Search results

This study examines the implementation of the recovery model or ‘philosophy’ in a secure NHS forensic service. Twenty‐six (86.7%) staff and seventeen (70.8%) mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) were interviewed in Spring 2009 from the rehabilitation and pre‐discharges units in a medium secure forensic service in Kent, UK. Their views on recovery were measured using the Developing Recovery Enhancing Environments Measure (DREEM: Ridgeway & Press, 2001). Staff consistently rated all 24 elements of recovery as more important than the MDOs. Staff also rated the elements of recovery as better implemented, except Intimacy and Sexuality. There was a significant effect of MDOs' forensic history (restriction status and index offence type) on ratings of how well elements of recovery were implemented. Staff and MDOs rated all elements of recovery as at least moderately important (above median value). The implications of the recovery philosophy in forensic mental health services are discussed.

Secure mental health services in one UK region have acted within a network to develop a range of involvement practices. A new quality benchmarking tool has been created to appraise the implementation of these involvement practices. The purpose of this paper is to report upon a qualitative evaluation of this development.

Staff and service users involved in the co-production of the benchmarking tool were engaged in a series of focus groups and participatory inquiry approaches enacted in the course of scheduled network meetings. Data thus collected was subject to thematic analysis.

Four distinct themes were identified which were titled: Taking time, taking care; The value not the label; An instrument of the network; and All people working together. These are discussed in relation to recent theorising of co-production.

Effectively, this study represents a case study of developments within one region. As such, the findings may have limited transferability to other contexts.

Staff and service users can work together effectively to the benefit of each other and overall forensic services. The benchmarking tool provides a readymade mechanism to appraise quality improvements.

Despite a prevailing culture of competition in wider health-care policy, cooperation leads to enhanced quality.

The benchmarking tool is a unique development of a longstanding involvement network, demonstrating the positive implications for enacting co-production within secure services.

The purpose of this paper is to address the profession's focus on diversity, including the original research, and analyze the research beyond the profession to understand better the bases for the limited progress in fulfilling diversity goals. The paper focuses on the fact that diversity has been equated with race and the potential implications of that relationship.

An overview and analysis of diversity research, including factors associated with the success of diversity programs, is presented, focusing on research regarding the relationship between diversity and race. The article also considers how perceptions of race and racism have been manifested across sectors and in various countries. Based upon the fact that diversity and race have been equated, the discussion focuses on the extent to which this relationship is connected to the limited progress associated with diversity goals.

Research related to race, diversity, and affirmative action indicate both the complexity of the concepts among scientists, social scientists, and members of the general public, as well as the biases reflected in the viewpoints, often manifested in public policy. The research among communication scholars also indicates a predisposition to avoiding communication about difficult topics, such as race and racism, reflective in the use of more benign terminology, such as diversity.

While diversity research continues to be necessary in the profession, going beyond that which documents the levels of under‐representation, there is also the need for further consideration of the applicability of research beyond the LIS profession. In this regard, the understanding of research related to diversity, race, and affirmative action, and the relationship among the three provides the basis for further research in LIS and a more informed approach in addressing diversity issues in the profession.

The primary focus of the discussion of the paper is that of the nature of diversity, race and racism, as defined in the context of the USA. However, research related to race, racial classifications and hierarchies, and diversity in other parts of North America, Australia, Europe, and Africa are considered to a limited extent as well.