Defining Group Care Programs: An Index of Reporting Standards

Abstract

Group care programs, while ubiquitous, are not clearly differentiated despite differences in the population served, size, auspices, and program activities, to name a few. Words like group care, residential care and residential treatment are often used interchangeably in policy, research and practice. This paper introduces reporting standards that can be used to promote the availability of descriptive information and build towards a nomenclature and classification system that reflects the variety within the service delivery system. These reporting standards were developed and vetted with input from several national group care scholars. An index of reporting standards has implications for state systems, accreditation and licensing groups, practitioners and researchers.

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

“…They differ in size, location, target population, level of restrictiveness, function, program structure, and treatment services and implementation (Lee & Barth, 2011). Furthermore, youth served in group care settings differ on various characteristics, including clinical and trauma histories (e.g., psychiatric diagnoses, substance abuse, maltreatment history), service utilization (e.g., psychotropic medication), and number of placements (Chow, Mettrick, Stephan, & Von Waldner, 2014; Duppong Hurley et al, 2009; Pumariega, Johnson, & Sheridan, 1995; Seifert, Farmer, Wagner, Maultsby, & Burns, 2015).…”

Who Goes Where? Exploring Factors Related to Placement Among Group Homes

“…In work to date, the focus on “group residential settings” has usually been an amorphous categorization, based on very general categorizations and definitions. However, a cursory examination of the field suggests that group residential facilities vary significantly on a wide range of indicators and serve a wide array of youth (Ireys, Achman, & Takyi, 2006; Lee & Barth, 2011; Pavkov, Negash, Lourie, & Hug, 2010). This article examines variations in types of youth served by different group homes in the same geographic regions.…”

“…Within the literature on group homes, there are hints about what would constitute “promising practice” (James, 2011; Lee & Barth, 2011; Lee et al, 2011). The model of group home care with, perhaps, the most substantial empirical support is the teaching family model (TFM; Fixsen & Blase, 2003; Phillips, Phillips, Fixsen, & Wolf, 1974; Wolf, Kirigin, Fixsen, Blase, & Braukmann, 1995; Wolf et al, 1976).…”

Conceptualising a Proposed Support Strategy for Sexually Abused Boys in Middle Childhood

“…The behaviour of learners referred to these clinic schools is mainly characterised by rebelliousness, hyperactivity, disobedience and aggression (Thomas, 2010). The objective of a clinic school is to be a short-term and interim substitute educational setting for these learners (Lee & Barth, 2011;Lehr, Soon Tan & Ysseldyke, 2009). Their problem behaviour needs to be addressed in order for them to be integrated into the mainstream educational setting (Flick, 2011) and to equip them to return to a less restrictive environment as soon as possible (Ennis, Jolivette, Swoszowski & Johnson, 2012;Simonsen et al, 2010).…”