For example: If you work in the nightclub industry you are likely faced with a stream of potentially violent individuals emboldened by liquid courage on a nightly basis.  We believe that sending your security staff to the latest martial arts or defensive tactics class is focusing energy on the wrong end of the confrontation and is likely to end up causing more harm than good.  Not to mention additional liability to your staff and organization.

Any seasoned professional who has dealt with challenging persons and crisis situations will tell you that prevention is worth far more than learning a new move, or technique.  As renowned expert in self-defense and combatives, Tony Blauer would say, the only thing faster than action, is being “in-action” (vs. reaction to action or complete inaction).

We believe entirely in his logic, and thus apply it to the concept of training to prevent the crisis situation from happening altogether, vs. trying to train employees what to do after the episode becomes highly escalated and potentially violent.  That is another training altogether.

Nowadays, organizations want to minimize harm, reduce restraints, eliminate risk, and reduce chance of injuries and violence.  Therefore, we believe that preventing workplace violence in 4 steps is possible as follows;

Step 1. Identification of risk, routine and non-routine crisis situations likely to occur/occurring

Step 2.  Define goals and outcomes desired and required from future training

Step 3.  Implement the training process and embed the curriculum into the culture of the organization

Step 4.  Regularly review, assess, evaluate and predict potential situations that may occur to reduce future incidents

Let our company help your organization reduce violence and crisis situations through our Verbal Crisis Intervention, Physical Crisis Intervention, Active Shooter Response Training, and related workplace violence prevention courses.

Read more at Crisis Consultant Group, LLC

Since Columbine, VA Tech, and more recently Newtown, CT schools across the country have been creating, developing, planning and testing new policy and procedures for similar violent situations.

What we have seen in the majority of many organizations we have worked with across the US is that they have created effective response plans for emergency situations, along with great policy and procedures, though they have failed to plan for what happens to individuals personally, when they encounter actual horrific events such as these.

Panic, fear, confusion, stress, mental fatigue, loss of fine motor skills, Hormonal Stress Responses, the list goes on and on.

As much research has been done by pioneers in the field (Such as Lt. Dave Grossman, Gavin DeBecker, and Tony Blauer) regarding “fight or flight”, “the ambush” and the HSR (the bodies natural responses to sudden aggression and violence) this training has normally only been available to those in the Military, Law Enforcement, or related fields.

We here at CCG believe that many of these lifesaving mindset shifts and concepts should be tailored and provided to persons serving in other professions, especially for those not accustomed to or those expecting to face these types of violent encounters.

Having well intentioned Law Enforcement and Military folks teaching civilians creates many unnecessary hurdles during training.   We have been teaching Crisis Intervention Training (Non-violent) around the United States for the last 9 years in 22 states, and have become quite accustomed to bridging the gap between “tactical speak” and “layman’s terms”.  That said, our instructors have Law Enforcement, Military, Corrections, Security and Mental Health experience so the curriculum is safe, effective, realistic, proven and well designed to reach persons from various backgrounds, without any type of “tactical” experience or training.

We have created the “Empowering Educators for Emergencies (E3)” course specifically for educators and those working within the school system to better prepare for disasters and/or violent encounters.

This course will provide Educators and Crisis Response Team Members with:

• Confidence – Empowering participants to meet challenges safely and effectively
• Hope – Teaching the essentials of adaptive mindset for effective resolution to violent conflict
• Options – Demonstrating numerous options to evade, escape, minimize harm, and think outside the box
• Perseverance – Teaching methods and techniques to avoid mental fatigue and failure when under extreme stress
• Survival Skills – Self Aid and immediate actions for traumatic injury to others

*To note:  This course is not a “tactical” course, and teaches no “hands-on” or related “martial arts” techniques.  (For Active Shooter Response Training and related Personal Defense Readiness courses, click links shown.  This course will not interfere with any current policy or procedure your organization may have in place.  This course simply teaches the topics mentioned above, to better prepare and equip educators to follow the plans you have in place.

This course may be taught on-site, for groups of up to 90 staff at one time.

Please Contact Us today for more information.

When working with At-Risk Youth we must remember: 

“There Are More Good People Then Bad.” –heard that statement on a show about 9/11.

Translated into Crisis Intervention, and I think about the fact that during a crisis it is important to remember that the person you are dealing with isn’t likely to be “all bad” or “evil”.  They may be so out of control and escalated that they may actually appear to be possessed by the devil, though that is not likely.  After working in mental health or a human services profession long enough you can easily relate to what I am saying.  If a responder remembers that the person they are trying to help is not “bad”, they are simply just in need of serious help and assistance, it can help keep the responder grounded when items start flying around the room.

Another thought that comes to mind is that the responder must remember that not all persons/clients/subjects/patients are the same.  Just because one of them is acting out in crisis and is taking on characteristics that are challenging and resistant, they do not represent the entire spectrum of people found in that situation or diagnosis.  That concept led me to remember a pivotal moment of my professional career.

During my time spent working in locked psychiatric treatment facilities, a few of the years were spent on a children’s mental health unit with kids 5yrs old and under.   Over time, somewhat unconsciously, I began to think that all kids in that age group must behave and act like the ones in my care.  Day in and day out, dealing with the kids issues, over 40 hours a week makes an impact.  The screaming, yelling, fighting, crying, throwing things, punching, biting, and sad, depressed, hopeless and lonely, anxiety ridden fearful affect was “normal” to see and witness.  I came to believe that it was nearly impossible to find any child that could actually “behave” or be “happy”.

A few years later, I was routinely being asked to speak at public schools to students about drug abuse, and the dangerous of at-risk behavior.  On one occasion when I was leaving a elementary school after an event, I remember seeing some younger students getting on buses to go home for the day.  I remember hearing them giggling, and seeing them smile as they played games with each other while waiting for their bus to be called.  They were actually laughing out loud and joking, and were smiling and truly happy.  While watching it for a few moments, I remember feeling that something was wrong.  Something didn’t feel comfortable.  Something bad was about to happen, and I was standing there poised and ready to intervene.

Slowly then, as the moments passed, I began to realize that there was nothing wrong.  Nothing bad was going to happen.  I could “stand down”.  It was exactly as it was supposed to be.  This was “normal” and it was ok.  I became so overwhelmed by what I was hearing and seeing, I became tearful and broke down as I started for my car.   It was at that moment that I realized that I had truly forgotten what “normal” or “well adjusted” was.  I hadn’t realized just how deeply working in that environment had affected me, and how hardened I had become.

It was in those few minutes that I was gracefully reminded why I had done that work and why I continue to teach crisis intervention training around the country today.  It was my job to help make sure the kids and adolescents and adults could return to a life filled with joy, and happiness and laughter like the ones I had just observed.

We often hear facilities ask us “Do you teach a single person restraint technique?”  Our answer is “No”.  The next question is “Why not?”  As this is a question that plagues many employees’ minds, we wanted to take a moment to discuss the reasons for, and against a single person restraint technique when considering crisis intervention training.

Pro’s

1.  Can use when you are working by yourself

2.  Do not have to depend on other staff member’s ability to assist you

3.  If there are more then one individual that needs restraining, less staff are required to intervene per aggressor.

Con’s

1.  Facilities often make the mistake of trying to do more with less.  Most employees would love an administration that would be willing to hire more staff to help out and go over the mandated ratio/staffing numbers when possible.  In reality, a higher the ratio of staff to clients most often results in higher levels of staff morale, a higher level of therapeutic intervention, and a decrease in the amount of crisis situations.  For staff members to seek out a restraint system that can be done by a single staff member they may be giving up a tool to use in improving their case for better staffing ratio’s.

Additionally, when you are by yourself and making physical contact with another individual, the end result (without video or other persons present) is your word against theirs.  Depending on what environment you work in, and with whom, there is a huge danger of false accusations, investigations, possible suspensions, and blemishes to your work history- whether founded or false.

2.  If you are working with staff that are not physically able to assist you in an emergency, (thus you would prefer not having them assist you in a restraint situation) it is an HR issue that needs to be addressed immediately.  Ignoring the problem of unprepared or physically unqualified staff will not go away.  Additionally, if you are the only one capable, or one of the few that can actually perform the technique, (and do so on a regular basis)-congratulations, you just increased your chances of being sued, increased your risk and liability, and increased your chances of a workman’s comp claim due to injuries.  In taking action during these incidents you are doing so for the benefit of the staff member that likely gets paid the same amount, if not more then you, but are unable, or unwilling to meet the requirements of the job.

3.  If you are in a situation where you have to restrain more then one individual and it is just you alone, or with one other staff member; and you are now tied up with the one person, who is watching your back?  (It is usually assumed that the other staff member would be dealing with the other individuals in the area to ensure your safety).

Imagine these realistic circumstances; you move in alone to restrain the individual as you were taught.  For some reason (as we all know, it happens) it doesn’t work just right, or you don’t have it all the way, or you forgot to practice it enough and realize too late you are in trouble.  Your efforts fail.  The aggressor now is in a fight with you to break free or worse, they now try to hurt you.  You now have a fight on your hands where you try and gain the upper hand, and/or defend yourself.  To top it off you are by yourself, remember? Your partner is across the room dealing with the other persons in the area.  Additionally, you have the difficulty of trying to save yourself without causing undue injury or using unnecessary force.

What are you left to do?  –You guessed it! Unfortunately you often resort to other options which are likely to be techniques with cause pain, hyper-extension, or worse. So in the end you don’t use the proper technique you were taught in the end, and have gone “outside” of the scope of what you were procedurally allowed to do.  Congratulations again, the risk and liability factor just skyrocketed.  If and when the individual becomes injured, you are now in a legal battle as the organization distances itself from you and what you did, and the training agency teaching the technique clearly states that you didn’t do the technique correctly, thus you went outside the scope of what they taught- thereby eliminating their liability.

Had you been at least attempting a two person restraint to begin with and it failed- your coworker is there with you to help you recover.  Their assistance simply in person may eliminate your need to go “outside” the scope of what you were trained.  They are there to also verbally relay the events as they happened for the documentation, or investigation that comes after.  They are there to protect you should the situation spiral out of control. Odds are everything in an aggressive encounter.  Odds are built on training, experience, ability to remain calm and controlled in an emergency, in addition to actual numerical odds.

Why do police call for back up?  -Because numbers are your friend.  Why do police have “bat belts” with special tools like a Tazer, baton, Pepper Spray, etc?  Because the reality is, one on one situations where a person is relying on hands and fancy techniques alone are not statistically successful, and often end up with injuries.  The number one time when officers end up in a fight, or become injured is when they go to make actual physical contact with the bad guy (usually when trying to put them into handcuffs).

Ask any cop out there who deals with extremely aggressive, or violent persons on a regular basis and they will tell you that hand-to-hand is the most dangerous.  They love to use their Tazer, Pepper Spray, or other less lethal weapons instead.  Now matter how good they are with their hands, they want the odds on their side.  Those less lethal options are “odds“.   Or, if you are willing, you can spend a minimum of 15 hours a week practicing some sort of martial art.  Often though these arts seek to overpower, throw, or strike your attacker by using combinations of pain, leverage, or hyper-extension techniques.  Additionally, most if not all of those techniques are based in safety for the victim, not the attacker.  Concern of injury to; or liability to the aggressor is very low on the totem pole.  For professionals who are not allowed to use such less-lethal tools, actual additional staff numbers are your greatest ally.

For those of you that work in a therapeutic environment, the safety of the client is most important, as the clients are there for your help, not punishment.  You are expected to be able to handle crisis situations professionally without the assistance of a “bat belt”.  Part of your job entails occasionally being confronted with verbal and/or physical abuse from those that don’t always understand the real consequences of it, and not responding in kind.  You are held to a higher standard then most.

4.  Most single person restraints require both of the responders arms and upper body to become engaged with the aggressor.  When that occurs you are now limited to stance, position, and balance, unless you move to the ground.  When moving to the ground, it is then that statistically the majority of injuries occur during restraints.

5.  Once moving to the ground you are now limited by ability to transport, and move from the area you are situated in.  Usually, you want to move to a different location to assist in de-escalation of the situation.  If you are pinned, or pinning the aggressor to the ground, such movement is limited, and the dangers of positional asphyxia can rise with any pressure placed on the thoracic cavity.

In conclusion;

Finding a single person restraint that can maintain its hold; not be based on pain, hyper-extension, pressure points, or joint-locks, while being conscious of positional asphyxia, and gender-safe related issues, is practically impossible, and we have yet to come across it in our 30+ years working in and around the industry.

Finding a two person restraint that achieves these goals and is proven effective; your search is over.  If you are a current client, we thank you for your continued use of our services.  If you are considering hiring us, please be sure to make an informed decision on which technique, curriculum, and company you choose to train your staff, many lives will be effected by the decision made.

Visit us at http://www.crisisconsultantgroup.com to find out more about how our curriculum and techniques are safer, more effective, and drastically improving the safety and security of more and more organizations around the globe.

Prone Restraint

A large percentage of physical interventions end up going to the ground.  Skilled fighters will often try to take their opponent to the ground in efforts to contain them and/or restrict their ability to return strikes or blows.  Larger opponents can enjoy the benefits of weight dominance and lessen the likelihood that their opponent will try to run away or escape by pinning them to the ground.  Once on the ground, the risk of falling to the ground is removed, therefore reducing chance of injury once responders utilize a ground-based restraint hold.  These are the most common reasons (ability to restrict movement, gross tonnage, reduced risk of falling, etc) that are often cited in arguments regarding why using a prone restraint is desired, yet there are many drawbacks involved.

At CCG we do not endorse the use of prone restraint techniques for the following reasons:  First and foremost, statistically the majority of injuries occur during restraints when forcing someone from a standing position to the ground.  Therefore knowing that injuries during restraints are more likely to occur from the actual “restraining” then getting hit, or kicked, one would think that avoiding such risk would be wise.

Secondly, once an individual is forced to the ground, responders are now limited in their ability to effectively move the individual, and often only once the aggressor has deescalated completely.  Have you ever seen or participated in an intervention when someone tries to move the aggressor from the prone restraint position when the aggressor is unwilling or uncooperative?  Not fun to say the least.

Thirdly, once on the ground, there is an incredibly strong desire by responders to “hold down” the individual, or “pin” them in place, using the floor as a stopping point against an aggressor’s movement.  Once this thought kicks in, the end result is usually downward pressure on a limb/s or on the upper torso of the aggressor.  All too often responders hands end up on the thoracic cavity (chest, lung, or lower back area) thereby risking positional asphyxia and death.  In other cases the neck, head, shoulders, buttocks, ankles, are often used as well to help “pin down” the individual.  All of these areas should be considered “off limits” during interventions, though not uncommon during a real crisis, staff often forget these “rules” believing that the situation requires such responses.  Combined with this is the added temptation to simply just place their own body weight on top of the individual to further subdue them.  Although these tactics may work in the heat of the moment, it is not the right thing to do, nor is it considered safe.

How do I know this happens?  How do I know this is fact?  Due to over 8 years experience working in a highly violent and volatile locked psychiatric hospital with over 400 documented crisis incidents I was personally involved in.  Unfortunately myself and my coworkers at the time had no effective alternative, leading us to do exactly as stated above.  We did not have any other effective technique even after going through years of alternative crisis intervention training programs.  During those years staff were often injured.  Patients were often injured.  I was personally injured.  Looking back, I have to ask myself “Were we wrong?”  If one does not have any other effective technique to use during emergencies, and acts with the best intentions, for the greater good I would like to believe that it would be considered  that we did the right thing.  The reality is though, that there is now a better method, a safer and more effective intervention techinique.  There is no longer the need to forcefully place someone one the ground in order to restrain them.  Though there is no reason to do a “take down”.  The prone or supine restraint position is outdated, unsafe, and unnecessary.  We have practically completely eliminated the dangers found during crisis intervention/restraints through utilization of our highly effective and progressive curriculum.

Standing Restraint

We know that during a crisis, the “hands on” portion is not “pretty” and often is not textbook or as simply performed as it often is during prior training.  Any company that insists that it will be “simple, quick, and easy” with their magical technique isn’t based in reality.  Employing a standing restraint technique can be difficult.  You must practice.  You must work with your coworker to improve timing and coordinated responses.  Even so, when taught an effective, safe, and realistic standing restraint position that can be easily employed in a moments notice, risks found during restraint is mitigated for the following reasons.

-With an effective standing hold there is no pressure placed on the thoracic cavity

-With an effective standing hold the responders are not having to force the individual into a specific position

-It is likely that individual will initially begin the aggressive episode in a standing position, so avoiding having to do a “take-down” eliminates the risk of injury from impact of forcing them to the ground

-It is highly likely that a sense of dignity may be maintained by the individual while in an upright position, even though they are being held by responders in an effective standing hold

-While in an effective standing hold the ability to escort the individual from the area is possible and more easily achieved then if required to first pick up the individual from a prone or supine position

-With an effective standing hold it is not possible that the “pig pile” or “gross tonnage” (process of responders simply piling on top of a prone or supine individual) will occur

For these reasons and many others we teach an effective, safe, and realistic standing restraint position.  Give us a call to find out more as we are always willing to discuss how we are revolutionizing the crisis intervention training industry.  Have a comment?  Send us your thoughts!

Choosing the right Crisis Intervention Training vendor to provide crisis intervention training, conflict resolution training, or online crisis intervention training for your employees is critical.  To assist you in making the choice, we thought we would share the process we use as a company to arrive at a logical and practical decision.  We strive to use these 4 principles when considering taking on new projects, curriculum enhancements, or general choices we have to make regarding the correct path for us to take.  As we are entrusted with ensuring the safety of employees and consumers through our training services, we don’t take on the task without focus and dedicated concern.  If you are the individual responsible for choosing a training vendor for your organization, we encourage you to use these four principles as a guide.

Taken from Theodore Hesburgh, former President of Notre Dame University:

• Don’t make decisions because they are EASY;
• Don’t make decisions because they are CHEAP;
• Don’t make decisions because they are POPULAR;
• Make decisions because they’re RIGHT.

We strive to incorporate these principles here at CCG daily, and encourage you to do the same when choosing the best vendor to train your employees in these critical topics.

1. Don’t make decisions because they are EASY;  Choosing the proper vendor can mean the difference between ensuring someone’s physical safety and costly liability which could destroy an organization with one incident handled ineffectively.  The process of determination should not be as simple as “Search the internet, find the best looking website, call them, and hire them.”
2. Don’t make decisions because they are CHEAP;  We are surely not the most expensive in our industry, nor are we the cheapest.  We know we offer a great product and our training is unparallelled, according to our clients.  We always try to work with potential customers to stay within their budget and timelines.  If you are looking for the “cheapest” or are “just trying to satisfy licensure requirements“, you ought to look elsewhere, as we provide much better quality and effectiveness then a vendor only seeking to profit from your training expenses.
3. Don’t make decisions because they are POPULAR;  There are a few major players in our industry aka: “Brand Name“.  As with any product on the shelf, once one realizes they are often paying much more then what is fair for the “Brand Name” you open your mind to other alternatives.  Often it is found that the potentially “lesser known” solution may also in fact provide a far superior product.
4. Make decisions because they’re RIGHT;  Ensuring your employees and consumers safety is by far the most important aspect of crisis intervention and conflict resolution training.  Choosing the safest, most effective, and progressive vendor to provide this training is of vital importance.  Choose CCG because you are making the best choice as well as the RIGHT one.

Be sure to visit us online at http://www.crisisconsultantgroup.com

Call us today for more information Toll Free at: 1-866-978-9990