Is It Time to Reevaluate Your Crisis Management System? Key Indicators and What to Look For Instead

The Road to Real Crisis Management

An organization—let’s call it Bright Horizons School—had invested heavily in crisis management training for its staff. Every single team member, from teachers to aides, had gone through the standard workshops: how to de-escalate situations, perform physical holds when necessary, and generally manage challenging behaviors in the classroom. They were all well-intended, passionate people who genuinely cared for their students, many of whom had significant behavioral challenges. But despite their training and commitment, something was going terribly wrong.

The incidents of severe problem behavior—elopement, physical aggression, self-injury—hadn’t decreased; in fact, they were on the rise. The staff felt overwhelmed and, quite frankly, disillusioned. It wasn’t for lack of trying. On any given day, you could walk into a classroom and see teachers repeating the steps they had learned in training: applying holds as best as they remembered, trying to verbally de-escalate situations, and even coordinating with one another when things got out of hand. But the problem was the same: those interventions either didn't work as intended or took far too long to implement effectively.

And the staff's well-being was taking a hit. Some days, teachers were going home in tears. Aides were exhausted from physically intervening more than they should have, and one even sustained a serious back injury trying to restrain a particularly strong 12-year-old. The situation was spiraling into something no one had predicted—and certainly not what they were trained for.

The students, too, were suffering. These young individuals—many with a history of trauma or developmental disabilities—were supposed to be learning new skills and becoming more independent. Instead, they were caught in a cycle of escalating behaviors and ineffective responses. Every outburst was met with a frantic, inconsistent approach that only seemed to heighten their anxiety. In one particularly vivid instance, a student named Max, who struggled with self-regulation, would frequently become overwhelmed by noise. When he did, staff would rush to him, applying techniques they remembered from training: speaking softly, offering "choices" to de-escalate. But without fluency, these interventions came off as confusing and too slow—fueling Max’s distress and leading to a meltdown almost every time.

But here was the catch—the blind spot: The staff thought they were doing it right. After all, they were trained. They had sat through hours of instruction, practiced the holds on one another, and demonstrated those moves in front of their trainers. When they passed their “competency” checklists, they were given the thumbs-up to move forward, much like receiving a belt in a martial arts class after demonstrating a basic technique once. But that’s where the issue lay: they had achieved competency, but not fluency.

It’s like someone walking into a martial arts gym, watching a single demonstration of an armbar, replicating it once with guidance, and then being handed a black belt. Sure, they could technically perform the move once, but could they do it swiftly, effectively, and automatically when it really mattered—under stress, pressure, and unpredictability? The answer was no.

Therefore, Bright Horizons was stuck. They didn’t know what they didn’t know. They assumed that competency was enough when in reality, fluency—the ability to respond instantly, smoothly, and with precision—was missing. It was only when they started to reflect on their challenges and dig into the gaps between “knowing” and “doing” that they began to see the need for a different kind of training—a system that didn’t just teach crisis management, but built fluency through practice, coaching, and ongoing feedback. One that focused not only on managing crises but preventing them from occurring in the first place.

This realization was the turning point for Bright Horizons, allowing them to find a system built on fluency-based instruction, one where practice wasn't just a step in the process—it was the foundation for everything that followed.

Time for a Change

Like Bright Horizons School, organizations dealing with crisis management are no strangers to evolving challenges—new staff, shifting policies, and emerging behavior patterns are constant dynamics that require effective and sustainable systems. But how do you know when it’s time to consider changing your existing crisis management approach? Below are several indicators that your organization might benefit from exploring a new system, as well as some essential criteria to ensure that any potential replacement is built to last.

Indicators That It’s Time for a Change

1. Escalating Incidents & Increased Use of Physical Interventions If your data show a rise in behavioral incidents or physical restraints, it’s a red flag. An effective crisis management system should lead to a decrease in the frequency and severity of incidents over time. If the reverse is happening, your system may be missing a critical focus on prevention and de-escalation.
2. Poor Staff Fluency and Confidence Can your staff members respond effectively and confidently in high-stress situations? If they struggle to recall procedures or appear uncertain when addressing crises, it suggests that your training system lacks fluency-based instruction. Effective crisis management requires not just knowing "what to do," but the ability to execute interventions automatically and confidently, even under pressure.
3. Reactive Rather than Preventive Culture Does your organization spend more time putting out fires than preventing them? A strong crisis management system focuses on proactive strategies, addressing the root causes of behavior before escalation occurs. If your current system is primarily reactive, it may be time to explore options that emphasize prevention and skill-building.
4. High Staff Turnover and Burnout Crisis management is stressful, but it shouldn't come at the cost of staff well-being. If you notice high turnover rates or signs of burnout—such as increased absenteeism or staff openly expressing frustration with their ability to manage crises—your system may be too cumbersome, ineffective, or unsupportive. A proper system should contribute to staff retention and morale by equipping them with the skills and support to handle crises effectively.
5. Lack of Accountability and Progress Monitoring Effective crisis management requires regular assessment and data-informed adjustments. If your current system lacks clear procedures for self-monitoring, bi-weekly progress checks, or quarterly reviews at the district or state level (as applicable), you’re missing key opportunities for growth and accountability.
6. Difficulty Integrating the System into Daily Routines If your crisis management protocols feel cumbersome, difficult to generalize, or impossible to integrate into your daily routines, they are unlikely to be maintained over time. A good system seamlessly fits into existing workflows and can be applied across a range of environments, from classrooms to cafeterias.
7. Outdated or Unsupported Techniques The world of behavior analysis and crisis management is always evolving. If the methods and techniques in your current system feel outdated, or if you’re unable to find evidence or ongoing support to back their effectiveness, this is a clear signal that you may benefit from a system that is more modern, research-backed, and support-driven.
8. Training that Starts with De-escalation Instead of True PreventionIf your crisis management training begins with de-escalation techniques, that’s a clear signal the system may be reactive rather than preventive. De-escalation is important but comes into play only after behavior has already escalated. True prevention focuses on setting up environments and proactive strategies to avoid crises in the first place. Additionally, if the training is only competency-based—where staff are considered "trained" after performing a hold or technique once or twice under controlled conditions—it’s a sign of a deeper issue. Effective training builds fluency: the ability to automatically and accurately respond in high-stress situations with confidence. If your training lacks this focus on prevention and fluency, it's time to consider a more robust system.

A Robust System in Action: Real-World Results

Take, for example, Lakeside Residential—a facility that once struggled with many of the same issues. Staff were well-intentioned but constantly on edge, responding reactively to behaviors as they arose, and feeling the burnout from a seemingly endless cycle of crises. But when they switched to a robust, fluency-based crisis management system, things began to change.

The new system provided hands-on, repeated practice until staff were fluent in not just the holds and safety techniques, but in reading situations, implementing preventative strategies, and managing behavior proactively. Staff trained under natural body positioning, making interventions safer and less strenuous. The key difference, however, was the focus on true prevention: they learned how to create supportive environments that reduced the likelihood of crises before they even started. This allowed staff to engage with students early, teach alternative skills, and reinforce positive behavior, leading to fewer incidents overall.

Within a few months, Lakeside saw a dramatic reduction in crises—from multiple incidents a week to just a handful per month. Staff reported feeling more confident and less stressed, able to de-escalate situations effectively and, most importantly, prevent behaviors from escalating in the first place. The new system didn’t just give them skills; it gave them a framework to understand behavior scientifically and take the right actions at the right time.

What to Look for When Shopping for a New Crisis Management System

If the indicators above resonate with your experience, it may be time to explore alternative systems. But what should you be looking for in a new crisis management approach? Here are eight key elements:

1. Fluency-Based Training In a crisis, staff must respond swiftly and effectively—there is no time for hesitation. This is why fluency-based training is critical. Such training doesn’t just teach the steps; it ensures staff can perform each action quickly and confidently, often through repeated practice in simulated scenarios. The goal is to build automaticity, so staff know exactly what to do and how to do it, regardless of the intensity of the situation.
2. Prevention-Focused Approaches An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The best crisis management systems are designed to reduce the likelihood of incidents before they happen, not just to respond to them when they occur. Look for systems that include proactive behavior management strategies, skill-building for students or clients, and ongoing monitoring to adjust interventions as necessary.
3. A Long Track Record of Success A strong crisis management system should have a proven history—not just anecdotal evidence, but a consistent track record of success across diverse settings. This experience helps ensure that the system is not only effective but also adaptable to the specific needs of your organization. A long-standing system also indicates that it’s built to endure and will provide ongoing support and development for your team.
4. Training in the Science of Human Behavior Crisis management is more than a set of reactive techniques—it's about understanding the "why" behind behavior to make informed decisions. A top-tier system equips practitioners with knowledge of the principles of human behavior. This empowers staff to better assess situations, problem-solve effectively, and choose interventions that not only address immediate challenges but support long-term positive outcomes. When staff understand reinforcement, punishment, and antecedent control, they can become more strategic in their actions, taking preventive steps and creating supportive environments that foster safe and positive behavior for all.
5. Competency-Based vs. Fluency-Based A critical aspect to evaluate is whether the training in crisis management is merely competency-based. If staff are only expected to demonstrate a technique once or twice under controlled conditions before being considered “trained,” that’s a problem. Competency alone doesn’t guarantee that staff will be able to respond effectively in high-pressure situations. Fluency-based training, on the other hand, ensures that staff can perform interventions accurately, quickly, and confidently in real-life scenarios.
6. Philosophies vs. Detailed Procedures Does the system lean more on abstract philosophies or clear, step-by-step procedures? While values and philosophies are important, they don’t provide actionable guidance during a crisis. Effective systems are grounded in detailed, behaviorally sound procedures that are clearly defined and consistently applied. If a crisis management system emphasizes philosophies like “building relationships” without equipping staff with actionable tools and protocols, it may be ineffective when quick decision-making is required.
7. Natural Body Positioning in Interventions The physical techniques used in crisis management should align with natural body mechanics to ensure safety and reduce fatigue. If a system teaches interventions that force practitioners into awkward, unnatural, or strenuous positions, this not only increases the risk of injury but also diminishes the likelihood of successful implementation. Effective techniques should be designed to match how the body naturally moves, reducing the strain on both staff and the individuals they are supporting.
8. Prevention that Isn’t Really Prevention Prevention should be the cornerstone of any crisis management system. However, be wary of programs that claim to emphasize prevention but only offer surface-level guidance. If the system dedicates just a page or two to prevention, or if its “prevention” focus is actually centered on de-escalation, that’s not true prevention. De-escalation strategies are essential, but they come into play after behaviors have already begun to escalate. Prevention should be about setting up environments, routines, and strategies that minimize the chance of escalation in the first place, addressing triggers before they become issues.

By assessing these key indicators and knowing what to look for, you can ensure that your organization adopts a crisis management system that not only meets current needs but also supports sustainable success over time. And if you’re in the process of evaluating different systems, remember that fluency-based training, a focus on prevention, and a strong, proven track record are all non-negotiable components of a system that will serve your staff and those in your care well.

If you’re ready to explore a crisis management system that builds fluency, emphasizes true prevention, and has a proven track record of success, reach out to learn more. For more information on how to transform your organization’s approach to crisis management, contact us at [email protected]. Take the next step toward a safer, more supportive environment for both staff and those you serve.