When the public thinks of SWAT, armored vehicles and sophisticated equipment probably come to mind. They often overlook the fact that issues can many times be solved with communication, rather than force, through crisis negotiation.
Earlier this year, more than two-dozen crisis negotiators throughout Wisconsin had the opportunity to participate in a statewide crisis negotiation training. The benefits of the training were shown in multi-department collaboration, scenario drill practice, networking and overall crisis negotiation strategy.
The training—which took place with the help of a grant—brought together 28 officers from around the state who separated into groups for five days of lecture, small group projects and scenario-based training put on by Crisis Systems Management.
One of the most valuable aspects of the training came from learning new tactics through multi-agency teamwork, according to Craig Pakkala, a hostage-crisis negotiator and detective for the City of Green Bay Police Department. “There are national standards to crisis negotiation, but each department does things differently so this training really allowed us to see what other groups are doing,” he says. One item Pakkala’s unit borrowed from another agency was the use of “Information Request Forms.” “If we, as a negotiation unit conducting active negotiations, were to request information from SWAT, we would document our request, turn it over to their Team Leader or an OIC, then the information would be returned to us on the same form. It is a good way to document progress and maintain an open chain of communication.”
Daniel Hamilton, a police officer with the City of Madison Police Department, described the experience to train with officers from around the state as “humbling and awe-inspiring.” “The training allowed officers a great opportunity to blend together and it gave me ideas that I could implement when I got home,” he says. “It taught me that I should utilize other resources that we have in Madison.”
The education also included scenario-based training, which for some officers may be the only time to tune crisis negotiation skills, says Detective Chuck Libal of the Milwaukee Police Department. “In normal training sessions, it’s easy for role-players to give up quickly in a situation, but in this statewide session, we had scripted out scenarios that made the negotiation more realistic,” he says. The live scenario training forced the negotiators to build trust with the subject/role-players, more similar to how a real situation would play out, says Libal. “Many officers in small departments may not have the opportunity to use their crisis negotiation skills too often so this type of training is a great way to ensure they can practice.”
Education and training is an important part of the overall strategy for crisis negotiators, according to Deborah McMahon, a retired Special Agent of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, training director for the Missouri Association of Crisis Negotiators and facilitator with Crisis Systems Management. “When it comes down to it, crisis negotiation is not just an alternative to force, but it also helps reduce the threat to LEOs,” she says. “The community expects law enforcement to have non-lethal alternatives, which makes the role of crisis negotiators even more important.”
And that role has been changing with the constant introduction of new technologies.
The role of technology
There are both challenges and opportunities that come for crisis negotiators as technology advances. New technology, including robots and cameras, has certainly helped officers answer unknowns before making deadly force decisions in crisis negotiation situations. And anytime technology can be used to keep officers or civilians out of harm, there is success to that, says Libal.
McMahon agrees, suggesting that the greatest advantage to technology is that LEOs don’t have to get as close as they once did.
But technology hasn’t necessarily made things easier. “From my time in the department we have gone from hardline to cellphones to texting,” says Pakkala. “The issue of the subject being able to text people and use Facebook Live, however, has made it trickier.”
When a person is in crisis, explains Libal, the crisis negotiator needs their full attention, but social media has made it easier for the subject to have access to many individuals, including the person that may have put them in a crisis in the first place. Text messaging has been helpful in communicating with individuals who do not like to speak on the phone, yet it limits the negotiator’s ability to utilize active listening skills. “Texting has its benefits, but it is impossible to really see emotion,” says Libal, “and that’s a disadvantage.”
Despite this, text messaging between his units has been incredibly helpful in reducing response times to crisis situations. “As soon as something comes through via text, we can respond immediately if needed, which is far different than five years ago when it would take an hour or more for us to respond.” Libal considers himself lucky to be part of a department that stays up-to-date on the latest technologies. “With new stuff coming out each year, I wouldn’t be able to keep up if it weren’t for the tech savvy guys that are showing us what’s new and out there,” he says. “Overall it makes us successful.”
As newer crisis negotiation technologies are introduced into the market, however, cost comes into play. Pakkala noted that his department is working on equipment that is more than 10 years old. “At some point we are going to have to upgrade, but when that point will be, we’re not sure,” he says.
In the meantime, Pakkala shares a few pieces of advice. He urges agencies to focus on training their crisis negotiators; he encourages departments to utilize negotiators’ skills in everyday operations; and lastly he recommends that negotiators join their state’s crisis negotiation association. “It’s the best way to meet others in your field and exchange ideas,” he says. It also allows officers to gain new strategy ideas that will work for their department.
