yet some de-escalation training proves valuable. Here are three takeaways from that research: • Not all de-escalation training is created equal. More than 90 percent of law enforcement academies in the U.S., as well as most police departments, already incorporate de-escalation training. Such training, though, doesn’t guarantee changes in key outcomes like use of force. Consider a recent randomized controlled trial with the Virginia Beach Police Department, which examined training focused on verbal de-escalation. Though officers who received the training did engage in verbal de-escalation more frequently, these officers didn’t use force at significantly lower rates than officers who didn’t get the training. Verbal de-escalation skills are critical, and police training should include them. But de-escalation training confined to verbal communication gives officers only limited tools. If verbal de-escalation alone fails to disarm a suspect, officers may conclude they have exhausted options for de-escalation and resort to deadly force. A case from Sarasota County, Fla., illustrates that point. There, deputies with dozens of hours of crisis intervention team training (which focuses on verbal de-escalation) killed a 63-year-old woman with mental illness in the street holding a fillet knife. Requests to drop the knife failed, leading one deputy to use his Taser. After that didn’t work, the other deputy fired his gun. Here, given the threat, there seem to have been further options for de-escalation, like repositioning, creating distance and slowing things down. Some of the most promising results are from trainings on both physical and verbal de-escalation tactics, like that developed by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Randomized controlled trials of PERF’s training found that it led to a 28 percent reduction in use of force in Louisville, Ky., and a 20 percent reduction in Indianapolis. • De-escalation training can improve officer safety. One concern about de-escalation training is that it endangers officers. The data, however, suggests that the most effective interventions can be a win-win for police and the public. Researchers partnered with the Chicago Police Department to test a de-escalation training on recognizing confirmation bias and cognitive distortions like catastrophizing that can lead officers to overestimate threats. In this randomized controlled trial, officers who received the training used force less often and sustained fewer injuries. Since overly aggressive police tactics can heighten risks to officers, suspects and bystanders, it makes sense that de-escalation training could enhance officer safety. There is still more to learn about de-escalation training’s effects for officers. One study of PERF’s de-escalation training found that it reduced injuries to officers, while another failed to find such an effect. Overall, though, the research is encouraging that departments can adopt de-escalation training without undermining officer safety. • Public safety needs a both/and approach. Reducing policing’s harms often gets framed as an either/or choice: adopt reforms like de-escalation training or invest in alternatives to the police. This is a false choice. Consider proposals to send civilian crisis responders rather than police to handle mental health calls. More than a hundred municipalities have adopted such programs, with promising results. One of the most rigorous studies showed that Denver’s civilian crisis response program reduced low-level crime and helped keep vulnerable individuals out of the criminal justice system. It would be a mistake to conclude from such findings, however, that we don’t need police de-escalation training. Civilian crisis responders don’t handle calls when the person has a weapon or is violent. In those cases, we still need officers skilled in de-escalation. Civilian crisis response and police de-escalation training ultimately complement each other. De-escalation training is far from a panacea for policing’s ills. But its most effective forms can meaningfully reduce harm. The growing body of research provides policymakers with insights for advancing that goal. Ben Jones, an assistant professor of public policy and research associate in Pennsylvania State University’s Rock Ethics Institute, is the author of Protecting Life: The Ethics of Police Deadly Force. Governing's opinion columns reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of Governing's editors or management.