Last updated: 2008 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

 Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Group Homes 

A group home is a community-based, long-term facility in which juveniles are allowed extensive 

contact with the community, such as attending school or holding a job. Group homes of many different 

kinds gained popularity as an intervention for juvenile offenders ever since Father Flanagan established 

his famous Boys Town in 1917. Group homes (which include halfway houses) are used by a number of 

youth-related public welfare agencies, including juvenile justice, child welfare, and mental health (Ryan 

et al. 2008). Each home typically serves 5 to 15 clients, who are placed there as result of a court order or 

through interactions with public welfare agencies. Group homes are considered less restrictive than 

juvenile detention centers but more restrictive than family foster care placements. They are generally 

staff-secured as opposed to locked facilities, and there are generally fewer restraints on how youth can 

interact with the community (Curtis, Alexander, and Lunghofer 2001). 

Lack of a Standard Definition 

Group homes typically fall under the category of residential group care. Although there are differences 

between group homes and other types of residential care (such as residential treatment centers), the 

research literature provides few clear differentiations between the different types of placements used 

for juveniles and at-risk youth (Curtis, Alexander, and Lunghofer 2001). In the 2008 Juvenile Residential 

Facilities Census, over 100 facilities self-identified as both residential treatment centers and group 

homes (the group home/residential treatment center combination was the most common facility type 

combination; [Hockenberry, Sickmund, and Sladky 2011]).A lack of standardized definitions and the 

variability in program characteristics makes it problematic when trying to generalize findings from 

evaluation research. 

Target Population 

Youth may be placed in a group for a variety of reasons, including parental abuse or neglect, behavioral 

problems, and delinquent behavior. Youth in group homes are likely to be older (15–17 years old), male, 

minority, have a range of emotional/behavioral issues, and have had prior involvement with the 

juvenile justice system (Ryan et al. 2008). 

Characteristics of Group Homes 

The Juvenile Residential Facility Census, a biennial survey conducted by the Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), found that more than 660 facilities identified themselves as 

group homes. Group homes constituted 27 percent of all reporting facilities and held 10 percent of 

juvenile offenders in placement on the census date (Hockenberry, Sickmund, and Sladky 2011). 

Group homes and residential treatment centers (RTCs) outnumbered all other types of facilities 

included on the survey (though this finding may be misleading, as residential facilities are asked to 

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2008. “Group Homes.” Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Group_Homes.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or 

opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of 

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

self-report which type of facility they are and the survey does not provide definitions to differentiate 

between the various facility types listed, including RTCs, detention centers, training schools, group 

homes, ranch/wilderness camps, boot camps, reception or diagnostic centers, and runaway and 

homeless shelters).

The number of residents held in facilities that self-identified as group homes varied. Most (64 percent) 

reported currently holding 10 or fewer residents, and 31 reported currently holding 11 to 50 residents 

in the facility. About one-third of group homes reported being at their standard bed capacity; less than 

1 percent reported being over capacity of their standard beds. Security features also varied across group 

homes. Thirteen percent reported using one or more confinement features, such as locked doors or 

gates, to restrict youth. Among group homes, 1 in 5 reported they had locked doors or gates to confine 

youth (Hockenberry, Sickmund, and Sladky 2011). 

The dominant treatment approach being used in therapeutic group homes today is the Teaching Family 

Model, which was developed at the University of Kansas in the 1960s and replicated at Boys Town in 

the early 1970s (Phillips et al. 1974). This model relies heavily on structural behavior interventions and 

highly trained staff. Other group homes rely more on individual psychotherapy and group interaction 

(Satcher 1999). 

Group homes generally do not provide academic instruction, but rather youth will continue to attend 

public schools during placement. The homes may have one set of “house parents” or a rotating staff. 

Some therapeutic or treatment group homes also employ specially trained staff to assist youth with 

emotional and behavioral difficulties. Although youth are supervised by staff 24 hours a day, staff 

members are usually not residents of the home.

Outcome Evidence

Studies suggest that adolescents placed in therapeutic group homes do experience positive effects on 

their behavior while they are in homes, but there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that treatment 

outcomes are sustained over time (Kirigin et al. 1982). A 1990 study by Chamerlain compared 

delinquent youth in specialized foster care to youth placed in group care. At the 2-year follow up, he 

found that more youth in group care had been reincarcerated. A recent study by Ryan and colleagues 

(2008) used propensity score matching to examine the relationship between group home placements in 

the child welfare system and the risk of delinquency. The results showed that the relative risk of 

delinquency for youth with at least one group home placement was almost 2 1⁄2 times greater compared 

with youth in foster care settings.

Overall, there is little research to support the overall effectiveness of group homes, and the research 

available does have several limitations. One explanation for the disappointing long-term outcomes of 

therapeutic group homes may be the psychological profiles of their clients. Group homes are frequently 

seen as the “last stop” before secure detention, and the youth referred to them often suffer from serious 

mental or behavioral problems that have prevented successful placement in foster care (Satcher 1999). 

To increase the likelihood of long-term positive effects, it is important for group homes to be seen as 

only one step in a continuum of care—a continuum that emphasizes sustained treatment after discharge 

from the home (Lipsey and Howell 2004). 

In addition, many researchers believe that small group settings that encourage fraternization among 

delinquents may actually promote disruptive and deviant behavior (Dishion et al. 1996). Association 

with deviant peers within a group home setting could increase antisocial attitudes and problem 

behaviors, leading to a variety of negative outcomes for youth through adolescence and into adulthood. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

Additional rigorous research is needed to determine the effectiveness of group homes to address 

problem behaviors of youth and reduce risks of delinquency, and the possible deleterious effects of 

placement with deviant peers.

References

Chamberlain, P. 1990. “Comparative Evaluation of Specialized Foster Care for Seriously Delinquent 

Youths: A First Step.” Community Alternatives 2:21–36.

Curtis, Patrick A., Gina Alexander, and Lisa A. Lunghofer. 2001. “A Literature Review Comparing the 

Outcomes of Residential Group Care and Therapeutic Foster Care.” Child and Adolescent Social 

Work Journal 18(5):377–92.

Dishion, T.J.; K.M. Spracklen; D.W. Andrews; and G.R. Patterson. 1996. “Deviancy in Training in Male 

Adolescent Friendships.” Behavior Therapy 27(3):327–90.

Hockenberry, Sarah, Melissa Sickmund, and Anthony Sladky. 2011. Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 

2008: Selected Findings. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Howell, James C., and Lipsey, Mark W. 2004. “Promising Sanctions Programs in a Graduated 

System.” Juvenile Sanctions Center Training and Technical Assistance Bulletin 1(4): 1–7. 

Washington, D.C.: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Howell, James C. 1998. “New Approaches to Juvenile Crime: The Promise of Graduated Sanctions in 

the Juvenile Justice System.” Corrections Compendium 23(9):1–25.

Kirigin, Kathryn A.; Curtis J. Braukmann; Jay D. Atwater; and Montrose M. Wolf. 1982. “Evaluation 

of Teaching-Family (Achievement Place) Group Homes for Juvenile Offenders.” Journal of 

Applied Behavior Analysis 15(1):1–16.

Phillips, E. L.; E. A. Phillips; D.L. Fixsen; and M. M. Wolf. 1974. The Teaching Family Handbook. 

Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas Printing Service.

Rosenthal, J.; J.K. Motz; D.A. Edmonson; and V. Groze. 1991. “Descriptive Study of Abuse and 

Neglect in Out-of-Home Placement.” Child Abuse and Neglect 15(3):249–269.

Ryan, Joseph P., Jane Marie Marshall, Denise Herz, and Pedro M. Hernandez. 2008. “Juvenile 

Delinquency in Child Welfare: Investigating Group Home Effects.” Children and Youth Services 

Review, doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.004.

Satcher, David. 1999. Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Public 

Health Service.