Search results

A co-produced clinical practice that aims to improve outcomes through a partnership with service users is becoming increasingly important in intellectual disability (ID) services, yet these approaches are under-evaluated in forensic settings. This study aims to explore and compare the feasibility of two approaches to co-production in the completion of dynamic risk assessments and management plans in a secure setting.

A convenience sample of adults admitted to a secure specialist forensic ID service (N = 54) completed the short dynamic risk scale (SDRS) and drafted risk management plans under one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants rated the SDRS and risk management plan first, separately from the multidisciplinary team (MDT). In the second condition, participants and MDTs rated the SDRS and risk management plan together.

In total, 35 (65%) participants rated their risk assessments and 25 (47%) completed their risk management plans. Participants who rated their risk assessments separately from the MDT were significantly more likely to complete the SDRS (p = 0.025) and draft their risk management plans (p = 0.003). When rated separately, MDT scorers recorded significantly higher total SDRS scores compared to participants (p = 0.009). A series of Mann-Whitney U tests revealed significant differences between MDT and participant ratings on questions that required greater skills in abstraction and social reasoning, as well as sexual behaviour and self-harm.

Detained participants with an ID will engage in their dynamic risk assessment and management plan processes. The study demonstrates the impact of different co-production methodologies on engagement and highlights areas for future research pertaining to co-production.

THE NEWS will doubtless appear in the May issue of the Record, and several days after that they will send me a press release just in case the Record's prose style has defeated me, announcing that the LA's president‐elect for 1978 is to be Godfrey Thompson, Guildhall Librarian (City of London) and currently Treasurer of the la, as well as a member of our editorial board since its inception. (I had therefore better make it clear that it wasn't Godfrey who told me, or indeed anyone else on the board.)

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

As our correspondent on another page suggests, the economic crisis may have reactions upon libraries. The most obvious one he mentions is the increased difficulty we shall experience in obtaining American books. Not all libraries, public or private, make any special collection of books published in the United States, although there has been an increasing tendency to buy more as the relations of the two countries have grown closer through their common struggle; in fact, we know libraries which have spent many hundreds of pounds in the course of the past year or two on the select lists of books which have been made for us by American librarians. It is most unfortunate that the manipulation of dollar currency should have brought about a situation in which even the exchange of ideas between the countries becomes more difficult. One suggestion might be made and that is that our American colleagues should continue to sift the literature of this time of famine for us, so that further select lists may be available in better days.

THE central question of librarianship now and in the past is that which occupies some of our pages this month. Reading with purpose and with system, Matthew Arnold declared, was the last service to be rendered to education; and in various manner librarians and their committees have been endeavouring to do this for many years; it has indeed been a guiding principle of the best libraries that they presented to the community only good book's. Lately, however, more generous (or lax, according to the standpoint) ideas have been allowed to condition the admission of books; there are not wanting those who object to any exercise of judgment on the part of the librarian; if people want certain books they must be served, as they pay for them. This argument was exploded long ago, but its revival is justified if the librarians are unequal to their pretentions as guides to readers. And to be guides requires ever‐increasing knowledge, not only of all work done in bibliographies and reference books, but, as our writers indicate, of people and their manifold relations and reactions to books. This is enormously difficult in any community but is manifestly so in large cities. As a small illustration we may point to a librarian who, when a branch librarian was appointed to his staff, gave him a month of freedom from library work proper in which he was to walk every street of his branch area, interview the clergy, teachers, leading traders, and the secretaries and committees of local societies. He thus came to his work with at least an elementary notion of the community he had to serve. Such study must have its effect on book‐service; and this is the sort of study that must be pursued in the manner Dr. Waples has advocated and practiced (or some such manner) if we are to arrive at a science of book‐selection applicable to the areas a library serves.

WE write on the eve of an Annual Meeting of the Library Association. We expect many interesting things from it, for although it is not the first meeting under the new constitution, it is the first in which all the sections will be actively engaged. From a membership of eight hundred in 1927 we are, in 1930, within measurable distance of a membership of three thousand; and, although we have not reached that figure by a few hundreds—and those few will be the most difficult to obtain quickly—this is a really memorable achievement. There are certain necessary results of the Association's expansion. In the former days it was possible for every member, if he desired, to attend all the meetings; today parallel meetings are necessary in order to represent all interests, and members must make a selection amongst the good things offered. Large meetings are not entirely desirable; discussion of any effective sort is impossible in them; and the speakers are usually those who always speak, and who possess more nerve than the rest of us. This does not mean that they are not worth a hearing. Nevertheless, seeing that at least 1,000 will be at Cambridge, small sectional meetings in which no one who has anything to say need be afraid of saying it, are an ideal to which we are forced by the growth of our numbers.

SEPTEMBER sees most librarians again at the daily round, although some, including those of the universities and schools, are still scattered on mountains, golf‐courses, beaches and oceans for a short while yet. To older men there is a curious feeling aroused by the knowledge that there is no Library Association Conference this month. They may, in a measure, find compensation in attending the annual meeting of the London and Home Counties Branch of the Association, which will be at St. Albans, or that of A.S.L.I.B., which has Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, as its venue. Both, by some lack of care which might have been avoided, occur on the same week‐end, September 24–26. Quite clearly the special problems of librarianship technique, such as processes, book‐selection and purchase, classification, catalogues, fines, publicity, salaries, hours, and so on almost infinitely, can no longer be discussed profitably at the Annual Meeting of the Library Association; smaller gatherings, such as these, are their fitting place. We make a suggestion to the L.A. Council, for what it is worth and without pretence to being original. It is that it should indicate to all its branches and sections the main questions to which they should devote attention, and that in due course they should produce their conclusions on them. These, being pooled, would form the basis of the L.A. Annual Meeting. This would make a purposeful programme for all, and the results of the Conference might then be considered definite and practical.

IN devoting this number of The Library World in the main to county libraries, we shall not, we think, be guilty of producing what the journalists call “stale matter.” There was a time when county libraries appeared to dominate all small meetings of librarians and even appeared to obsess conferences; a new thing always creates in its advocates and workers an enthusiasm which, to some, appears to be out of proportion. We say “appears to be” because many town librarians felt that their own work was being by‐passed and occasionally belittled. Cooler minds, however, realised from the beginning that the first stages of county library development were as acorns from which oaks would inevitably grow. Few movements have the social importance that the county libraries undoubtedly have. Speaking from the librarianship point of view, it can now be said that the county libraries have proved themselves. The service as yet is uneven, as is inevitable; the movement began and grew in times of great stringency; and even those who advocated it, and it may be those who financed it, did not see its full possibilities. Growth will continue and in time the county library movement will be as fully organised as that of the great city libraries.

LONDON proved to be successful as a Conference centre, and the Fifty‐Seventh Annual Meeting was one of our best. As for the programme generally, the forecasts which appeared in THE LIBRARY WORLD last month were in most cases justified. The Presidential address, delivered by Mr. Pitt while recovering from a rather serious illness and while suffering from anxiety as to the health of Mrs. Pitt, was remarkable in the circumstances, and, as we premised it would be, was a statesmanlike survey of the accomplishments of the Library Association in the past, and a forecast of hopes for the future. These it would undoubtedly be impossible to summarise here. They included, however, a suggestion that so far as professional training is concerned, that there should be a joint examination award of the University, the Library Association and the employing authorities. This seems to be an avenue of development worth exploring, to use a Parliamentary phrase.