Can Libraries be Liberatory? Compassionate Crisis Intervention In the Public Library- a Pilot Study

Background and Purpose:
Libraries face increasing challenges related to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness (Provence, 2023; Wahler, 2021). While staff want to support vulnerable patrons, many feel unprepared (Lee et al., 2022; Robinson, 2019). When crises escalate, patrons risk being banned or (re)involved in the carceral system, compounding harm to community members (Provence, 2023). To address this, a trauma-informed crisis de-escalation intervention, Compassionate Crisis Intervention (CCI), was developed and piloted for library and security staff in 2024. CCI is currently offered in libraries in NY and Michigan, with ongoing evaluation of the intervention’s effect on staff preparedness and the implementation strategies used to shift policies, practices, and organizational culture. The primary goal is to equip librarians and security staff with the knowledge and skills to use TI de-escalation with vulnerable patrons and reduce harm from police involvement. CCI is a multi-session training for librarians and security staff. Participants attend 90-120-minute workshops over several weeks, covering trauma-informed (TI) principles and de-escalation skills. Sessions are led by a social worker with extensive library experience. Each session includes TI education, discussions on integrating practices into library policies, role-plays, and reflection.

Methods:
This study used mixed-methods formative evaluation with IRB approval. Fifteen participants (librarians, administrators, and security staff) from a suburban New York library and an urban Michigan library completed pre- and post-intervention (n=14) surveys assessing knowledge of trauma-informed care, de-escalation, role clarity, and confidence. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation. Semi-structured interviews (n=4), open-ended survey responses (n=5), and library incident logs (two months before and after) were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results:

Knowledge increased across all four domains following the intervention, with statistically significant increases in de-escalation skills, confidence, and role clarity. TI knowledge increased from M = 69 to M = 73 (SD = 9.23), t(df) = 13, p > .05. De-escalation scores rose from M = 33 to M = 40 (SD = 7.76), t(df) = 13, p = 0.0005. Confidence increased from M = 15 to M = 21 (SD = 7.1), t(df) = 13, p = .0008, and role clarity improved from M = 16 to M = 22 (SD = 7.79), t(df) = 13, p = .013.

The qualitative thematic analysis, consisting of individual interviews, revealed that participating in the intervention helped staff develop a more nuanced way to distinguish a TI-related from disruptive behavior, encouraged staff to work with their colleagues when responding, and strengthened their understanding of how broader structural contexts affect vulnerable patrons, increased their empathy, and reduced their perceived need for police during crises. Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that the intervention influenced staff practices and understanding of security’s role in responding to patron crises.

Conclusions and Implications:

Pilot findings suggest that CCI may be an effective intervention for increasing librarians’ and security staff’s preparedness to respond to vulnerable patrons in crisis, thereby reducing the risk of systemic harm linked to the criminal legal system. Future studies should assess the intervention’s feasibility and scalability across diverse library settings.