given showed how simplistic and even dangerous some of these analyses were. I feltjustified, by these findings, in not teaching my social work students how to assess attachment.I have always felt attachment assessments can be very misleading if undertaken by theinexperienced.

The final chapters trace the children’s placement careers. The story here is depressinglyfamiliar and I had to remind myself that we were reading of children in Australia, not UK.The author uses regression analysis to try and predict the overall length of time a child willspend in care. Although the models are interesting they do not really tell us anything new.Children are less likely to return home if they are under a Court Order, if they have alreadyhad three or more placements, if their parents are living in public accommodations/councilhousing, if they have behavioral problems, if they have been in care for more than 2 years.

As a whole, this study illustrates yet again how difficult it is to “rescue” children to a betterquality of life. The author’s conclusion is depressingly familiar: “Children in care are adeprived group in our society. Bureaucratic administration and judicial constraints, scarcityof resources, excessive pressures on workers all conspire to result in a system of poor welfarefor poor children. . . the quality of children’s lives is best enhanced through human services. . . that incorporate comprehensive economic, health, nutritional, educational, and recre-ational services that support families.”

Would I buy this book? As all Avebury/Ashgate books, they do not come cheap. Yes, forthe early chapters; yes, because it comes from Australia; but no because the findings do nottell us much that is new; and no because the policy recommendations seemed almost datedin 2000.

Ann BuchananDepartment of Social Policy and Social Work

University of OxfordBennett House Wellington Square

Oxford OX1 2ER UKPII: S0145-2134(00)00235-0

Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention and Treatment ProgramsRosemary Chalk and Patricia King (Eds.); National Academy Press, Washington, DC,1998, $39.95.

“Violence in Families” provides a review of outcome studies for a variety of interventionsaimed at reducing the incidence or sequelae of family violence. It is a product of theCommittee on the Assessment of Family Violence Interventions that was established by theBoard on Children, Youth, and Families of the Commission on Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education of the National Research Council (NRC) and the Institute ofMedicine. It builds on earlier NRC publications that review more basic research on theprevalence and dynamics of various forms of family violence.

One of the primary strengths of the book is its analytical review of the shortcomings of

320 Book Reviews / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 313–322

current outcome research. The authors are straightforward about discussing common limi-tations such as the lack of specificity in determining the effective components of existinginterventions, the lack of information on the degree to which programs are implementedaccording to their original design, and the effects of other services and even social move-ments on the outcomes of participants. They also discuss at length the absence of goodexperimental research that includes some form of control group.

The book also offers good, brief summaries of the major intervention and preventionprograms that address some form of family violence. One could identify basic references foralmost any type of program that is currently in use. The chapter on Health Care Interventionsis particularly strong. By including programs that are aimed at child abuse, domesticviolence, and elder abuse all in the same book, “Violence in Families” also helps to addressthe fragmentation of family violence research and intervention.

Despite these strengths, “Violence in Families” suffers from a restrictiveness of scope.The authors reviewed more than 2,000 publications, but limit their discussion almost entirelyto 114 studies that included a comparison group. This reduces the database for someinterventions to zero studies and most to only a handful. Obviously, firm conclusions cannotbe made about the worth of an intervention based on two or three studies. While it isadmirable that the reviewers do not overstate the evidence, the lack of conclusions leads oneto question the value of this approach to the literature at this time. The reviewers acknowl-edge the many challenges of experimental outcome research, such as the ethics of withhold-ing treatment from a control group, assessing the effects of services provided outside thestudy, and under funded program implementations. Given these concerns, experimental orquasi-experimental research is not always feasible or appropriate, and perhaps more could besaid about other data on programs.

Although the review focuses on 114 articles, some of their recommendations appear toderive from other information. For example, Recommendation #1 (of only six for 45different classes of family violence programs) says that states should refrain from imple-menting mandatory reporting laws for domestic violence in the absence of data demonstrat-ing their effectiveness. While many readers, including this one, might be sympathetic to theirposition, it is not clear why that intervention is singled out as one that should be stoppedwhen many other interventions also have little supporting data, including mandatory report-ing laws for child and elder abuse. No study has evaluated any type of mandatory reporting,but it is only mandatory reporting of domestic violence that they wish to stop. Presumably,other factors enter into this and other recommendations, but these are not discussed.

Many areas would have benefited from more in-depth discussion. The brevity of discus-sion is surprising given the book-length format. For example, less than a page is devoted to14 evaluations of Family Preservation programs, which is one of the best-researchedinterventions. Far too much room is given to tables that briefly describe studies but provideno synthesis or analysis of the results.

The intended audience for the book is also unclear. Chapter 3 will be of interest only tosomeone who has not had a course in research methods. Yet much of the book would be achallenging read for someone not familiar with family violence research or a closely-relatedfield, and their desire to promote sophisticated, case-control, multivariate outcome studies offamily violence interventions speaks to a rather specialized audience. Given these consid-

321Book Reviews / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 313–322

erations, this book might be most useful for researchers in closely related fields, or for familyviolence researchers who have thus far limited their work to one form of victimization andare interested in an overview of interventions for other forms.

Sherry L. HambyCrimes Against Children Research Center126 Horton, University of New Hampshire

Durham, NH 03824, USAPII: S0145-2134(00)00233-7

322 Book Reviews / Child Abuse & Neglect 25 (2001) 313–322