BLOG.AGGRESSIONMANAGEMENT.COM

Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)

John D. Byrnes — Sun, 20 May 2012 03:18:28 GMT

We are excited to announce our new website and Critical Aggression Prevention System or CAPS.

Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)

When it comes to preventing campus and workplace violence, nothing is more important than your threat assessment or behavioral Intervention program. That’s why, whether you’re in charge of a school, hospital or an employer, you probably have a meticulously designed program that engages people to report strange behaviors. The issue with this approach is that you’re left overwhelmed with subjective references that are difficult to evaluate.

But you have a responsibility to follow up, so the question becomes, how do you tell who’s a real threat and who’s just acting strange? Critical Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), is the first and only system that distinguishes between subjective references of aberrant, misconduct, mental illness and objective aggressive/threatening behavior; empowering you to make your campus or workplace as safe as possible.

Profiling and mental health assessments are go-to practices, but studies and news reports of campus and workplace tragedies prove these don’t work.

Without a clear-cut method going forward, you end up over-reacting or worse, under-reacting.

So how do you find a better method; an objective one that proactively detects emerging aggression? Enabling you to identify the next “red-faced, ready-to-explode” Primal Aggressor or “very lethal,” and too-often-missed, Cognitive Aggressor? A program based on prevention and effective mitigation, instead of responding and reaction?

There is a better method – and it’s called CAPS from the Center for Aggression Management.

CAPS, or the Critical Aggression Prevention System, is the first and only system empowering you to make your campus or workplace as safe as possible.

Based on years of research into aggressive behavior, CAPS transcends the root causes of violence, focusing on true indicators of emerging aggressive behavior that are present whether the root cause is passion, religious or political fervor, or even mental disorder.

Aggression first observers report potentially aggressive behavior in terms of learned objective indicators. Then, the web-based software platform, The Meter of Emerging Aggression, records, tracks, and objectively evaluates and assesses the level of emerging aggression.

Next, your trained team of Aggression Managers formulates an appropriate intervention, accounting for the level of malicious intent and threat posed by the individual.

Now, instead of reacting, you can proactively engage the aggressor before their Moment of Commitment – that intense, horrific moment when an aggressor acts violently -- ensuring your campus or workplace is as safe as possible.

With that peace-of-mind, it’s no wonder so many campuses and workplaces are implementing CAPS.

But let them tell you why:

“We’re able to truly assist and intervene in a timely and appropriate manner. The campus legal counsel is pleased we’re using this training.” VP of Student Affairs of a State University

“The program brought campus departments together to formulate a common dialogue of practices in handling, identifying and preventing aggressive behavior.” Director of Safety and Security of an Urban Community College System

Make your workplace or campus as safe as possible with CAPS from the Center for Aggression Management.

We have just redesigned our website and we encourage you to sign up for one of our complimentary webinar or simply visit our website to learn more: www.AggressionManagement.com

Probability versus Predictability?

John D. Byrnes — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:35:27 GMT

The greatest threat to our Nation and its Citizens is the perpetrator of murder/suicide, whether a “Lone Wolf” terrorist or simply the individual who shoots his estranged wife at a local supermarket then walks out to the parking lot and kills himself; a phenomenon that we are seeing on the rise in every community. In the Washington Post, “Today authorities arrested a 29-year-old Moroccan man in an alleged plot to carry out a suicide bombing at the U.S. Capitol, the latest in a series of terrorism-related arrests resulting from undercover sting operations.” What is the better test of who will be our next perpetrator of murder/suicide: Probability versus Predictability?

“Profiling” represents the use of “probabilities.” Profiling tells us that within a certain group of people, there is a higher probability of a perpetrator of murder/suicide. It does not tell us who the next perpetrator is! What is the essential method needed to reliably identifying who the next perpetrator of murder/suicide is: Probability or Predictability?

As stated, the highest form of aggressor is the “murder/suicide,” or as we, at the Center for Aggression Management, would describe this aggressor as a 9th Phase Cognitive Aggressor; someone whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Subsequent to this level of aggression is the 8th Phase Cognitive Aggressor, the “murder” or in a military sense, “a combatant;” who is prepared to give up their life for a cause but intends to survive. Preceded by the 7th Phase Cognitive Aggression, the “Complicit Tactician,” who is complicit with the 9th and 8th Phase Cognitive Aggressor. Like the 9th and 8th Phase Cognitive Aggressors, the Complicit Tactician wants people to die but will not kill them nor die for their cause; they will inspire others to do so (like the late-Osama bin Laden) or a terrorist handler or, in a domestic sense, an accomplice.

We can learn a great deal from a very thorough study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education, called the “Safe School Initiative.” It declared that, “There is no accurate or useful profile of the school shooter, nor for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.” In other words, someone’s proclivities or probabilities to act aggressively are not reliable predictors as to who the next perpetrator of murder/suicide will be. But the study goes on to say, “An inquiry should focus instead on the student’s behaviors and communication to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” “The ultimate question to answer …. is whether a student is on a path to an violent attack, and if so, to determine how fast they are moving and where intervention may be possible.” If we are to be predictive as to who will be the next murderer or perpetrator of murder/suicide, we must focus, not only on one’s probability to commit these heinous crimes but we must focus on the “emerging aggression” of someone planning or preparing for an attack.

To illustrate this point we can use the recent shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords; Jared Lee Loughner clearly had a Thought Disorder and maybe even Schizophrenia but the vast majority of individuals with Schizophrenia are not violent and do not shoot people. Knowing that Mr. Loughner had Schizophrenia adds to his probability to become an attacker but is not a reliable means of predicting whether he will become the next shooter. This was illustrated in another very thorough study, “Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007,” that declared, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” In fact they determined that people with mental illness tend to become the victims of these behaviors not the perpetrators of them. To further illustrate this Seung-Hui Cho, the infamous shooter at Virginia Tech, who killed 32 people and wounded 25 more, was evaluated on three different occasions prior to his rampage and in each case was deemed to be, “Depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others!” Although it has often been thought that mental illness is a predictor of who the next shooter might be, it serves only as another method of setting probabilities but not a reliable predictor of who the next shooter or suicide bomber will be.

Although “probability versus predictability” are not mutually exclusive, too often, we are using only probabilities, which fail the most important key component: Who will be our next perpetrator of murder/suicide!

Penn State: Are Colleges And Universities Covering Up Aggressive/Sexual/Violent Behavior?

John D. Byrnes — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:51:52 GMT

Most, I am sure, are upstanding purveyors of the public trust and their responsibility to their students (In Loco Parentis). Yet, is the incident and subsequent cover up at Penn State more pervasive in other colleges and universities across our Nation?

A recent New York Times article, On Campus, a Law Enforcement System to Itself was very revealing when it stated,

On most of these campuses, law enforcement is the responsibility of sworn police officers who report to university authorities, not to the public. With full-fledged arrest powers, such campus police forces have enormous discretion in deciding whether to refer cases directly to district attorneys or to leave them to the quiet handling of in-house disciplinary proceedings.

Speaking of Penn State, “I think we’re just on the cusp of breaking the silence,” said Colby Bruno, the managing lawyer at the Boston-based Victim Rights Law Center who specializes in cases of sexual assault on campus. “But there are a lot of very invidious ways that a school can go about squelching these reports. This is everyone’s problem; it’s not just a sports problem or a sports-icon problem. The scandal puts Penn State on the radar of the department’s Civil Rights division, which this April issued a tough letter to all 6,000 colleges and universities that accept federal money, spelling out how they must handle cases of sexual violence under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to prevent the creation of “a hostile environment” for accusers that would violate equality of access to education.”

The obvious question is how pervasive is this issue? How many colleges and university are deliberately hiding detrimental information? The Clery Act requires that assaults be reported and sexual assaults under Title IX must also be reported. What will we learn about the abuses at Penn State? We know that the Penn State police did investigate a complaint in 1998 about Jerry Sandusky and turned it over to the district attorney, who declined to prosecute. Here campus police responded appropriately and yet did the University President and the President’s chain of authority failed to follow up, suspend or expel the accused parties?

Brett Sokolow, JD, preeminent legal mind in the areas of risk, behavioral intervention and Title IX and their application in Higher Education, states the obvious, “Much is being made of the criminal acts of Sandusky and those who covered for him. In the coming weeks and months, Penn State will be investigated for violating the Clery Act. Lawsuits are likely, and will likely allege that the university -- and perhaps collaborating local officials – were negligent and exposed countless boys to foreseeable harm by failing to fulfill their duties to report and to act.”

But let’s examine incident reporting systems being placed on many college and university campuses today. First, too often these systems are merely reporting systems, they fail to track aggressive behavior. In the case of Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, there were over 70 different indicators that Cho might be deadly but there was not system in place to report and track these observations. VT’s horrific experience was the watershed event that began to change campus security across the Nation.

Further, we live in a very subjective world: what is one person’s passionate advance for affection is another’s interpretation of a near sexual assault. Subjective references like “scary, strange, and weird” make it increasingly difficult to assess threatening behavior by Behavioral Intervention Teams, Threat Assessment Teams and/or Campus Police. Yet, each case must be fully investigated to demonstrate “due diligence” or the campus will be at greater risk of lawsuit. Mental health counselors are also being foiled by the subjective nature of their analysis. VT’s shooter, Cho was evaluated on three different occasions and in each case he was deemed to be “Depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others.”

Brett Sokolow continues, “The 40+ count indictment of Sandusky makes clear that the highest ranking officials of Penn State had knowledge of his pattern of abuse and even rape. That is why they have lost their jobs and some are facing prosecution for failing to report the abuse as a crime to authorities. Their failure to act can also form the basis for allegations of deliberate indifference under Title IX.” This is an indictment against any individual in authority at any institutions of higher education that is aware of similar behavior and as chosen “deliberate indifference” as a course of action. We may not be able to eliminate all such moral indifference, however, a comprehensive Risk Management System (RMS) will provide another set of eyes and ears and greatly reduce the chance of “deliberate indifference.”

PREVENTION requires a three-part integrated Risk Management System. First, there must be an army of eyes and ears (First Observers) that are trained to identify objective observables of “aggressive” behavior and call them in to a Behavioral Intervention Team, who are trained to appropriately respond. If every tenth person at Penn State were so trained, it is fair to speculate that there would have been enough observations of impropriety that Penn State authorities could not have hidden them. Second, there must be Qualified Responders (BIT members) who are trained to objectively measure emerging aggression and apply the appropriate corresponding skills to maximize their result. And thirdly, there must be objective measures of emerging aggression, whether sexual or otherwise. We would recommend our Meter of Emerging Aggression and its Longitudinal Tracking, an objective and forensic recording and tracking Risk Management System (RMS). This three-part integrated Risk Management System is called the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS).

Corporate Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) for Healthcare

John D. Byrnes — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 19:41:14 GMT

The Florida Hospital Association and the Center for Aggression Management would like to invite you and your colleagues to attend the Corporate Aggression Prevention System free webinar and demonstration. This complementary webinar is scheduled for Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 12:00 noon EDT. During the session, you will learn how to identify aggression in the workplace and prevent it from escalating into violent and potentially deadly acts.

Across the Nation, there is an increasing fear among management due to the increase of aggression in the workplace. Managers, employees and customers are inevitably asking about the safety of their work environments. Presently, the steps taken by employers in addressing aggressive behavior are inadequate. Steps such as extensive lighting, extra security and barricading facilities might make us feel safe, but they don’t actually make us safe.

The belief that aberrant behavior, misconduct, and mental illness are reliable predictors of impending aggressive behavior (up to and including acts of extreme violence such as a workplace shooter) is misplaced. Aberrant behavior can be strange; misconduct can be disruptive and mentally ill individuals can be violent. None of these behaviors are reliable predictors of future violence and/or a workplace shooter. In fact, Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech who killed 32 and wounded 25 others, was evaluated on three different occasions and in each case he was deemed to be “anxious, depressed but not a risk to himself or others. The presence of mental illness is not a reliable predictor to a workplace shooter!”

The popular belief that Crisis Management (emergency management) is an effective tool in preventing a workplace shooter is also flawed. These tools are reactive and after-the-fact. They manage a crisis AFTER it occurs, using public relations officers and psychologists to assist with the resulting trauma. None of these ‘tools’ can help prevent aggression, violence or a workplace shooting. Nor can they provide the predictors to foresee it.

From the Moment of Commitment (when a shooter begins firing) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round is discharged) is in as little as 5 seconds. If an employer intends to “crisis manage” a workplace shooting, they will do so over those slain during the horrific first 5 seconds! This is not effective, responsible nor defensible.

Join us and learn about this new and unique system developed to prevent the next workplace shooting. The Corporate Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) for health care achieves "prevention" through its three-part integrated Risk Management System (RMS), which includes:

Scalable Observation by "First Observers", trained with objective, culturally neutral observables;

Forensic Recording and Tracking using the Meter of Emerging Aggression and its Longitudinal Tracking; and,

"Qualified Responders," trained with the skills to identify and measure emerging aggression, and apply the appropriate corresponding skill sets to prevent it from escalating. Using the Meter of Emerging Aggression, the "Qualified Responders" have the ability to longitudinally track, record and intervene before the aggressors' intentions turn hostile.

CAPS is the most effective system for achieving maximum workplace safety and security in a practical, scalable and affordable way. Come experience the Corporate Aggression Prevention System Webinar and learn how to make your workplace a safer place to work!

Lessons learned continue to demonstrate health care organizations must find better ways to deal with at-risk individuals, aggression, bullying, mental health challenges, violence, suicides and murders because the tragedies we continue to see are real…and almost all are PREVENTABLE.

The Center for Aggression Management and Awareity have partnered to bring you CAPS (Corporate Aggression Prevention System). Join John Byrnes from the Center for Aggression Management and Rick Shaw and Katie Johnson from Awareity as they demonstrate live how your organization can empirically improve safety and security and provide your patients, employees, faculty and staff with peace of mind.

Viewership is limited, you can sign up here <https://www3.gotomeeting.com/register/741800502> !

CAPS named in Risk and Insurance Magazine Award

John D. Byrnes — Sun, 09 Oct 2011 09:07:52 GMT

The Center for Aggression Management is very proud to announce that its partner in the development of its Campus Aggression Prevention System, Awareity’s CEO Rick Shaw, was Named 2011 Risk Innovator and Responsibility Leader by Risk and Insurance Magazine.

Are Faculty Members Becoming Increasingly Scared Of The Students Sitting In Their Classrooms?

John D. Byrnes — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 14:15:36 GMT

Are you finding it difficult to convince faculty members to take training to become First Observers of aggressive behavior in their classrooms? Let me share some thoughts that might aid in your convincing faculty members to become First Observers. I have heard repeatedly from VPs of Student Affairs about the faculty members who contact them in a panic demanding that they remove a student immediately from their classroom and off the campus. Of course, due to the due diligence requirement this will not happen. Upon interviewing the student the SAIT members typically finds one of two circumstances: 1) Because of the subjective nature of these accusations (scary, strange, weird) the faculty member has overstated the threat or 2) this faculty member should have reported this student to SAIT members months earlier due to the possible threat and did not.

Furthermore, we have been hearing from VPs of Student Affairs that faculty members are increasingly scared of the students sitting in their classrooms. An explanation of this phenomena by Pulitzer nominated writer Lt. Col. Dave Grossman in his book “On Killing, The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kills in War and Society;” is a bit long and circuitous but important to understand.

We know that it is not instinctual for one human to attack another, they must disconnect, depersonalize, turn this person into an object, in order to attack them. Because of this, at the end of World War Two, General Marshal conducted a study and found that only 15% of his soldiers raised their weapons and pulled the trigger with the intention of killing another human being. This was unacceptable, so they changed from shooting at a “bull’s-eye” to a silhouette of a human that would pop-up, the soldier would fire and the silhouette would drop; in other words, they turned this shooting method into an “impulse shot.” Due to this simple change in methodology, during the Korean War the shoot-rate exceeded 50% and in the Vietnam War the shoot-rate exceeded 90%.

Leaping forward to the age of video games with virtual real images and sounds of death; Grossman makes the case that in the absence of a responsible adult making the important distinction between the virtual real world of the video game and the Real World we live in, are young people fully understanding the finality of death? When a gamer is shot and killed, they simply push the reset-button and continue playing. Do our young gamers fully understanding the impact of being shot or killed themselves?

Grossman explains that as a psychologist who lives in Paducah, Kentucky, he was one of the first on the scene when Michael Carneal, age 14, started shooting at Heath High School. Once the first round was discharged there was pandemonium, panicked children were running in every direction. Carneal fired 8 rounds, five were “head-shots” and the remaining were “upper-body-shots.” This shoot-rate goes way off the charts because instinctually we shoot until our victim drops. Michael Carneal was not shooting instinctually, he was playing his video game, which was later found in his basement and awarded extra points to players for “head-shots.” Grossman explains that we our train soldiers to kill their enemy in a similar way and now we are generating an increasing number of students matriculating into our college and university classrooms who have lost their instinct not to kill another human being; and I would suggest that these are the students that are increasingly scaring faculty members across our Nation.

I am also hearing that there is an increasing number of students who are showing contempt and disrespect toward faculty who are not knowledgably about new technology. As an example, these students want to “download” their books, not carry them from class to class. This disrespect for faculty is getting rebuke from the increasing number of soldiers coming off the battlefield and into our classrooms. These soldiers, who are offered free education in return for their service to Country, are older and very respectful of authority. However, it is important to note that they, too, have long lost, on the battlefield, their instinct not to kill another human being. It appears that all colleges and universities are vying for these soldiers and their government paid tuition. This conflict-dynamic of video-gaming younger students and older soldiers in classrooms is an increase concern to many Student Affairs professionals as I speak at conferences like NaBITA.

This may not yet be a dynamic on your campus. It is my opinion that this is an increasing problem in the classroom and maybe an important and motivating message to share with your faculty members who are reluctant to learn the objective measures of aggressive behavior.

Our objective must always be “prevention” versus “reaction” to aggressive behavior. The way to achieve prevention is learning that “aggression” begins well before two people are in conflict. Like learning a new language, it is important to become fluent in Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), a Risk Management System (RMS). It is my opinion that colleges and universities need to expand their First Observers so as to create an army of eyes and ears to detect aggressive behavior in an objective way and call this behavior into Behavioral Intervention Team members (Qualified Responders) to objectively evaluate this possible threat using the Meter of Emerging Aggression.

Are we being threatened by the new culture of student “gamers” and what is being described as their “alternative reality?”

John D. Byrnes — Fri, 20 May 2011 13:40:00 GMT

During my Campus Aggression Prevention System Webinar, I was asked about the new culture of student “gamers” and what was described as their “alternative reality.” It is true that two individuals can, and often do, walk into a classroom discussing their accomplished kills the night before on “Call of Duty: Black Ops” video game. The Faculty member hears, “There is no way the Famas is better than an AK47. The Famas doesn’t do the same kind of damage. It takes twice as many shots to kill someone.” The Faculty member calls you, frightened and wants the students removed! Let’s face it, after hearing about how scary Jarod Loughner was to his faculty, it is no wonder the faculty across the nation are on edge about any conversation that sounds aggressive.

I have two things to share with you on this matter. First, this is why we developed the “Judicious Interview,” a method using scientific cause and effect principals in order to ascertain whether their intent is hostile, malicious and benign. A quick questions posed to these young students will quickly ascertain that they are discussing a game and are not a threat to class or campus.

The second part of my answer is quite lengthy but due to your question it is, in my mind, important for you to understand. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, Pulitzer nominated for his book, “On Killing, The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society” wrote a very socially eye-opening book, “Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill.” In this book, Grossman reveals the steady evolution of young boys and girls and their conversion from innocence and their instinctual reluctance to attack another person, through the use of video games and TV violence that erodes this instinctual reluctance. Grossman takes us back to the end of World War Two when General Marshal conducted a survey of his soldiers to find that only 15% were able to raise their weapons, aim at another human being and pull the trigger with the expressed intend of killing another human being. In other words, 85% were unable to attack another human. Why, because the instinct not to attack (kill) another human is so very compelling in humans. Of course, this was unacceptable for the military so they began having their soldiers firing at silhouettes of humans, which would “pop up,” the soldier would fire and the silhouettes would drop. The human silhouette would then “pop up” again and the soldier would again fire. In other words, the military was teaching their soldiers to “impulse shoot.” Because of this, by the Korean War, the military’s shoot rate had increased to over 50% percent and in the Vietnam War the military’s shoot rate had increased to over 90%. The military had by-passed a humans’ instinctual reluctance to attack or kill another human through the use of impulse shooting. A similar circumstance is occurring with our children. In the absence of a responsible adult, teaching these children the difference between the virtual-real world of video games where they experience the virtual real visuals and sounds of killing as they “take out” the multiples of enemies that surround them, Grossman points out how these young boys and girls are losing their instinct not to attack another human being. If you question this, please discuss this with any astute high school teacher and now college professor.

When we (the Center for Aggression Management) began training at colleges and universities across the Nation four years ago, we were told that professors were far too busy to take our training. Over the past two years, we have been told by an increasing number of Vice Presidents of Student Affairs that their professors are “scared to death” of the students entering their classes; that their body language and behaviors are similar to that of sociopaths.

One university executive explained how young students entering into their classes were frustrated and angered by the inability of their professors to keep up with modern technology. They no longer wanted to purchase books at the university’s book store, they wanted to “download them online.” This friction between professors and students is causing a real contempt, loss of respect and even rebellion by students toward their technologically-challenged professors.

Combine this with our heroes coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers who, on the world’s battlefields, have long lost their instinct not to kill another human-being create a very interesting dynamic. Every college and university is vying for the attentions of return veterans who have been promised by our government a paid-for education. Soldiers, now older students, who have an immense respect for authority (their professors), are exhibiting real contempt for these younger students who show little or no respect to their professors. We have a growing population of young student exhibiting sociopathic behavior and we have an increasing number of older students (soldiers coming home from the battlefield) who have lost their instinct not to kill another human being. These are concerning circumstances and are expected to play out over the next several years.

So, our concern with “gamers” and their “alternative reality” is to some extent true in more ways than we may image. We are heading for some very interesting times.

Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) Webinar/Demonstration

John D. Byrnes — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:21:00 GMT

Recently, a prominent University President shared with me his biggest nightmare was waking up to hear there had been an active-shooting on his campus. This, he said, keeps him up late at night! I believe this is a nightmare shared by many of his colleagues, and I can’t imagine what could possibly be worse.

Do you have a reliable method of “preventing” a potential shooter on your campus? Crisis (Emergency) Management reacts to (does not prevent) campus violence. Monitoring aberrant behavior, misconduct and mental illness are not reliable predictors for identifying the next school shooter.

Only when you can foresee the precursors to “emerging aggression” can you, with any reliability, get out in front of and prevent a school shooting, or any act of assaultive or violent behavior. In this live demonstration, we will show you how to reliably prevent aggressive, assaultive, and/or violent behavior. Imagine being able to declare your institution empirically safer than others in your area, causing parents and adult students to prefer learning at your institution?

Experience the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) Demonstration, learn how this Risk Management System (RMS) can make your campuses quantifiably safer and enhance learning by diminishing aggressive behavior throughout your institution. Any institution that wishes to prevent the next campus shooting must have CAPS, a three-part integrated Risk Management System (RMS) that provides campus wide trained observers (First Observers), empirical tracking and recording (Meter of Emerging Aggression and its Longitudinal Tracking) and trained response (Qualified Responders), which focuses on “prevention.”

Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)
Risk Management System (RMS)

Free Live Webinar/Demonstration

October 19, 2011 at 3:00 PM EST.

Center for Aggression Management and Awareity have partnered to bring you the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), a Risk Management System (RMS). Join John Byrnes from the Center for Aggression Management as well as Rick Shaw and Katie Johnson of Awareity as they demonstrate live how your campus can empirically improve safety and security and provide your students, parents, faculty and staff with peace of mind and an enhanced learning environment.

You can register now for this free CAPS Demonstration Webinar but don’t wait; there is a limit to how many can participate. We recommend you project this webinar/demonstration on screen and share it with all your Behavioral Intervention Team members. Or pass this along to your team members so that they can sign up and evaluate this unique, scalable, affordable and most importantly, effective system. We offer two dates and times for your convenience.

Live webinar: Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)

Space is limited.
Reserve your Webinar seat now.

When: October 19, 2011, 3:00 PM EST
Register now

You will learn how to:

Apply the Campus Aggression Prevention System in an effective, scalable and defensible manner.

Use the Primal and Cognitive Aggression Continua to prevent all forms of aggression, including a shooter

Receive anonymous/confidential reports from students, faculty, staff, parents, etc.

Identify aggressive body language, behavior, red flags and warning signs to take preventative actions before incidents occur

Train your prevention/safety teams and faculty to measure aggression in at-risk individuals

Utilize the Meter of Emerging Aggression to analyze an individual’s level of aggression

Determine the overall presumption of risk and what actions can be taken to maximize results

Connect the dots to ensure at-risk individuals do not fall through the cracks

Improve collaboration between counselors, administrators, law enforcement, teams, etc.

Track and document all actions taken for legal due diligence and ongoing risk metrics

Prevent lawsuits and maintain ongoing compliance with OCR, federal and state requirements

Significantly reduce administrative, personnel costs and ongoing awareness and training costs

Make your campus empirically safer and enhance student achievement/learning climate

This webinar has limited seating and will fill up quickly, so register early to ensure your seat.

EKU “Vanguard of Campus Safety”

Eastern Kentucky University has implemented the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) in order to track both primal and cognitive aggression, identify acts of emerging aggression based on an objective scale and then record those acts in a software-based tracking Risk Management System (RMS).

Presenters:

John Byrnes founded the Center for Aggression Management^®in 1993 after concluding there were no comprehensive training programs dedicated to preventing aggression in the workplace and schools. Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) is based on years of research into aggressive behavior, and the recognition that practical tools to identify, measure, and assess specifically emerging human aggression were necessary. As a result, CAPS is the most effective Risk Management System (RMS) for achieving maximum campus safety and security in a practical, scalable and affordable way.

Rick Shaw, Awareity’s Founder and CEO, has over 25 years of experience managing risks, technology, processes, and people in large and small organizations in multiple sectors. Rick’s research into escalating safety challenges, regulatory burdens and legal obligations have revealed alarming gaps and disconnects in situational awareness and accountability that prevent individuals from preventing. Rick is passionate about helping school leaders better understand lessons learned so they can connect the dots and improve ongoing prevention and intervention efforts.

Can an Executive Protector Really Prevent an Assassination?

John D. Byrnes — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:53:00 GMT

In famed author, Gavin de Becker’s well researched book “Just 2 Seconds,” he chronicles the seconds between an assassin’s “Moment of Commitment” and the Executive Protector’s “Moment of Recognition” and the resulting ability of that Protector to save their client from assassination. His research is explicit; if the protector is 15 feet away from the assassin he has only an 18% chance of protecting his client. If he is 7 feet away from the assassin he has only a 45% chance of protecting his client. Only when he is within-an-arms-length from this assailant and he is completely "in the now", can he offer a 98% chance of protection. If his mind is at all distracted, his percentages drop like a rock!

Just 2 Seconds explains the importance of getting ahead of the assassin's Moment of Commitment, trying to identify behavior that might be precursors to the Moment of Commitment. These precursors are too often subjective methods requiring considerable intuition and experience, placing the protector, the company at risk for law suits and their client at risk of assassination.

Realizing that 81% of assassinations are perpetrated within 25 feet of their victim, this is an assassin who realizes he or she will not escape -- they will either be captured or killed. This is, by our definition, either a Combatant (murderer: 8^th Level Cognitive Aggressor) or Terrorist (murder/suicide: 9^th Level Cognitive Aggressor). When any individual rises to the level of intention that they are prepared to give up their life a cause, their body and behavior take on very specific indicators that permit us to identify them, even before they arrive on scene.

The Center for Aggression Management's Primal and Cognitive Aggression Continua, permit the Protection Professional a significant increase in their ability to identify (foresee) the assailant and get-close-enough to the attacker (arm’s length: 98% chance of protection) to fully protect their client. Because these Primal and Cognitive Aggression indicators are culturally-neutral and measurable they move the protector, his company and his client closer to 98% protection and legal defensibility for actions taken.

The glaring truth learned in Just 2 Seconds is the need for measurable/objective observables prior to the assassin's Moment of Commitment so that the protector can prevent, not react, to an assailants actions.

It is not Bullying, it is Aggression!

John D. Byrnes — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:47:00 GMT

As long as we address these issues as “bullying,” “conflict resolution,” etc. we will continue to be befuddled by reacting to them and their potential of violence. “Conflict resolution” presupposed conflict! You are reacting to conflict, not preventing it! “Bullying” presupposes someone exhibiting bullying behavior. You are reacting to bullying behavior, not preventing it. Only when we understand that “conflict,” “bullying” and any predatory behaviors are simply elements of an Aggression Continuum and that through this Continuum we can foresee conflict, bullying and any predatory behavior prior to an aggressor actually exhibiting these behaviors, can we actually prevent conflict, bullying, predatory behaviors and any subsequent violent behavior. To learn more continue reading other articles in the blog on bullying and the Aggression Continuum.

Some Clarification May Be in Order

John D. Byrnes — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:15:00 GMT

A good friend contacted me last night to share that he felt there was a disconnect (non sequitur) between the stated myth and my opinion. Some clarification may be in order. In my blog opinion on Myth #1 of the “5 Myths about Zero Tolerance Disciplinary Policies,” I was not expressing opinion as to whether this myth was correct rather simply that both professional groups are befuddled by their inability to address a subjective issue in objective terms.

In point of fact, Brett Sokolow, JD (NCHERM) an eminent legal opinion maker in higher education illustrates that during a 90 day period last year there were 40 newspaper headlines of crisis-level threats in secondary and higher education. This would clearly lead me to believe that the potential of violence is still a significant issue that must be addressed. But how should we address these threats of violence?

As long as we address these precursors to violence as “conflict resolution,” “bullying,” etc. we will continue to be befuddled by this potential of violence. “Conflict resolution” presupposed conflict! You are reacting to conflict, not preventing it! “Bullying” presupposes someone exhibiting bullying behavior. You are reacting to bullying behavior, not preventing it. Only when we understand that “conflict,” “bullying” and any predatory behaviors are simply elements of an Aggression Continuum and that through this Continuum we can foresee conflict, bullying and any predatory behavior prior to an aggressor actually exhibiting these behaviors, can we actually prevent conflict, bullying and predatory behaviors.

More can be learned by reading on in this blog . . .

Incidentally, you can read the complete article on the 5 Myths at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/discipline/5-myths-about-zero-tolerance-d.html

5 Myths about Zero Tolerance Disciplinary Policies

John D. Byrnes — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 12:28:00 GMT

In a recent Washington Post article, writer Valerie Strauss chronicles The American Psychological Association’s task force researching the effectiveness of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, “Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations.”

Their findings are as follows:

MYTH #1: School violence is at a crisis level and increasing, thus necessitating forceful, no-nonsense strategies for violence prevention.

REALITY: Although any level of violence and disruption is unacceptable in schools and must be continually addressed in education, the evidence does not support an assumption that violence in schools is out of control or increasing. Incidents of critical and deadly violence remain a relatively small proportion of school disruptions, and the data have consistently indicated that school violence and disruption have remained stable, or even decreased somewhat, since approximately 1985.

From the above quote, we find professionals on both sides of this equation. Should we scrap all of these measures that cost millions of dollars to every school district and a significant time away from teachers teaching and students learning because the probability of a significant event is so very remote? What then do we tell the parents of those children killed in the next shooting rampage?

Much of this controversy is due to the subjective nature of this issue. One person’s aggression is another’s playfulness. It is only when we can measure emerging aggression can these ambiguities be clarified, addressed and defended! Defense of our actions is critical because much of these overreactions are motivated by a school district’s or principal’s desire to defend their actions.

If these schools truly wish to prevent aggression in their schools and put themselves in a position to best defend their actions, they must implement the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS Solution), a Risk Management System (RMS).

In the coming days we will address and discuss the other four assumptions and recommendations made by the American Psychological Association. Sign up to learn more. We encourage your comments and suggestions.

Making College Campuses Safer

John D. Byrnes — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:14:00 GMT

A good friend of mine recently took his high school son on a tour of colleges he was thinking of attending. Invariably, when at a parent’s information session, a parent (usually a mother) would ask what the school is doing to ensure a safe campus.

The answer was predictable, “Well, we have a great campus police team that patrols the grounds regularly. We also have call boxes so that any student can call if they feel uncomfortable or threatened, and we recently installed an extensive outdoor lighting system. Finally, we offer valet pickup at night to take students to their dorms or cars if they wish”

Sadly, this does not take into account the intent-driven Cognitive Aggression better known as a “predator.” Predators look for easy prey; they will go where the campus is not lit; they will go where the campus police aren’t; in other words, none of these expensive systems will deter the committed predator.

It is the responsibility of these Institutions of Higher Education to create a safe learning environment for students, faculty and staff but are they making us safe or are the merely making us feel safe. Imagine for a moment a school representative saying, “We have recently implemented the Campus Aggression Prevention System which is focused on preventing aggression rather than reacting to it. We felt it was important to get out in front of the issue, so we now have a Risk Management System (RMS) for observing, recording and evaluating those acts which are usually the precursor of more violent behavior, with a trained team of responders who can step in and take appropriate preventative measures.”

The question of campus security is important not only to parents but also to professors, staff, and others who set foot on any campus for good reason. A College with CAPS has a real story to tell which distinguishes it from other schools who still think that better lighting, etc. is the answer.

Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), Identifying Seung-Hui Cho, Shooter at Virginia Tech

John D. Byrnes — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 20:54:00 GMT

I want to take a moment and illustrate the importance of a Risk Management System (RMS) that identifies and records low level aggressive acts because they are often the precursors of more serious and violent acts. The recording is important because it permits a team of trained responders to evaluate these acts and intervene and prevent more serious violent acts.

No one in higher education can forget the Virginia Tech Tragedy and Seung-Hui Cho who killed 32 people and wounded 25 others. And most of you also know that Cho committed numerous acts of aggressive behavior observed by various classmates, faculty, campus police, and mental health professionals. With Stages Eight (murderer) and the most lethal Stage Nine (murder/suicide), there were significant indications of an emerging aggression.

His poetry Professor had Cho removed from class because she found his behavior menacing and his obscene and violent poetry intimidating. (Stage Seven)
Female classmates of Cho were also intimidated because he would photograph their legs under their desks. (Stage Five)
He was the subject of a number of police reports concerning his harassment of female students. (Stage Five)
Cho repeatedly placed harassing phone calls to an ex-roommate. (Stage Five)
Campus police gave Cho verbal warnings after he was involved in at least three stalking incidents on campus. (Stage Six plus)
When he texted an ex-roommate that “I might as well kill myself now”, campus police were informed and escorted Cho to the Mental Health Agency serving Blacksburg. (Stage 7)
On the day of the shooting, Cho traversed the campus with the Thousand Yard Stare in a trance like state – “Walking Dead.” (Stage 8 or 9)

These are just some of Cho’s acts of emerging aggression that are frequently the precursors of acts of subsequent violence. But there was no Risk Management System (RMS) like CAPS in place where observed acts of this nature are recorded and shared by a trained team of responders who are specifically tasked with intervening as appropriate to prevent the sort of violence that occurred.

Sadly, when Cho’s poetry Professor learned of the massacre, she remarked that “I knew when it happened who (the shooter) probably was” I wouldn’t be surprised if a number of people who had crossed paths with Seung-Hui Cho had exactly the same reaction.

Eastern Kentucky University is the "Vanguard of Campus Safety" with Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)

John D. Byrnes — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:06:00 GMT

As a beta site nationally for its implementation of the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), Eastern Kentucky University is at “the vanguard of campus safety.”

So says John D. Byrnes, founder and CEO of the Center for Aggression Management, who was on the Richmond campus recently to help train dozens of EKU staff and faculty in the use of CAPS, which is based on the measurement of emerging aggression.

http://www.eku.edu/news/eku-vanguard-campus-safety-aggression-prevention-system

I am proud to announce that we have been featured in a USA Today article.

John D. Byrnes — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 13:08:00 GMT

I am proud to announce an honorable mention in a USA Today article today, January 27, 2011. I have attached a link to the article.

There are actually two articles, the first article (front page) is an overview and then the article where our President and I are mentioned follows on 3A with more specific insights.

http://ee.usatoday.com/SUBSCRIBERS/LandingPage/LandingPage.aspx?href=VVNBLzIwMTEvMDEvMjc.&pageno=Mw..&entity=QXIwMDMwMg..&view=ZW50aXR5

The Center for Aggression Management has implemented its first Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS) at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU).

John D. Byrnes — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:36:06 GMT

The Center for Aggression Management has implemented its first Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), a Risk Management System (RMS) at Eastern Kentucky University (EKU). It is our intention that EKU become the vanguard of campus safety through CAPS.

USA Today was intrigued enough to sit in on one-day of this three-day CAPS training because they realize the EKU is implementing their Behavioral Intervention Teams and wish to use cutting edge technology and training. We are expecting the article to be published this week.

There are three components to CAPS: First Observers (eyes and ears for aggression on campus), Qualified Responders (trained Behavioral Intervention Team members) and software platform (Meter of Emerging Aggression and Longitudinal Tracking of Aggression on Campus).

Why Do Workplace Violence Programs Fail to Prevent Workplace Violence? The Problem and Solution!

John D. Byrnes — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:27:00 GMT

Workplace Violence Prevention program too often fail their purpose of “prevention.” Too often that are merely plans to react to workplace violence, which is ineffective, irresponsible and indefensible. Why? Because from the Moment of Commitment (when a shooter begins firing) to the Moment of Completion (when the last round it discharged) can be as little as 5 seconds! Any organization whose intent is to react to workplace violence (i.e., Crisis Management) will do so over those slain during the first 5 seconds! Crisis Management alone, without a solid plan to prevent workplace violence, is not effective, responsible nor defensible.

The following are eight of the most salient impediments to “preventing” Workplace Violence, but don’t worry, I will, at the end, illustrate the means to solve them and provide CUNY the means to prevent this destructive behavior in the future.

The first impediment to prevention is that we refer to the subject of workplace violence as “workplace violence.” Let me illustrate by using “conflict resolution.” The problem with “conflict resolution” is that it presupposes conflict. We are not preventing conflict; we are reacting to conflict, after the fact. The same circumstances apply with the issues of “bullying” and “workplace violence,” because these terms refer to someone exhibiting bullying or violent behavior, we are reacting to bullying and violence not preventing them. This was profoundly illustrated when the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) decided to address the subject of “discrimination.” EEOC required employers to train their employees in identifying and reporting acts of “discrimination” without offering true methods of prevention. Consequently, in the past five years reported acts of discrimination have skyrocketed, not diminished. There are rear exceptions when individuals report anticipated violence but these are the exceptions not the rule. Don’t worry though, I will illustrate how to get-out-in-front-of (precursors) these acts of aggression and prevent them.

The second impediment to prevention is the “culture of reporting.” We would hope by illustrating a means of reporting to our staff, faculty and students, that they would report incidents prior to actual violence. In a rare case they do, but typically humans will do what they believe as in their best interest; and most often that means they will remain quiet in these matters for fear of reprisal or simply a lack of interest.

The third impediment to prevention is the use of “anger” as a means of measuring the potential of violence. The greater issue with “anger” is that you and I can experience and express anger differently. It is very difficult the measure and therefore very difficult and manage (too sophisticated for most to use effectively). Furthermore, I contend that “anger management” is a misnomer. It is okay to be “angry,” it is not okay to be “aggressive.” What’s more, we can measure “aggression” and therefore better instruct people to manage “aggressive” behavior maximizing our results; an easily trained and utilized method of measuring, preventing, diffusing or mitigating aggression in ourselves and others.

The fourth impediment to prevention is the use of “warning signs” of violence described with phrases too sophisticated for users to apply effectively, like the “Inability to control feelings.” This type of phrase describes at least 50% of all students. Furthermore, when it is announced that a Behavioral Intervention Team is in place to address issues of “suspicious behavior” too often we get very subjective references like “scary, strange, weird, etc.” Since each of the sightings must be “fully investigated” lest the institution be held liable, these investigations can quickly overwhelm a Behavioral Intervention Team.

The fifth impediment to prevention is the belief the violence can be predicted through investigating “mental illness.” The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy clearly states, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” “Those with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence, not perpetrators.” In fact, according to U.S. News, August 20, 2009, Virginia Tech’s staff evaluated Seung-Hui Cho more than a year before he killed 32 people and wounding 25 others in that fateful 2007 rampage. In three separate interactions with the school's counseling center at the end of 2005, the staff found the Virginia Tech killer, Mr. Cho, to be depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others. Furthermore, we have too often found that mental health counseling centers are spread dangerously thin, counselors with already heavy case loads are being asked to take on additional mental health issues; such as suicidal students, social skill training, and outreach program development.

The sixth impediment to prevention is the belief that Campus Police will prevent the next violent incident. Campus police may have a conversation with any student, faculty, staff or visitor, however, they may not pursue any chain of circumstances or evidence unless the circumstances rise to a level of Reasonable Suspicion or Probable Cause, lest they put themselves and CUNY at greater risk of liability.

The seventh impediment to prevention is the confusion due to the lack of a common reference describing aggressive behavior. Campus police and law enforcement use “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause,” whereas mental health counselors use “distressed, disturbed and dysregulated,” and further, Student Affairs professionals use “gut instinct” as means to identify aggressive individuals on campus. Realizing that most individuals will not put their reputations or their jobs on the line based upon instinct or intuition alone it is likely that nothing will be said until after the fact. This lack of common references, specific to “aggression,” leaves enormous gaps that potentially violence individuals can easily walk through.

The final and most daunting is the eighth impediment to prevention, which is distinguishing between simple aberrant, disruptive and aggressive (threatening) behavior. When in fear of potential violence, we often react to simple aberrant or disruptive behavior with too heavy a hand and put ourselves at risk of liability or public outcry. By isolating “aggressive” behavior specifically, we permit the appropriate departments to address the more benign aberrant and disruptive behaviors. When we isolate “aggressive” behavior specifically, this behavior jumps out at us, permitting us to address aggressive/threatening behavior with all the appropriate resources well before a violent act occurs.

Solution:

As CUNY truly wishes to prevent workplace violence, I suggest the purchase of the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS), which provides a practical, scalable and affordable approach that focuses strictly on aggression-specific behavior (solution to fourth impediment) to make a safer campus. As exemplified by the shooting at Fort Hood, when observers rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, they miss the clear objective and culturally-neutral signs specific to aggression thereby missing the opportunity to prevent violent encounters.

The CAPS Solution has the following attributes:

Easily taught and readily learned objective observables of emerging aggression

The Meter of Emerging Aggression which provides measurable quantifiable markers that provide the basis for an objective way to identify emerging aggression (precursors) and prevent it before a serious threat or crisis occurs (Solutions to the First and Third Impediment).

Timely communications between trained personnel in a system which records aggressive activity over time and enables early precursor-identification (Solutions to the First Impediment), thereby permitting timely intervention to prevent, not react after the fact.

A forensic process with longitudinal tracking that, through the use of neutral and quantitative observables, more readily lends itself to legal defensibility than current approaches

Utilizes objective, culturally neutral, and common language (denominator) references that all professionals can use (Solutions to the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Impediment).

Because individuals tend to act upon their own behalf, once they learn the ability to foresee (precursors) aggression coming (Meter of Emerging Aggression) and realize that they will likely become a victim, they now have the motivation to get involved (Solution to the Second Impediment).

2. How Is This Achieved? -- There are Three Components to the Campus Aggression Prevention System (CAPS)

First Observers (FOs) who are trained to provide campus-wide eyes and ears in order to identify potential aggressors. These Observers apply learned objective indicators to measure emerging human aggression. The use of objective indicators avoids both the stereotyping of individuals and prevents an overwhelming number of subjective sightings, which must be investigated. FOs include, faculty members, current frontline security personnel, residential supervisors (RAs), facility managers, student affairs staff and other personnel who are already in positions to observe and report.
A software-based platform known as the Meter of Emerging Aggression™ records and tracks the measurable indicators that are observed by the First Observers. The software provides a Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool of objective indicators and a recording mechanism for FOs to chronicle the indicators observed. It also records what the third component − the Qualified Responders (QRs) − observes upon engagement, how they respond, and the result of their engagement. The software makes the process highly objective because it utilizes scientific “cause and effect” principles and therefore provides a higher level of safety as well as legal defensibility.

The Meter of Emerging Aggression also has the capacity for longitudinal tracking of an individual’s behaviors over time, permitting CUNY to track emerging aggressive behavior across departments, offices and venues, elements egregiously absent prior to the shootings at VT and NIU. If necessary, this longitudinal tracking can be maintained on campus property.
Qualified Responders, typically members of Behavioral Intervention Teams who are CAPS trained and certified. These participants learn how to

Evaluate the information made available by the First Observers

Objectively assess the level of hostile intent and therefore the threat posed by the declared observables through the use of the Meter of Emerging AggressioN

Decide what action(s), if any, is to be taken

Approach the perceived potential aggressor using established and tested methodologies

Engage this aggressor with all needed resources

Get-out-in-front of an aggressor’s Moment of Commitment, thereby providing an opportunity to prevent a violent incident

Upon completion of the intervention, the QR members can record their engagement and results, demonstrating the use of scientific “cause and effect” principles within CAPS’s Meter of Emerging Aggression. This helps QR members remain objective, which places them on a path to legal defensibility and offers an extra measure of protection for students, faculty, and staff in any institution.

The CAPS Solution is based on years of research into aggressive behavior, and the recognition that practical tools to identify, measure, and assess specifically emerging human aggression were necessary. As a result, CAPS is the most effective system for achieving maximum school campus safety and security in a practical, scalable and affordable way.

An Example of CAPS at work in on a School Campus

An individual is walking across a school campus. A member of the First Observers (FOs) – and there are many on campus – using “objective and measurable” indicators, witnesses some of their learned observables that illustrate this individual might be a potential aggressor. CAPS provides specific body language, behavioral and communication observables that can identify one of five levels of risk from “mild” to “extreme”. This is shown in the CAPS Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool on the right starting with “mild” illustrated on the gauge as green through “extreme” illustrated in red. The CAPS-trained First Observer (FO), immediately relays this information by cell phone to an on duty Qualified Responder (QR). These objective observables are recorded on the Objective Recording System’s CAPS Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool shown in the graphic as Behavior, Communication, Interaction, Demeanor, Facial Expression, Movement, Clothing and Articles. These provide an accurate measurement of emerging aggression and the level of hostile intent, and thereby the threat posed by this aggressor. One or more “on-duty” Qualified Responders (QRs) can then objectively evaluate the level of hostile intent and decide whether to take action, and if so, what action. These Qualified Responders can ask First Observers for more information before arriving at a course of action, which ranges from no action to a variety of interventions, including the arrest of an alleged aggressor who rises to law enforcement’s threshold of “probable cause”. Upon completion of their engagement with the alleged aggressor, the QR members can record their interview and results demonstrating the use of scientific “cause and effect” principles within CAPS’s Meter of Emerging Aggression.

The same process is followed in classrooms, administrative offices, cafeterias, school sporting events, etc. – wherever an aggressive action can occur. The goal of the CAPS process is to prevent violence and aggression in most any form, through the identification of the potential aggressor and timely intervention by certified personnel.

Make your school campus safer by contacting John Byrnes, Founder and CEO, Center for Aggression Management for more information about CAPS (Campus Aggression Prevention System) by phone at 407-718-5637, or by email at JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com or visit www.AggressionManagement.com.

The suicide of Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi is reverberating across this Nation.

John D. Byrnes — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:35:00 GMT

The suicide of Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi is reverberating across this Nation. We too often get captured by issues that may be germane but fundamentally miss the solution. The problem with bullying is that it presupposes a bully exhibiting bullying behavior. This only reacts to bullying; it does not prevent bullying and any subsequent violence. This is not effective, responsible nor defensible.

It is only when one realizes that this behavior is in actuality intent-driven “aggressive” behavior; that there is a Continuum of Aggression, and through this continuum one can learn the “precursors” to bullying, through which one actually prevent bullying. Until we learn the Continuum of Aggression we are relegated to reacting to bullying, not preventing it.

Incidentally, though this Continuum of Aggression (Aggression Continuum), we can also prevent most forms of “aggressive” maladies on our school campus that have direct correlation with “wellbeing, safety, productivity and learning.”

The Problem

When asked by parents and students about the safety of their campuses, most institutions tend to respond by focusing on providing policy and procedures, enhanced campus security force, more campus lighting, emergency call boxes, emergency notification system and escort services to accompany concerned students as well as threat assessment teams. While useful, they do little to prevent aggressive and violent behavior, and tend to make us feel safe rather than be safe.

As a response to the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech (VT) and Northern Illinois University (NIU), an increasing number of institutions have formed Threat Assessment Teams (TAT) to identify and respond to potential threats of violence. TAT members can quickly become overwhelmed by the number of subjective observations, like, “weird, scary, strange, or threatening;” how does a team distinguish between simple aberrant or disruptive behavior and truly threatening (aggressive) behavior? Each observation must be investigated thoroughly, for in the absence of true due diligence, institutions put themselves at risk of significant liability, but more importantly the potential loss of life.

Subjective accusations made by faculty require immediate and comprehensive investigation that after review often prove overstated or long overdue and consume significant human resources, time, and money.

Current programs fall short because they:

Are primarily reactive in nature
Do not get out in front of the problem and prevent aggression
Are insufficiently pro-active, which compromises an ability to take timely, effective action
Are far too subjective, often confusing aberrant, disruptive behavior with aggressive behavior
Do not achieve the pre-requisites for legal defensibility.

The Solution

CAPS provides a practical, scalable and affordable approach, which focuses strictly on aggression-specific behavior to make a safer campus. As exemplified by the shooting at Fort Hood, when observers rely on subjective references of culture and mental illness, they miss the clear objective and culturally-neutral signs specific to aggression thereby missing the opportunity to prevent violent encounters
The CAPS Solution has the following attributes:

Easily taught and readily learned objective observables of emerging aggression
The Meter of Emerging Aggression which provides measurable quantifiable markers which provide the basis for an objective way to identify emerging aggression and prevent it before a serious threat or crisis occurs.
Timely communications between trained personnel in a system which records aggressive activity over time and enables early precursor-identification, thereby permitting timely intervention to prevent, not react after the fact.
A forensic process with longitudinal tracking that, through the use of neutral and quantitative observables, more readily lends itself to legal defensibility than current approaches

3. How Is This Achieved? -- The Three Components to the CAPS Solution

First Observers (FOs) who provide campus-wide eyes and ears in order to identify potential aggressors. These Observers apply learned objective indicators to measure emerging human aggression. The use of objective indicators avoids both the stereotyping of individuals and prevents an overwhelming number of subjective sightings, which must be investigated. FOs include, faculty members, current frontline security personnel, residential supervisors (RAs), facility managers, student affairs staff and other personnel who are already in positions to observe and report.
A software-based platform known as the Meter of Emerging Aggression™ which records and tracks the measurable indicators observed by the First Observers. The software provides a Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool of objective indicators and a recording mechanism for FOs to chronicle the indicators observed. It also records what the third component − the Qualified Responders (QRs) − observes upon engagement, how they respond, and the result of their engagement. The software makes the process highly objective because it utilizes scientific “cause and effect” principles and therefore provides a higher level of safety as well as legal defensibility. The Meter of Emerging Aggression also has the capacity for longitudinal tracking of an individual’s behaviors over time, permitting an institution to track emerging aggressive behavior across departments, offices and venues, elements egregiously absent prior to the shootings at VT and NIU.
Qualified Responders, typically members of Threat Assessment Teams and campus police who are CAPS trained and certified. These participants learn how to:
1. Evaluate the information made available by the First Observers
2. Objectively assess the level of hostile intent and therefore the threat posed by the declared observables through the use of the Meter of Emerging Aggression
3. Decide what action(s), if any, is to be taken
4. Approach the perceived potential aggressor using established and tested methodologies
5. Engage this aggressor with all needed resources
6. Get-out-in-front of an aggressor’s Moment of Commitment, thereby providing an opportunity to prevent a violent incident

Upon completion of the intervention, the QR members can record their engagement and results, demonstrating the use of scientific “cause and effect” principles within CAPS’s Meter of Emerging Aggression. This helps QR members remain objective, which places them on a path to legal defensibility and offers an extra measure of protection for students, faculty, and staff in any institution.

The CAPS Solution is based on years of research into aggressive behavior, and the recognition that practical tools to identify, measure, and assess specifically emerging human aggression were necessary. As a result, CAPS is the most effective system for achieving maximum campus safety and security in a practical, scalable and affordable way.

An Example of CAPS at work in Higher Education

Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool

An individual is walking across the campus of a large state university. A member of the First Observers (FOs) – and there are many on campus – using “objective and measurable” indicators, witnesses some of their learned observables that illustrate this individual might be a potential aggressor. CAPS provides specific body language, behavioral and communication observables that can identify one of five levels of risk from “mild” to “extreme”. This is shown in the CAPS Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool on the right starting with “mild” illustrated on the gauge as green through “extreme” illustrated in red. The CAPS-trained First Observer (FO), immediately relays this information by cell phone to an on duty Qualified Responder (QR). These objective observables are recorded on the Objective Recording System’s CAPS Meter of Emerging Aggression Dropdown Tool shown in the graphic as Behavior, Communication, Interaction, Demeanor, Facial Expression, Movement, Clothing and Articles. These provide an accurate measurement of emerging aggression and the level of hostile intent, and thereby the threat posed by this aggressor. One or more “on-duty” Qualified Responders (QRs) can then objectively evaluate the level of hostile intent and decide whether to take action, and if so, what action. These Qualified Responders can ask First Observers for more information before arriving at a course of action, which ranges from no action to a variety of interventions, including the arrest of an alleged aggressor who rises to law enforcement’s threshold of “probable cause”. Upon completion of their engagement with the alleged aggressor, the QR members can record their interview and results demonstrating the use of scientific “cause and effect” principles within CAPS’s Meter of Emerging Aggression.

The same process is followed in classrooms, residence halls, dining halls, stadiums, etc. – wherever an aggressive action can occur on campus. The International Association of Assembly Managers (IAAM) has expressed a growing alarm by university stadium managers that aggressive behavior among fans is causing an increasing number of fans to stay away from sporting events, preferring to experience them on high definition 52 inch screens in the comfort and safety of their own homes. The goal of the CAPS process is to prevent violence and aggression in most any form, through the identification of the potential aggressor and timely intervention by certified personnel.

Make your campus safer by contacting John Byrnes, Founder and CEO, Center for Aggression Management for more information about CAPS (Campus Aggression Prevention System ) by phone at 407-718-5637, or by email at JohnByrnes@AggressionManagement.com

Moving from Reacting to Preventing Acts of Terrorism

John D. Byrnes — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:18:00 GMT

TSA Has Been Missing Terrorists Because They Have Been Unable To Foresee And Thereby Prevent These Terrorists’ Acts.

It is only with the observation of “emerging aggression” and the distinction between “Primal and Cognitive Aggression” that one can foresee and prevent any level of aggression, including a terrorist.

Why Have Current Government Systems Failed Us?

Current systems in place to foresee and prevent the violence of individuals like Major Nidal Malik Hasan, whose massacre took the lives of 13 soldiers and wounded 29 others, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Christmas Day Bomber and Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber are not working!

The Government has put a number of systems in place, yet they leave significant gaps permitting terrorist like Major Hasan, Abdulmutallab and Shahzad the means to pass through. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a review of TSA’s behavior detection program, known as SPOT (“Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques”). The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee web site states, “GAO’s report confirms that TSA has bungled the development and deployment of a potentially important layer of aviation security.” Why is TSA having such difficulty preventing these incidents? Because they are looking for the wrong person! According to the report, “Since the SPOT program’s inception, 17 known terrorists have traveled through eight SPOT airports on 23 different occasions. This includes Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square Bomber.”

Stop Reacting And Start Preventing!

Only when we isolate “aggressive behavior” specifically and judge it on its merits, we will be able to foresee, engage and prevent any level of emerging aggressive behavior. According to the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education’s report on Targeted Violence in Schools, there is a significant difference between “profiling” and foreseeing emerging aggression; their study concluded, “The use of profiles is not effective either for identifying students who may pose a risk for targeted violence at school or – once a student has been identified – for assessing the risk that a particular student may pose for school-based targeted violence.” It continues; “An inquiry should focus instead on a student’s behaviors and communications to determine if the student appears to be planning or preparing for an attack.” Assessing objective, culturally neutral, distinct body language, behavioral and communication indicators of emerging aggression is the only effective means to foresee and prevent the threat posed by any aggressor who intends harm to others, whether the perpetrators are students or terrorists.

In Tel Aviv, Israel, Ben Gurion Airport bridges the gap between “profiling” and protecting their passengers by interrogating every passenger, a method deemed inappropriate at the much busier Boston Logan Airport because no one would make their flights and the Israelis patently stereotype, therefore their system in the US would never pass a challenge by civil libertarians. Hence the reason the “Israel Method” will not find success in the United States.

Mental Health Resources Are Also Failing Us.

We repeatedly hear that Major Hasan had PTSD or Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, a form of mental illness. Although this may be true, using mental health resources as a means to identify these threats of aggression have repeatedly failed their purpose. The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy, June 13, 2007 concludes, “Most people who are violent do not have a mental illness, and most people who have mental illness are not violent.” “Those with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence, not perpetrators.” In fact, according to U.S. News, August 20, 2009, Virginia Tech’s staff evaluated Seung-Hui Cho more than a year before he killed 32 people, himself and wounding 25 others in that fateful 2007 rampage. In three separate interactions with the school's counseling center at the end of 2005, the staff found the Virginia Tech killer, Mr. Cho, to be depressed and anxious but not at risk of hurting himself or others, according to the center's records.

The Government Systems Continues to Fail Us.

Until now, government relies predominantly on foreseeing an adrenaline-driven Primal Aggressor to identify a terrorist. This has failed because it represents an individual who is losing control, not a terrorist. Generated by anxiety, fear, anger, frustration, etc. too often airport security (TSA) accosts the 85 year old woman going to her late husband’s funeral because she is gripped with anxiety, fear and frustration. Primal Aggression will identify those who are fearful of being caught for drug related types of issues but will not foresee the terrorists. This was clearly illustrated in the GAO reports that between May 2004 and August 2008:

2 billion passengers went through SPOT airports
150,000 were selected for secondary screening
14,000 were referred to law enforcement
1,100 were arrested
0 were arrested for terrorism.

Terrorists, not only disconnect from their victim, they disconnect from their own well-being, and lose those Primal Aggression markers of anxiety used by TSA; they take on Cognitive Aggression markers, which permit us to foresee and prevent their acts of terror. In another key flaw, TSA continues to use Deception Detection, as the basis for their Behavior Recognition (Project Hostile Intent) or SPOT program, a system long determined to be inadequate. Different cultures deceive differently and since there are over two thousand cultures, Deception Detection requires far too much sophistication for most to use effectively and therefore it is prone to apply stereotyping and profiling, becoming an immediate target of civil libertarians. A failed system out of the box, yet our government continues to use it, and continues to try to validate it. It is not until our TSA realizes that a terrorist is an intent-driven Cognitive Aggressor that they will foresee and prevent the next terrorist attack. It is only through the ability to foresee the emergence of all levels of the intent-driven Cognitive Aggression Continuum that one can prevent the next terrorists attack.