Search results

The purpose of this paper is to validate the learning screening tool (LST) and the adapted functioning checklist-revised (AFC-R) as screening tools to aid programme allocation, and to investigate whether programme decision makers were using the tools as per the guidance provided by HMPPS Interventions Services.

LST and AFC-R data were gathered for 555 men who had been assessed for programmes between 2015 and 2018 across eight prisons and one probation area. WAIS-IV IQ data were also gathered if completed.

The findings provide support for the use of the LST, and AFC-R in helping to make decisions about programme allocation. The LST and AFC-R correlate well with each other, and a measure of intellectual functioning (WAIS-IV). Those who were allocated to learning disability or challenges (LDC) programmes scored higher on the LST (greater problems) and lower on the AFC-R (lower functioning) compared to those allocated to mainstream programmes. The LST had adequate predictive validity. In the majority of cases, the correct procedures were followed in terms of using the tools for programme allocation.

The sample size for examining the relationships between all three tools was limited. The research was also unable to take into consideration the clinical decision making involved in how the tools were interpreted.

This research contributes to the growing evidence about the effective use of LDC screening tools in forensic settings.

The purpose of this paper is to examine staff views’ of the usefulness of the Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) screening tools for learning disability and/or learning challenges (LDC) on offending behaviour programme selection and programme participant’s learning experiences.

In total, 11 treatment managers (TMs) and 10 programme graduates across 4 prison sites, from a range of HMPPS accredited programmes were interviewed. The interviews were transcribed, analysed and interpreted using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis.

Overall, TMs found the screening tools useful in aiding programme allocation decisions, particularly, in terms of the triangulated approach and were, in general, using them in line with the guidance. A number of key factors influenced programme allocation decisions, including participant factors, information gathered from a number of sources and from a range of staff and in collaboration with the individual. The importance of being responsive to the needs of the individual was highlighted. Group participants generally felt they were on the right programme according to their needs and found the programmes responsive. Suggestions for further research and improving programme selection are made.

Data were collected from four prisons, each providing a number of different accredited programmes. Caution is, therefore, needed when generalising the findings.

This research contributes to ensuring that those with LDC have equality of opportunity in reducing their risk of reoffending through accessing HMPPS accredited offending behaviour programmes most responsive to their learning needs. It also contributes to the growing evidence base about the effective use of LDC screening tools in forensic settings.

This discussion paper supports the new development of Apprenticeships at Level 8 of the UK’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (QAA, 2014). This exciting development, one that employers and universities had been waiting for paves the way for, apprenticeships, sold as the ladder of opportunity, to go all the way to the top.

Here, we explore in brief the emergence of the new apprenticeship landscape and the importance of the addition of this new highest of levels.

Importantly, however, we make the case that such progress needs to be met with an equally progressive approach to the design of the new doctoral pathway.

We sketch out a possible shell for the assessment of a Doctoral Apprenticeship, one that allows for flexible occupationally relevant inputs to create an applicable role-based and academically rigourous whole.

The importance of such a design is discussed within the context of the potential for impact in three priority areas: social justice, broadening the talent pool and ensuring the relevance and sustainability of the doctoral award.

Describes the development and testing of a standard assessment method for the preservation needs of paper‐based and photographic materials (including microforms) in libraries, which will facilitate an assessment of national preservation needs and priorities. After outlining how the research was carried out, it briefly describes the assessment method which was finally developed; explains why a sample‐based approach was adopted and how libraries should choose their samples; discusses the core preservation management issues identified during the earlier part of the research and shows how a set of questions relating to these issues was developed for inclusion in the method.

Very little Australian literature looks at women as leaders in education. Using theoretical viewpoints emerging out of a biographical and historical analysis, it is possible to construct a more inclusive model of leadership which includes both men and women in the past. Mapping such a process historically and biographically can give a detailed assessment of the social, historical and political dimensions of particular women leaders′ lives and also develop a theoretical framework, which gives equal status to the leadership experiences more common to women. Presents a historical narrative where recording lives raises critical questions at the same time as it unearths new evidence of the history of women educationists in Australia.

THE library year ends in no spectacular way. If posterity has any cause to remember 1932 it will probably be as of a year when the doctrine of economy was raised to the rank of a divine dogma by a world of debtors and creditors all crazed with fear over international debts. A year of hurried committees producing reports for the reduction of expenditures, beneficient or otherwise; especially, in this last month, a report which if implemented would cripple almost every local activity, and set back the clock of social effort at least thirty years. The intention of such reports is no doubt good; their effects are yet to be seen. So far, the increased parsimony in national and local affairs seems only to have intensified unemployment without bettering the general situation. A reaction against all this is beginning, not a moment too soon, and all who care for the finer things in our civilisation will be compelled to stand against the more unsocial recommendations of these reports.

The study aims to provide an analytical overview of current innovations in peer review and their potential impacts on scholarly communication.

The authors created a survey that was disseminated among publishers, academic journal editors and other organizations in the scholarly communication ecosystem, resulting in a data set of 95 self-defined innovations. The authors ordered the material using a taxonomy that compares innovation projects according to five dimensions. For example, what is the object of review? How are reviewers recruited, and does the innovation entail specific review foci?

Peer review innovations partly pull in mutually opposed directions. Several initiatives aim to make peer review more efficient and less costly, while other initiatives aim to promote its rigor, which is likely to increase costs; innovations based on a singular notion of “good scientific practice” are at odds with more pluralistic understandings of scientific quality; and the idea of transparency in peer review is the antithesis to the notion that objectivity requires anonymization. These fault lines suggest a need for better coordination.

This paper presents original data that were analyzed using a novel, inductively developed, taxonomy. Contrary to earlier research, the authors do not attempt to gauge the extent to which peer review innovations increase the “reliability” or “quality” of reviews (as defined according to often implicit normative criteria), nor are they trying to measure the uptake of innovations in the routines of academic journals. Instead, they focus on peer review innovation activities as a distinct object of analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which risk is addressed in the risk management planning process of those convicted of sexual offending.

Data were collected from a risk assessment and management system called the Offender Assessment System (OASys), used by the National Offender Management Service, in England and Wales. The records of 216 clients were accessed and each risk management plan analysed. The study aimed to understand if first, general and sexual risk factors identified by assessors were recorded and detailed in subsequent plans; second, if specialist sexual offending risk assessment tools were used to inform risk management strategies; and third, if both a balance of control and support mechanisms were in place to tackle identified risk and needs of clients.

Inconsistencies were found in relation to practitioners transposing risks identified, into the subsequent risk management plans. Strategies were therefore deemed, inadequate as there was a significant omission of the use of specialist sexual risk assessment tools to inform and ensure risk assessment to be robust. In addition risk management plans were often overbearing in nature, as assessors tended to utilise control strategies to assist the reintegration process, in contrast to a combination of both control and support.

This sample was taken from only one probation trust in England and Wales. The findings might therefore be unique to this organisation rather than be representative of national practice. This study should therefore, be replicated in a number of other probation areas. In addition, it is important to note that this study only reviewed one electronic tool used by practitioners. Therefore, while it might appear for example that the RM2000 tool was not routinely completed; this cannot be assumed as practitioners might have adopted local custom and practice, recording RM2000 scores elsewhere.

These findings highlight the need for some understanding as to why there is a lack of consistency throughout the risk management planning process. Practitioners should receive ongoing risk management training, development and supportive supervision. In particular, practitioners require supervision that supports and develops their skills when applying RM2000 classifications to their clients’ risk management plans. Likewise initiatives which develop practitioner’s awareness and application of strengths based approaches such as the Good Lives Model should be encouraged. These will help practitioners develop plans that address both the risks while supporting their development of the strengths a client presents.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind, which examines the risk management plans of those convicted of sexual offending, completed by practitioners in England and Wales using the OASys tool.