By Stephanie Speidel, LPC
A probation officer knocks on a door for a routine home visit. The person on supervision opens it already agitated. A correctional officer working a solo post watches someone in the dayroom begin pacing and raising his voice. A nurse in a housing unit encounters an inmate who refuses medication and steps toward the cart.
In each case, the nearest backup is minutes away, and what happens in the next 60 seconds depends on one person.
Much of de-escalation training assumes a team: One person talks, another watches and a third is ready to step in. Staff working alone don’t have that advantage. They have to talk, observe and make decisions at the same time.
What follows is a practical sequence for those moments, drawn from forensic mental health practice rather than tactics. It doesn’t replace agency policy or defensive tactics training. It focuses on the communication and decision-making that may help prevent a situation from escalating.
1. Set your exit before you walk in
The time to decide how you’ll leave is before the door opens, not when the room is getting loud.
Before a home visit or solo assignment, know three things: where the exit is and whether you can reach it, how you’ll call for help (and whether your radio or phone works in that location), and what circumstances will make you leave or request assistance.
That last one matters most.
Establish your limits in advance. Examples might include a weapon in view, an unexpected person in the home or someone who continues closing the distance after you’ve asked for space. A decision made in advance is much easier to act on than one you have to make under stress.
Position yourself so you can leave without turning your back or moving around the person. On a home visit, that often means staying near the door rather than following someone deeper into the house. In a secure correctional setting where leaving may not be possible, know how to summon assistance and where you can safely reposition yourself.
2. Read what’s driving the behavior
Agitation can look similar from the outside, but it comes from different places. The right response depends on what may be driving it.
Before choosing your words, take a few seconds to consider what’s actually happening. Four drivers come up repeatedly:
- Fear. The person feels trapped, threatened or about to lose something. Watch for scanning, backing away, guarded movements, rapid speech and questions such as, “What’s going to happen to me?”
- Loss of control. The person feels pushed around by the system and is pushing back. Watch for refusals, statements such as “You can’t make me,” and fixation on rules or fairness.
- Intoxication or impairment. Substances, withdrawal, psychosis or a medical condition may be affecting how the person processes information. Watch for confusion, slurred or disorganized speech, responses that don’t fit the conversation and rapid changes in mood.
- A threat to status. The person feels disrespected, particularly in front of others. Watch for an audience, whether family members or other inmates, statements such as “Don’t talk to me like that,” and escalation immediately following a correction or refusal.
More than one driver may be present. Identify what appears most significant and begin there, while remaining open to other explanations.
3. Match your response to the driver
The same words that calm one person can inflame another. Matching your approach to the likely driver can make de-escalation more effective when there’s no immediate backup.
For fear: Slow everything down.
Lower your volume, allow physical space and explain what’s happening and what comes next. Uncertainty can intensify fear, so clear information helps.
What to say: “I’m here to check in. I need about 10 minutes to go over a few things with you.”
For loss of control: Offer meaningful choices within the limits you have.
The choices must be genuine and consistent with policy. A false choice can make things worse once the person recognizes it.
What to say: “We can talk here or out on the porch.” Or, “You can take a few minutes before we continue.”
For intoxication or impairment: Keep communication short and simple.
Make one request at a time. Avoid arguing about what the person believes is happening or attempting to reason through lengthy explanations. Reduce noise and stimulation when possible.
Be prepared for responses that seem disconnected from what you’ve said. If you suspect a medical emergency, follow the appropriate response procedures.
For a perceived threat to status: Reduce the audience.
Move the conversation somewhere private if it’s safe to do so, or lower your voice so others cannot easily hear. Avoid correcting the person publicly when possible. Give the person a way to cooperate without feeling humiliated.
What to say: “I understand what you’re saying. I just need to check the room before I go.”
Across all four situations, a few practices can help: Maintain a nonthreatening stance, keep your hands visible and relaxed, and use the person’s name when appropriate.
4. Check whether it’s working
De-escalation isn’t a script you finish. It’s a process you continually assess.
After trying an approach, observe the person’s response over the next 30 to 60 seconds, while remaining alert to immediate safety concerns. Are things moving in the right direction?
Signs of improvement may include slower breathing, reduced volume, a more relaxed posture, unclenched hands and a willingness to answer questions rather than repeat the same complaint.
If you see those signs, continue what you’re doing. Don’t rush to the next task.
If nothing changes or the situation worsens, reconsider your approach. You may have misread the underlying driver. Someone you interpreted as fearful may feel disrespected, or a person who appears angry may actually be impaired.
If your approach isn’t working, reconsider what’s driving the behavior and adjust your response accordingly.
5. Recognize when it’s backfiring
Some behaviors may indicate that communication alone is no longer sufficient and that it’s time to consider disengaging or activating your safety plan.
Watch for a person who:
- Continues closing the distance after you’ve asked for space.
- Turns their body sideways, clenches their fists or adopts a rigid stance.
- Repeatedly looks toward your equipment, the exit or objects in the room.
- Stops responding to your attempts at communication.
- Moves between you and the exit.
Pay particular attention to sudden changes in behavior.
If someone has been highly agitated and suddenly becomes quiet and still, without an obvious explanation, don’t automatically assume the situation has resolved. Such a shift can have several explanations, but it warrants careful reassessment, particularly when accompanied by other concerning behaviors.
No single behavior reliably predicts violence. Consider the overall situation rather than relying on one warning sign.
6. Leaving isn’t failing
On solo assignments, disengaging may be the safest and most professional decision.
Depending on the circumstances, you may be able to return with a partner, reschedule a visit or allow the situation to settle before trying again. In a correctional facility, where leaving a post may not be an option, disengaging may mean creating distance, ending the immediate exchange and requesting assistance while maintaining required security responsibilities.
Have a few exit statements ready so you’re not inventing them under stress: “I’m going to step out and give you some room. We’ll pick this up later.” Or, “I can see this isn’t a good time. I’ll follow up with you this afternoon.”
Speak calmly, move toward the exit identified in step 1 when it is safe and permissible to do so, and request assistance or follow your agency’s procedures as appropriate.
Afterward, document what happened, including the behaviors you observed before the situation escalated, the steps you took and the person’s response.
Those observations can help the next staff member who encounters that person.
For administrators
Staff who work alone need practical de-escalation training, yet they may have fewer opportunities to practice these skills with a team.
Training should go beyond memorizing phrases. Staff need opportunities to recognize what may be driving someone’s behavior, choose an appropriate response, assess whether it’s working and determine when to disengage.
Supervisors also need to reinforce that disengaging from an unsafe interaction, when consistent with agency policy and security responsibilities, is a sound professional decision rather than a failure.
A clear plan provides benefits beyond any single encounter. Staff who know how to respond when they’re alone may feel more confident in their assignments, and that confidence can influence how they communicate and make decisions when a situation begins to escalate.
About the author
Stephanie Speidel, LPC, CEAP, NCC, CCMHC (LMHC in New York), is the founder and clinical director of Genesis Mental Health Inc. She has 15 years of experience in forensic mental health, including violence risk assessment and crisis consultation with law enforcement. She established the forensic mental health clinic for Monroe County Probation and Parole in Rochester, New York, supervised a HIDTA clinic and developed The Threat Read™ and the Zero-Weapon Protocol™, two frameworks for recognizing and de-escalating potentially threatening behavior when staff work without weapons or backup.