From deployment to debriefing: introducing the D.I.A.M.O.N.D. model of hostage and crisis negotiation

ABSTRACT

Hostage and crisis negotiation is one tactical option available to incident commanders when responding to critical incidents. Whilst several models of negotiation exist, there is limited research addressing negotiation from a United Kingdom perspective. This paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with 15 negotiators from nine police forces in England. Data were analysed using grounded theory and 6 primary, 11 secondary, 19 tertiary, and 23 quaternary categories were identified to depict the procedural, operational and communicational aspects of negotiation. Findings indicate that negotiation takes place sequentially in three stages, with the core aspects being conceptualised using the D.I.A.M.O.N.D. mnemonic: 1) Deployment; 2) Information and intelligence gathering; 3) Assessment of risk and threat; 4) Methods of communication; 5) Open dialogue with subject; 6) Negotiator toolbox and repertoire, and 7) Debriefing procedures. The model represents the first attempt at modelling negotiation from an Anglo-centric perspective and provides insight into the entire critical incident management process, as opposed to focusing solely on the aspect of communication between negotiator and subject that has historically dominated the literature. The model highlights the breadth and complexity of the negotiator role and enables several recommendations to be made in relation to the training and operational support of negotiators.

KEYWORDS:

• Hostage negotiation
• crisis negotiation
• police negotiation
• conflict resolution
• crisis communication

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the hostage and crisis negotiators who gave up their time to take part in the research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. S = Substantive demands; A = Attunement; F = Face; E = Emotion (Hammer, 2007).

2. The full interview schedule is available upon request by contacting the lead author.

3. The lead author is a Chartered Psychologist, Registered Forensic Psychologist and Senior Academic with extensive experience of conducting and supervising research projects.

4. These 320 concepts were eventually categorised into five micro-models: (1) the nature of hostage and crisis negotiator deployment model; (2) the self-perceived successful hostage and crisis negotiator model; (3) the D.I.A.M.O.N.D. model of hostage and crisis negotiation; (4) the hostage and crisis negotiator journey model; and (5) the hostage and crisis negotiator experience model. The current paper addresses the findings relating to the third micro-model listed above. Please refer to Grubb (2016), Grubb, Brown, Hall, and Bowen (2019a), Grubb, Brown, Hall, and Bowen (2019b), and Grubb, Brown, Hall, and Bowen (2019c) for findings relating to the other micro-models.

5. Whilst risk/threat assessment forms a vital component within the first stage of the model (i.e., initial negotiator deployment tasks), this process is also one which continues throughout the duration of the negotiation process and as such, this stage of the model is represented by a dashed outline/border in Figure 1.

6. The Firearms Strategic Commander (Bronze) is ‘responsible for developing the firearms strategy and ensuring that tactical plans are developed and implemented to support it’ (ACPO & NPIA, 2009, p. 9). Public Order Strategic Commander (Bronze) is ‘responsible for developing the public order strategy and ensuring that tactical plans are developed and implemented to support it’ (ACPO & NPIA, 2009, p. 9).

7. The Silver Commander ‘coordinates the individual strategies developed by the Firearms and Public Order Strategic Commanders (Bronze) to ensure that they reflect and contribute to Gold’s overarching strategy’ (ACPO & NPIA, 2009, p. 9).

8. Negotiator Coordinators are ‘experienced negotiators trained to provide specialist support for incident commanders by advising on the development and implementation of negotiation plans and tactics’ (ACPO & NPIA, 2011, p. 17).

9. ‘I’ Messages refer to statements that start with ‘I’ or ‘we’ as opposed to ‘you’; they are non-directive and are typically used to explain the way you are feeling without including any element of blame or judgment. An example of the ‘I’ message typical format is: ‘I feel … when you … because’; this allows the subject to understand the negotiator’s perception of the situation, whilst also allowing some personalisation of the negotiator (Miller, 2005), which ultimately helps to build rapport between the subject and negotiator.

10. A surrender ritual is the process completed by a subject in order to exit a hostage taking situation (or a siege involving victim(s)) and give themselves up to police custody.

11. An exit plan is the process completed by a subject (i.e., individual-in-crisis) in order to successfully and safely exit a crisis situation.

12. Negotiation position papers are used by negotiation teams to help summarise and synopsise the hostage and/or crisis incident currently being dealt with. They typically include information relating to the status (an overall description of the incident), assessment (an analysis of the incident) and recommendations (guidance and strategy) in relation to the incident (Dalfonzo & Romano, 2003).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Amy Rose Grubb

Amy Rose Grubb is a Chartered Psychologist, HCPC Registered Forensic Psychologist, Associate Fellow of the BPS and Senior Lecturer at the University of Worcester. Her main research interests focus on the application of psychology within police settings, with an emphasis on hostage and crisis negotiation. She has experience of working with a number of police forces nationally, in both a training and consultancy/advisory capacity.

Sarah J. Brown

Sarah J. Brown is a Forensic Psychologist registered with the HCPC and Chartered Psychologist and Associate Fellow of the BPS. She is a Professor of Forensic Psychology in the Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science at Coventry University and Adjunct Professor at USC, Australia. She is Chair-Elect of NOTA and an Associate Editor of Child Abuse and Neglect.

Peter Hall

Peter Hall is a Senior Lecturer in Forensic Investigations at Coventry University. Prior to joining Coventry University in August 2007 Peter was a Detective Superintendent responsible for the Major Investigation Department with Staffordshire Police. Peter is also a trained hostage and crisis negotiator and was the lead negotiator coordinator within Staffordshire.

Erica Bowen

Erica Bowen is a Forensic Psychologist registered with the HCPC and Chartered Psychologist with the BPS. As professor of violence prevention research her research focuses on developing innovative prevention programmes focusing specifically on the prevention of domestic violence and violence within prison.