In his critique, Huxley focuses on the discussion of outcomes and their measurement or, rather, the failure to grasp the concepts of measurement. Huxley views this failure as stemming from a defensive position, possibly adopted in anticipation of resistance by social workers to using measures in their assessments. Huxley argues that the rejection of standardized measures is based on incompatible arguments. Huxley deals critically with a number of additional arguments used to reject standard measures. These arguments revolved around the issue of "outcomes" and ways of choosing a criterion against which to assess them. The report critiqued by Huxley rejected case/control comparative designs because of difficulties in matching children under care and comparison children. It also rejected the use of baseline measures. The author of the current article notes that Huxley was right to review the initiative as it was presented in the report; however, Huxley's review is both partial -- in failing to present the scheme adequately -- and wrong in some of its conclusions. His view that there are standardized measures that would meet the needs of the initiative is mistaken. This conclusion is drawn not only from the arguments presented in this article, but also from the extent of international interest in the assessment and action records. This article also discusses developments subsequent to the report and the use of the forms for research. 4 references