Lee J. Cary, ed., Community Development As a Process, Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri Press, 1970, 213 pages. Reading this deceptively diminutive book, I found I had to come to grips not with one writer but seven. Each one, moreover, draws on his bibliographical colleagues for reinforcements. Without counting footnotes, my guess is that the reader in effect copes with well above 100 author or agency inputs about communities, their development and constraints thereto.From this perspective, the book's buyer gets his money's worth and more. To give you the merest sketch .of these cognitive riches, the writers range from old community development familiars and the editor himself (who contributes a chapter, besides the continuity). The discourses run from the concept and context of Community Development (fine for historical background and theoretical overview) through the sociological and psychological implications-as well as the procedural flow involved in community development-and on to two distinct roles in the process: the citizen and the community development agent. Yet I can't bring myself to recommend without reservation this solidly packed little volume. While I found passages which evoked a kindred note or the excitement of a fresh idea, I also came upon drawbacks and disquieting chords.For a few of the former, it was satisfying to find: # Warren pitting the developmental process against &dquo;the great change&dquo; sweeping the planet. He thereby fosters cautionary considerations about how far and fast this process can move against ever enlarging bureaucracies and societal forces. He snatches Community Development, as it were, out of the romantic age and sets it down in our urban, complex, contemporary time.# Several writers stressing the reality that intentional community change often creates intergroup conflict. All components of a community (a locality or an interest grouping) usually do not agree on specific ends or means; social action, therefore, is not velvet soothing, but sand-

It is now recognized that not all self-injurious behavior is suicidal, particularly within correctional settings. This class of behaviors is referred to by some authors as deliberate self-harm. The purpose of the present study was to investigate variables that have been described as distinguishing deliberate self-harm from other types of self-injurious behavior. The result suggested that (1) 50% of all prison inmates who injured themselves reported manipulation as their goal; (2) contrary to previous research results, deliberate self-harmers were older than suicidal subjects; (3) self-injurious subjects did not receive differential treatment with regard to length of hospitalization; (4) deliberate self-harmers were more frequently diagnosed as having a borderline personality disorder; (5) deliberate self-harmers more frequently had a history of self-injury than suicidal subjects; and (6) the type of self-injury, as defined, failed to distinguish deliberate self-harmers from others self-injurious subjects.

No abstract

Results: The main issues raised by the respondents included the following:• The interpretation of definitions introduced in the new model for the mass casualty preparedness model and the terrorist attack approach differed among respondents. • All respondents supported the six points of departure in the CRBN and terrorist attack approach. • Awareness of optimal personal safety ('safety first principle') specific for CBRN and terrorism is lacking. • Respondents reported that several rescue workers did not feel competent to perform specific newly introduced tasks, such as the command and control of the first ambulance arriving at the scene and the coordination task of emergency transport by the dispatch nurse. • Current regional differences in preparedness may complicate interregional collaboration.Discussion: As the approach is new and experience is primarily based on the outcome of exercises, the systematic planning and evaluation of exercises, and sharing of opinions and knowledge, as a result, is important to ensure an unambiguous approach in a real situation.Introduction: Hospitals and the healthcare sector suffer from chronic work overload and personnel shortages in many nations. This poses strong incentives to rationalize all activities not directly related to care, such as the preparations for disasters and other hazards. One such rationalization is to turn from a rulebased to a risk-based approach. However, the risk landscape of hospitals and the relationship to the risk landscape of public authorities are ill-defined. Health Care Coalitions (HCCs) are in a good position to fill this gap and serve as an intermediary. We developed a scheme for defining the risk landscape of HCCs and its members and performed a prioritization process. Aim: Objectives were to develop a knowledge platform of hospitals on risk assessment, promote integrated risk management by the HCC and its members, and determine the limiting (response) state for all relevant hazards. Methods: We put maximum effort in limiting the time consumption for hospitals and align with the regular practices in hospitals for business continuity management. Strong points included the cooperation with the public authorities for safety and for health, a stepwise development of risk awareness and stepwise guidance for the assessment by hospitals, and formalization of the scenario-selection and choice of priorities by the HCC board.Results: A gross list of (>230) safety hazards was produced along with a netlist of (>80) hazards relevant to health care.In addition, an impact-scale for the continuity of care serving as a measurement stick for all health care sectors was developed. Risk diagrams were developed to present the results in a simple and clear format. Discussion: The HCC risk landscape served its purpose in improving the mutual understanding with the public authorities. The formal assessment provides a solid basis for operational planning, education, training, and future investments.

No abstract