This is a most unusual book on many levels. It is a remarkable look at the data used in a previous study, but includes some empirical research and also an excellent updating of the policies underlining residential care. And, more important, it is a good read – unlike many social policy books. With a clear introduction to each chapter and neat conclusions, it is a model that can be recommended to all authors.

Part 1 gives the context of the research. The aim of this was, first, to examine changes in residential care and its role; second, to make a contribution to the discussions surrounding studies that revisit previous ones and the reuse of archived data; third, to contribute to the understanding of involving older people in research (nearly one hundred older people were involved in helping trace the homes). The starting point of this study was an examination of Peter Townsend's influential national survey of residential care for older people in England and Wales ‘The Last Refuge’. Summarising his findings, Julia Johnson and her co-authors say ‘Although Townsend judged a majority of homes visited to be of poor quality, particularly the local authority homes and the larger homes; some were providing a particularly high standard of care, most notably those provided by the voluntary sector. Hence his research uncovered gross inequalities in the quality and quantity of provision for people with the same needs. Townsend also found that about half of all residents were not physically or mentally incapacitated and that people were being admitted to residential care as much for social as physical reasons’ (p. 9). It was a damming account of residential care and very influential for policy makers and researchers.

The second chapter is an admirable summary (supplemented by notes at the end of the book) of the social, policy and research background to residential care from the 1950s to the current time. The third describes the design of the study, which involved tracing the homes that Townsend studied and seeing what has happened to them.

Part 11 contains the empirical part of their research ‘Revisiting the Last Refuge’. It first describes what happened to the homes which Townsend studied. It then attempts to compare and contrast, as far as was possible, the differences between the residents and staff, the living environment, the daily lives and the quality of care in both studies. In this, Townsend's tools for measuring ‘incapacity for self care’ and a tool for quality assurance for residential care are examined and updated.

Part 111 is the conclusions. The thousand dollar question, which the authors assume the reader wants to know, is: Have conditions improved in the last forty years? A strict comparison between the homes in the two studies is not possible, as the profile of the residents has changed as has the social environment. However, the study shows that, by Townsend's measures, substantial improvements have taken place in the standard of care then and in the follow up study. This is particularly the case for social provision and physical facilities. However, this may have been achieved at the cost of regimes which concentrate on risk and its consequences. There are also still large inequalities. What remains from both studies is the stigmatisation of residential care and the need to seek for alternatives. Townsend's conclusion (Townsend, Reference Townsend1964, p. 222) was that ‘communal Homes of the kind which exist in England and Wales today, do not adequately meet the physical psychological and social needs of the elderly people living in them, and that alternative services and living arrangements should quickly take their place’. The authors of Residential Care Transformed’ say that ‘the negative image of residential care is perhaps the most striking continuity of all’. Townsend also foresightedly pointed to the value of sheltered housing and improved domiciliary services. Such priorities, though in the more sophisticated form of extra care housing and direct payments and individual budgets, are currently being pursued in policy.

More than anything this book is a tribute to Peter Townsend himself. From the obviously courteous way in which he treated the researchers to the meticulous documenting of his records (on which this book was written) his scholarship shines through. It is only sad that he did not live to see the book published. Courteous to the end, he emailed the researchers just before the book went to the printers adding some helpful comments. At almost the same time, he emailed me when we had an exchange of comments about older professors. He said ‘we must just keep going’. Sadly, he did not.

Clearly written, and unlike many books written by more than one author, it is difficult to know who wrote which part. It is a seamless account with none of the usual co-authored attempts to break the chapters down into ones that are specific to one particular author. Elegantly written it is a pleasure to read.

With a lengthy index and references, the book has three appendices that illustrate the care that the authors have taken over this study. The first one lists all the older researchers, the second gives examples of tracing study reports produced by the volunteer researchers, the third presents extracts from four diaries: two male and two female residents, two written in 1958–9 and two in 2006, Appendix four details the 2005–06 quality measure.

An expensive but highly recommended book.