EFFICACY OF FAMILY THERAPY FOR DRUG ABUSE: PROMISING BUT NOT DEFINITIVE

Drug abuse is an enormous public health problem with consequences not only for individuals using drugs but also for families, communities, and society. Moreover, research evidence and clinical experience agree that drug abuse is one of the more difficult problems to treat. Despite considerable research on the connection between family factors and drug use, and the existence of family therapy models for drug abuse, comparatively few controlled efficacy studies have been conducted. This article presents a critical review of controlled treatment outcome research in the area of family therapy for drug abuse in both adults and adolescents. A number of studies from different clinical research groups demonstrate that different versions of family intevention can engage and retain drug users and their families in treatment, significantly reduce drug use and other related problem behaviors, and enhace particular domains of prosocial functioning. Moreover, a smaller number of comparative efficacy studies have shown family therapy to be more effective than nonfamily therapies. Family therapy of adolescent drug abuse is more developed at present than family therapy of adult drug abuse. Although the results of the reviewed studies are promising, a blanket confirmation of family therapy's efficacy for drug abuse cannot be made at this time because of the relatively small number of studies and the noted methodological limitations of the studies published to date. Nonetheless, substantial progress in this clinical research area has occurred, and if research and funding support continue or can expand, significant breakthroughs in the treamtment of drug abuse with family-based treatments are possible.     

Transfer pricing—A survey using discriminant analysis

There is a considerable literature on transfer pricing. One strand of this literature is empirical and is concerned with the extent to which companies use the various transfer pricing methods. The other strand is strongly normative being directed to devising transfer pricing methods and defining the circumstances under which it is appropriate to use them. This study attempts to address both these questions by using discriminant analysis methods to predict which approach a company will use to determine transfer prices given its weightings of certain ‘determinants’ which theory suggests should be relevant to the decision. Domestic and international transfer pricing are considered separately. Discriminant analysis is shown to be quite successful in predicting the transfer pricing systems adopted by the UK companies surveyed.     

The Perceived Threat of Nuclear War, Salience, and Open Questions

The most serious problem facing the United States, accordingto many scientific and political leaders, is the threat of nuclearwar. Yet the standard survey question on the most importantproblem facing the country has often shown little public concurrencewith this assumption. Our article uses experimentation in nationalsamples to test whether this difference can be traced to limitationsin either the form or the wording of the standard question.The results indicate that there are some important systematicdifferences between open and closed versions of the question,and also differences that result from reference to the nationas distinct from the world, but neither type of difference accountsfor the infrequent mention of nuclear war on the standard question.Instead, other evidence indicates that most Americans believethat nuclear war is not going to happen at all, or that if itdoes happen it will be too far in the distant future to be ofpressing concern to them personally.     

George Herbert Mead and Karl Marx: Exploring Consciousness and Community*

Current discussions within symbolic interaction point to a concern with (a) returning to Mead's original insights, (b) extending Meadian thought beyond the micro realm, and (c) linking Mead's ideas to constructive social action. These concerns complement an effort within contemporary Marxist literature to provide a systematic social psychology for understanding new forms of domination in capitalist society. In exploring the philosophical foundations of Mead and Marx, the authors identify fundamental similarities in their approaches to the relation between consciousness and community. The authors criticize the current attempts to synthesize Marx and Freud and call for a more thoroughly sociological approach. A Meadian reading of Marx, unlike the Marx-Freud synthesis, is consistent with sociological assumptions and points to the practical possibility of transformative social change through the interpersonal act.     

Fathers in child welfare: caseworkers' perspectives

Five focus groups substantially agreed about the lack of paternal participation in child welfare services and the reasons for low paternal involvement. The groups had considerable disagreement about whether child welfare professionals should address this issue. Some caseworkers believed that all fathers and mothers should be treated identically with respect to services to be offered and time frames for services; other caseworkers thought that the special circumstances of some fathers, such as lack of child care experience, called for service approaches that differ from those for mothers. Another disagreement was whether more fathers would be more involved if services were gender sensitive, that is, if agencies provided male caseworkers for fathers and had father-only services. Much of the debate focused on pragmatic considerations (would gender-sensitive services improve paternal participation and outcomes?), although some participants were concerned about equity (would such services give fathers an advantage in disputed custody cases?).     

Cost containment in complex social security systems: The limitations of targeting

Two aspects of the structure of existing social security systems limit the scope for containing costs by increasing targeting: the insurance principle, and the use of category membership to establish eligibility for benefits. The first aspect is antithetical to targeting because the most needy people are also the most likely to fail to establish an adequate contributions record. Some countries appear committed to maintaining the insurance principle because it is part of the fabric of the relationship between employers, employees and the State. The second aspect can be seen as an effective way of identifying groups whose income is likely to fall short of their needs. However, the primary function of category definition is to establish the legitimacy of claims—to examine why a shortfall of income in relation to needs has arisen, what personal responsibility the claimant bears, and what alternative mechanisms might be available. Several countries have revised category definitions in response to issues about the motivation and "deservingness" of claimants. We designate as "pseudo-targeting" reforms of this type, which are not likely to result in the allocation of a higher share of social expenditure to the worst-off. The scope for increasing targeting in existing systems is very restricted, reflecting the limitations of the concept. Non-categorical social assistance is the archetypal targeted benefit, and it has serious limitations. The obstacles to targeting are integral to the legitimation of social security. If targeting reforms undermine this legitimating structure, they risk undermining the claim on resources exercised by the social security system.     

Attitudes Toward Managing Hazardous Waste: What Should Be Cleaned Up and Who Should Pay for It?

Hazardous waste policy in the United States uses a liability-based approach, including strict, retroactive, and joint and several liability. To assess attitudes toward these basic principles of liability, and toward priorities for clean-up of wastes, a questionnaire was mailed to legislators, judges, executives of oil and chemical companies, environmentalists, and economists. The questionnaire consisted of abstract, simplified cases, which contrasted basic principles rather than dealing with real-world scenarios. Subjects were asked how they would allocate clean-up costs between companies and government as a function of such factors as adherence to standards, adoption of best available technology (BAT), and influence of penalties on future behavior. Most subjects felt that, if the company followed government standards or used the best available technology (BAT), it should pay for only a portion of the clean-up cost, with the government paying the rest. In general, responses did not support the principles underlying current law–strict, retroactive, and joint-and-several liability. Most subjects were more interested in polluters paying for damages than in deterrence or future benefit–even to the extent that they would have "harmless" waste sites cleaned up. A bias was found toward complete clean-up of some sites, or "zero risk." Different groups of subjects gave similar answers, although more committed environmentalists were more willing to make companies pay and to clean up waste regardless of the cost.