Hubbry Logo
Group homeGroup homeMain
Open search
Group home
Community hub
Group home
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Group home
Group home
Group home
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
For the hip-hop duo, see Group Home.
Part of a series on
Housing
Types

Ownership

Issues
Homelessness
Other

A group home, congregate living facility, care home (the latter especially in British English and Australian English), adult family home, etc., is a structured and supervised residence model that provides assisted living as well as medical care for those with complex health needs. Traditionally, the model has been used for children or young people who cannot live with their families or afford their own homes, people with chronic disabilities who may be adults or seniors, or people with dementia and related aged illnesses. Typically, there are no more than six residents, and there is at least one trained caregiver there 24 hours a day.[1] In some early "model programs", a house manager, night manager, weekend activity coordinator, and four part-time skill teachers were reported.[2] Originally, the term group home referred to homes of 8 to 16 individuals, which was a state-mandated size during deinstitutionalization.[3] Residential nursing facilities, also included in this article, may be as large as 100 individuals in 2015, which is no longer the case in fields such as intellectual and developmental disabilities.[4] Depending on the severity of the condition requiring one to need to live in a group home, some clients are able to attend day programs and most clients are able to live normal lifestyles.

Facilities

[edit]

Because group homes are usually ordinary suburban houses, often tract housing, modified for handicap access and care, the bathrooms in homes are typically shared. In bigger houses, there is typically a group therapy room.

The group homes highlighted in news articles in the late 1970s and 1980s,[5] and by the late 2000s, have been cited internationally as a symbol or emblem of the community movement. Group homes were opened in local communities, often with site selection hearings, by state government and non-profit organizations including the international in a broader array, spectrum, continuum, or services systems plan for residential community services or Long-Term Services and Supports (LTSS).

Another context in which the expression "group home" is used is referring to residential child care communities and similar organizations, providing residential services as part of the foster care system. There is a considerable variety of different models, sizes and kinds of organizations caring for children and youth who cannot stay with their birth families. Residents of group homes are responsible for their own conduct and are bound by an agreement to follow an expected list of house rules. Any disorderly conduct by group home residents, including fighting with other residents, damaging group home property, or another resident's personal property, or an inability to follow house rules or follow instructions from group home staff members can lead to a resident being kicked out of the group home.[6]

Types and models

[edit]

A group home in a local community is what the government and universities term a "small group home". Group homes always have trained personnel, and administration located both for the home and outside the home at office locations. Larger homes often are termed residential facilities, as are campuses with homes located throughout a campus structure.

K.C. Lakin of the University of Minnesota, a deinstitutionalization researcher, has indicated that a taxonomy of residential facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities includes program model, size and operator, and facilities also then vary by disability and age, among other primary characteristics. Prior residential facility classifications were described by Scheerenberger until the modern day classification by David Braddock on a state-by-state basis which includes individuals in residential settings of six or fewer, one categorical group.[7][8] In 2014, models of residential services in intellectual disabilities include new categories of supported living, personal assistance services, individual and family support, and supported employment.

Residents and services

[edit]

Residents of group homes usually have a disability, such as autism, intellectual disability, chronic or long-term mental/psychiatric disorder, or physical or multiple disabilities because those are the non-profit and state-regional organizations which began and operated the homes. Some group homes were funded as transitional homes to prepare for independent living (in an apartment or return to family or marriage and employment), and others were viewed as permanent community homes. Society may prevent people with significant needs from living in local communities with social acceptance key to community development. The residents sometimes need continual or supported assistance in order to complete daily tasks, such as taking medication or bathing, making dinners, having conversations, making appointments, and getting to work or an adult daycare service.

Group homes were revolutionary in that they offered individuals life opportunities to learn to cook and prepare meals (e.g., individuals with severe and even profound disabilities), budget their personal allowance, select photos for their room or album, meet neighbors and "carry out civic duties", go grocery shopping, eat in restaurants, make emergency calls or inquiries, and exercise regularly.[9][10][11][12][13]

Some residents may also have behavioral problems that require a better daily routine, medical assessment for possible health care needs (e.g., pituitary problem, medication adjustment), environmental changes (e.g., different roommates), mental health counseling, specialist or physician consultation, or supervision; government may require a finding of involuntary care (i.e. dangerous to themselves or others) which is a hotly contested and disputed arena.[14] Individuals who move from psychiatric hospitals (and intellectual disability institutions) also may need medications reduced, with psychiatric symptoms often only moderately addressed ("modest efficacy") in this manner with known side effects of long-term use. The community living movement has been very successful in the United States and other countries, and is supported in 2015 by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN, 2006).[15][16]

Prior to the 1970s, this function was served by institutions, asylums, poorhouses, and orphanages until long-term services and supports, including group homes were developed in the United States. The primary frameworks in the United States underlying group homes are often termed social and functional competency-based (e.g., community participation, social role valorization, social and community acceptance, self-determination, functional home and community skills) and another, positive behavioral supports (which may be considered overly structured for homes and home life). Positive behavioral supports were developed, in part, to assist with "management problems" of the residential facilities.[17] Group home residents may be found in workplaces, day services, parks and recreation programs, schools, shopping centers, travel locations, and with family, neighbors, community workers, co-workers, schoolmates and friends.

In addition, new laws required that schools serve disabled children (often obfuscated as "special needs" or "exceptional children") adapting school and afterschool programs to meet the needs of the previously excluded population groups.[18] Douglas Biklen in his award-winning "Regular Lives" highlighted 3 schools in Syracuse, New York integrating severely disabled children in conjunction with his new book, Achieving the Complete School: Strategies for Effective Mainstreaming.[19]

Residential treatment facilities

[edit]

People who live in a group home offering support services may be developmentally disabled, recovering from alcohol or drug addiction (e.g., who may have attended a youth drug court hosted by the judicial system), abused or neglected youths, youths with behavioral or emotional problems, and/or youths with criminal records (e.g., a person in need of supervision). Group homes or group facilities may also provide residential treatment for youth for a time-limited period, and then involve return of the youth to the family environment.[20] Similarly, drug, addictions and alcohol programs may be time-limited, and involve residential treatment (e.g., Afrocentric model for 24 women and children, as part of Boston Consortium of Services).[21]

Residential treatment for children with mental health needs

[edit]

Residential treatment centers and other organized mental health care for children with emotional needs, among our highest health and human service efforts, was reported at 440 organizations nationally in 1988, representing 9% of mental health organizations.[22] Residential treatment centers were considered largely inappropriate for many of the children who needed better community support services.[23][24] Restructuring of these systems was proposed to promote better prevention and family support for children in mental health systems [25] similar to international initiatives in "individualized family support program".[26] Residential treatment is one part of an array of community services which include therapeutic foster care, family support, case management, crisis-emergency services, outpatient and day services, and home-based services.[27] During this period, residential treatment was also compared to supported housing, also called supportive housing for its role in comprehensive service system developments, though often for adults who may need or desire services.[28]

Community resources and neighborhoods

[edit]

Group homes have a good community image, and were developed in the intellectual disability and mental health fields as a desirable middle class option located in good neighborhoods after a faulty start in poorer neighborhoods in the United States. Group homes were often built in accordance with principle of normalization (people with disabilities), to blend into neighborhoods, to have access to shopping, banks, and transportation, and sometimes, universal access and design.[29][30] Group homes may be part of residential services "models" offered by a service provider together with apartment programs, and other types of "followalong" services.[31] However, in 2015, the homes and personnel continue to meet the challenges of a changing multicultural society, and changing and norms in areas such as gender expectations.[32]

Halfway houses and intermediate care facilities

[edit]

A group home differs from a halfway house, the latter which is one of the most common terms describing community living opportunities in mental health in the 1970s' medical and psychiatric literatures. Specialized halfway houses, as halfway between the institution and a regular home, may serve individuals with addictions or who may now be convicted of crimes, though very uncommon in the 1970s. Residents are usually encouraged or required to take an active role in the maintenance of the household, such as performing chores or helping to manage a budget. In 1984, New York's state office in intellectual and developmental disabilities described its service provision in 338 group homes serving 3,249 individuals.[33] Some of these homes were certified as intermediate care facilities (ICF-MRs) and must respond to stricter facility-based standards.

Residents may have their own room or share rooms, and share facilities such as laundry, bathroom, kitchen, and common living areas. The opening of group homes in neighborhoods is occasionally opposed by residents due to ableist fears that it will lead to a rise in crime and/or a drop in property values.[34] However, repeated reviews since the 1970s indicate such views are unfounded, and the homes contribute to the neighborhoods. In the late 1970s, local hearings were conducted in states such as New York, and parents of children with disabilities (e.g., Josephine Scro in the Syracuse Post Standard on June 7, 1979), research experts, agency directors (e.g., Guy Caruso of the Onondaga County Arc, now at Temple University) and community-disability planners (late Bernice Schultz, county planner) spoke with community members to respond to their inquiries. The late Josephine Scro later became a director of a new family support agency in Syracuse, New York, to assist other families with children with disabilities with family supports in their own homes and local communities, too.[35][36]

Foster care and family support for children

[edit]

A group home can also refer to family homes in which children and youth of the foster care system are placed, sometimes until foster families are found for them, sometimes for long-term care.[37][38] Homes which are termed group foster care operate under other standards than those termed group homes, including different management systems and departments.

Unrelated children or sibling groups live in a home-like setting with either a set of house parents or a rotating staff of trained caregivers. Specialized therapeutic or treatment group homes are available to meet the needs of children with emotional, intellectual, physical, medical and/or behavioral difficulties.[39]

Group homes for children provide an alternative to traditional foster care, though family support to the birth, adoptive, and foster families are often first recommended.[40] Several sources state that, in comparison to other placement alternatives, this form of care is the most restrictive for youth in the foster care system.[41] The term group home is often confused with lock-down treatment centers, which are required to have eyes-on every so often due to behavioral and intellectual disabilities of the children and youth they serve. There are also less restrictive forms of group homes, which often use the house parent model. Those organizations are due to their visual comparability to several foster families within a certain area as well as their connectedness to each other, the community and internally best described as residential child care communities.

Group homes and foster homes have been compared and studied in national samples.[42][43][44][45] Group homes were studied as part of a national sample of community living for individuals with severe disabilities, and small group homes six or under were among the recommended options, often for adults.[46]

Supportive community options for adults with disabilities

[edit]

Newer options of group living were often termed supported living, supported housing, individual and family supports, or early on, "individualized supportive living arrangements" (e.g., apartment programs).[47][48][49][50][51] These developments often followed analyses of homes as homes,[52] ordinary housing and support services, versus group treatment or facilities, an important critique during the 1980s and 1990s reform period. Independent living continued to be a primary framework representing another emblem of community living more often associated with personal assistance and live-in attendants, home health services, and the now termed allied health services of physical and occupational therapy, speech, cognitive therapy, and psychological counseling.[53] However, leading psychiatric survivors examined independent living in the context of supportive housing and necessary support services which did not need to be congregated in housing.[54]

Group options for seniors with disabilities

[edit]

Perhaps the largest group of group homes (now termed community residential services or residential care by other managements) fall under the heading of residential care homes for seniors, or both seniors and individuals with disabilities. Residential care categories include over 43 separate regulated categories by state governments and now have the new assisted living growing in the United States. Group (e.g., funded as large as 100 individuals in a nursing facility or on old-style campus of over 12 wards on the outskirts of cities) or homes for seniors (e.g., room and board) are designed for seniors who cannot live on their own due to physical or mental disabilities.[55] Group facilities, which may involve over half of the allotted beds or more (80%) funded by Medicaid, might also be found under Residential Care Home, Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, or Assisted Living Facility. Alternative community options for these seniors are home health care, hospice care, specialized care (e.g., Alzheimer's), day care at senior centers, meals on wheels, transportation drivers, and other aging and disability options.[56]

Civil rights

[edit]

In most countries, people can still vote in election and attend higher education while in a group home. However, Internet usage in group homes may be severely limited (if not prohibited outright). Trips to public libraries may vary depending on the distance from the group home to the library. While 93% of the Canadian population has easy access to a public library,[57] it is uncertain about the percentage of Canadian group home residents who actually have unrestricted access to a public library in lieu of watching television.

Employment and the Americans with Disabilities Act

[edit]

Employment opportunities, where available, are encouraged for group home residents, depending on the home, operator, and characteristics of the residents. Since the 1970s, people with cognitive or mental health disabilities have been involved in community employment of all kinds and also have developed freestanding affirmative industries and supported employment services in conjunction with the government.[58] These rights are protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, later revised in 2008.[59] Human rights laws, still operational in states, govern employment applications for employment, and the employer is restricted from asking pre-employment questions on criminal arrests or discriminating on this basis (See, Human Rights Laws of the state of New York). However, unbeknownst to many communities and organizations, management rights, instead of human rights, have been inserted in contracts in the United States.[60]

Mental health and civil rights

[edit]

In the United States, it has been the position of state mental health commissioners that many people who are living independently should be placed in intensive treatment, as described in a mid-1980s article in the Community Mental Health Journal. The authors held that only 12 of 3,068 individuals should be living independently (p. 199) based on their model predictions.[61] In contrast, the continuum model has been critiqued as restrictive of rights, facility-based, and restrictive of community participation [62] resulting in a US Supreme Court decision recognizing the most integrated setting (Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities, 2012).[failed verification]

Increasingly, concern has been voiced over the rise in community treatment orders, medical homes, invasive supervision in homes, in addition to decades of outcry over involuntary procedures in psychiatry in the United States and restrictions on human rights. In this field, no viable recourse exists for reversing actions by personnel, including professional and medical malpractice, and the most successful programs are viewed as those that result in high compliance.[63] High medication usage is required, often against the law, and the situation worsens during any police-enforced confinement. Group homes in the non-profit sector are often operated by other than the providers involved in state or private, for-profit involuntary care.

Nursing facility industry

[edit]

The nursing facility industry holds the position, often with its affiliated hospitals, that it decides on involuntary treatment of elders, which involves issues such as visitations. Nursing homes have had a very long history of reviews and complaints including to the federal level of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the United States and have been the subject of major reform efforts. Today, a Red Cross ombudsman may be available in the homes, special needs units may be available to assist in areas such as bathing and eating, and in some cities, short term rehabilitation is provided for seniors at those sites instead of at community locations. Nursing facilities, unlike the small size standard of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for homes for individuals with intellectual disabilities, may have over 100 "institutional clients" on site and is reporting 2–3% restraint use.

Education and training

[edit]

Group home personnel are considered in 2015 to be Direct Support Professionals [64] though paramount in this approach are maintaining a home atmosphere, routines, and community life. An abundance of literature in the 1980s and 1990s described the training needs of personnel,[65][66][67][68] and today new expectations continue to occur as the homes become increasingly health care financed and more self-direction options become available.[69]

Cultural and professional helping skills

[edit]

Foundational in all helping professions are what are called "critical skill domains", which are congruent with a community support approach (e.g., values clarification, general fluency and flexibility of thought, perception and response, competence in academic content, verbal communications) (Cole & Lacefield, 1978).[70][71] In addition, with the multicultural workforce, cultural awareness, even skills like using chopsticks, are desired in the adaptive skill domains [72] and comparisons between fast food and sit down restaurants.[73]

Community volunteers and participation

[edit]

By the 1990s, greater emphasis was placed on community participation and belonging, in addition to welcoming support of the community and community members.[74] In fact, several national research centers in the United States were funded, in part, on the basis of community research studies in community participation [75][76]

Special population groups

[edit]

Education also occurs for special population groups or particular issues or needs; an example are the challenges gay men face in living with chronic illness [77] including HIV-AIDS which may be addressed in supported housing options. Attention is also paid to developing residential services which meet the preferences of persons with serious mental illness and their families.[78]

Independent living and brain/head injury services

[edit]

Education and training in independent living from long-term care institutions (e.g., acute care facilities, long-term rehabilitation facilities, skilled nursing or intermediate care facilities, community re-entry facilities) often involved changing from forced dependency to controlling and deciding one's own destiny called self-determination. Life skills ranged from health and hygiene, parenting/child care, home maintenance, money management, activities of daily living, community awareness and mobility, legal awareness, social/interpersonal skills, and family involvement (Condeluci, Cooperman, & Self, 1987).[79] These services may be called post-acute services, and involve other personnel models, such as life coaches (Jones, Patrick, Evans, & Wuff, 1991).[80] Independent living training has also proved effective in addressing the needs and expectations of individuals who have sensory impairments (e.g., hearing or blindness).[81]

Cost of residential services

[edit]

Residential services costs have been studied in depth in areas that relate to group homes, family care homes or community residential services, especially on deinstitutionalization, Medicaid home and community-based waiver development, and community development.[82][83][84] Residential treatment, often provided in larger facilities, may be higher in reimbursement rates to the provider so treatment billings will be found for higher-cost professional services (e.g., behavioral health). Surprisingly, except for very small sizes, the larger, medicalized facilities bill the highest costs per individual (e.g., intermediate care facilities over 16 in the state of New York).[85]

Individual and family costs of services

[edit]

In relationship to the individual or family, residential services are expensive for low or middle-class families, and federal, state and local government often contribute to these costs. Medicaid-funded options may require use of assets, and Social Security Disability or Social Security are also part of payment plans. New options called family-directed and user-directed involve transfer of funds to homes and families, and continue to be in process in states. Early organizations provided information on their management and financing to help local communities replicate or begin their own homes and programs.[86]

Residential care, assisted living, supported housing

[edit]

Residential care homes, run by the government or by the for-profit and non-profit industries, need not be low cost and/or low quality as many might initially guess, though traditional room and boards may be based primarily on a Social Security Disability payment and limited governmental personnel assistance. More expensive residential care homes now exist to offer a family-style, high quality, care option to the next class of senior care which is Assisted Living Facilities. These homes, operated often by the nursing care industry, are based on increasing need for assistance and decreasing independence. Unlike the proposals for upgraded community services in homes and communities for seniors with substantial needs, assisted living was primarily developed as facility types only; supported housing also was a new model as state initiatives.[87]

Seniors, disability and aging

[edit]

There are various levels of residential care homes for seniors, which is the traditional medical system of assessments, which differs from developing person-centered plans and support services for persons who may have substantial health care needs[88] and also from new managed Medicaid care plans. In addition, in some fields, the plan is for the individual to age in place in their group home setting. Personal care assistance is often associated with aging in place and independent living services; local governments have been reluctant to pay for other than limited services in the homes (one study stated up to 20 hours maximum, others 3–4 hours per week), in spite of a nationwide decades press toward our own governments. This position is similar to a governmental position to pay not for ordinary goods, but only for specialized services.

However, senior services of other kinds, including the senior centers,[89] low cost meals, transportation, Veteran's health services and independent clubs, specialized day care (e.g., day care for older adult policies in Great Britain),[90][91] local case managers, local Offices of the Aging (with Disability coordinators in some locations), and so forth are often available. Senior programs may also involve joint integration initiatives by aging and disability agencies resulting in leading programs such as social model day programs in Oneida County, New York, Rhode Island's Apartment Residence, Madison County Integration Program, and supported retirement programs in the state of Utah.[92]

Assisted living is a modernization effort (e.g., more choices or menus of services) in the nursing care fields which primarily resulted in modernization, to some extent, of the large facility (i.e., nursing homes) or campus models. Large state initiatives can be found in Linking Housing and Services for Older Adults representing response to long-term criticism of a facility-based service industry.[93] However, a recent nursing industry schema, reflecting a provider network, for levels of care states: "Assisted Living with No Assistance" (the most common use of "assisted living" involves little or no assistance, living at home with minimal amounts of home care), "Assisted Living with Assistance", and "Assisted Living - Memory Care". Memory care is for those dealing with memory loss, dementia, or Alzheimer's disease.[94]

However, the call nationwide is for caregiving services in the homes where aging parents often move to live with their adult children and their families. The provider sector desired are those that respect the wishes of the individual and the family, including for care at home through hospice. The New Politics of Old Age Policy (Robert Hudson, 2005/2010) calls for the government entertaining care credits or generous minimum benefits to assist United States families to juggle paid and unpaid work in today's modernized world.[95] In addition, as parents age, adults with disabilities who may be living at home will also need assistance that might not have been needed earlier (e.g., siblings, new home).

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Group home

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A group home is a community-based residential facility that provides 24-hour nonmedical care, supervision, and support services to small groups of unrelated individuals unable to live independently, typically accommodating three to twelve such as those with developmental disabilities, mental illnesses, elderly persons, or youth in . These arrangements aim to foster a home-like environment promoting integration and normalization, contrasting with larger institutional settings, though often require structured programs for daily living skills, behavioral , or social reintegration. Group homes emerged as part of broader deinstitutionalization efforts in the mid-20th century, particularly for individuals with or developmental disabilities and psychiatric conditions, with the intent to reduce reliance on expansive state hospitals and orphanages by dispersing care into neighborhood settings. In the context of child welfare, they serve as placements for exhibiting behavioral challenges, offering structured routines including , , and vocational training, though capacities are regulated to maintain a family-scale operation, often up to twelve children under licensed supervision. Proponents highlight their role in supporting individualized needs and reducing institutional isolation, yet empirical studies indicate mixed outcomes: while some residents achieve greater community participation, group placements for adolescents are associated with elevated risks of delinquency—approximately 2.5 times higher relative risk—and poorer long-term stability compared to family-based . Controversies surrounding group homes include documented instances of inadequate oversight leading to , , or placement instability, alongside high operational costs that strain public resources without commensurate improvements in resident outcomes, as group and institutional settings generally yield inferior results to or therapeutic foster homes in metrics like reunification rates and . Rigorous evaluations underscore the need for caution in assuming universal efficacy, with additional research required to assess behavioral interventions and delinquency prevention, revealing that while group homes facilitate certain discharges and returns home, they often exacerbate risks for vulnerable youth absent robust family-like supports. Despite federal protections under acts like the Fair Housing Act ensuring non-discriminatory zoning, persistent debates center on whether such facilities truly advance causal pathways to independence or inadvertently perpetuate dependency through diluted supervision in under-resourced community models.

Definition and Purpose

Core Characteristics

Group homes are small-scale, community-integrated residential facilities that house typically 4 to 6 unrelated adults with or developmental disabilities, providing a normalized living environment as an alternative to larger institutional settings. These residences are situated in standard neighborhoods, often within single-family homes, to facilitate and reduce stigma associated with segregated care. Residents generally have private bedrooms for personal autonomy, while sharing communal spaces such as kitchens, dining areas, and living rooms to promote interpersonal interaction and shared responsibilities akin to households. Staffing in group homes operates on a 24-hour basis, delivering non-medical support including assistance with (e.g., meal preparation, personal hygiene, and household chores), medication oversight, and behavioral interventions tailored to individual needs. Unlike nursing homes or hospitals, group homes emphasize skill development for greater independence rather than comprehensive medical treatment, with staff-to-resident ratios often ranging from 1:3 during waking hours to overnight supervision without constant presence. Capacity is strictly limited—commonly capped at 6 to 8 residents per state regulations—to maintain a home-like scale and prevent overcrowding that could mimic institutional dynamics. Licensing and oversight by state agencies ensure compliance with standards for safety, hygiene, and resident rights, including individualized service plans that prioritize community participation, vocational training, and family involvement. Core operational principles focus on , where supports are customized to foster and reduce reliance on institutional models, though variability exists across jurisdictions in staffing qualifications and program intensity. Funding typically derives from government programs like waivers, which reimburse for community-based services over costlier congregate care.

Philosophical and Policy Foundations

The philosophical foundations of group homes rest on the normalization principle, articulated by Wolf Wolfensberger in the 1970s, which posits that individuals with intellectual disabilities should participate in culturally normative patterns of daily life to enhance their and , rather than isolation in large institutions. This principle, originating from Scandinavian welfare models, advocates for small-scale, community-embedded residences like group homes to mimic typical family or neighborhood living, thereby reducing stigma and fostering through ordinary routines, relationships, and activities. Normalization challenges the paternalistic institutional model by emphasizing causal links between environmental typicality and psychological , supported by early empirical observations that deinstitutionalized individuals exhibited improved adaptive behaviors and social competencies compared to segregated cohorts. Policy foundations derive from civil rights frameworks prioritizing the , codified in U.S. legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which prohibits unnecessary segregation and mandates community-based services where feasible. The 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. reinforced this by ruling that states violate the ADA's integration mandate when they institutionalize individuals with disabilities who could receive care in community settings, provided treatment professionals deem it appropriate and resources permit without fundamental alterations to state services. This policy shift, driven by evidence from longitudinal studies showing community living yields higher satisfaction, personal safety, and participation rates—such as greater time spent with non-disabled peers and reduced behavioral incidents—than institutionalization, has guided federal funding toward group homes as cost-effective alternatives, with deinstitutionalization reducing institutional populations from over 200,000 in 1967 to under 30,000 by 2019. Critically, these foundations assume adequate supports to realize normalization's causal benefits, yet gaps—evident in some post-deinstitutionalization cases of inadequate oversight leading to isolation or unmet needs—underscore that policy efficacy hinges on empirical validation rather than ideological fiat alone, with meta-analyses of over 5,000 transitions confirming net gains in daily living skills but highlighting variability by support intensity.

Historical Development

Early Models and Pre-Deinstitutionalization

Prior to the mid-20th century deinstitutionalization movement, residential care for individuals with intellectual disabilities and mental health conditions predominantly relied on large-scale, custodial institutions that emerged in the 19th century as alternatives to earlier poorhouses and almshouses. These facilities, such as the New York State Asylum for Idiots established in 1851 and similar state schools, housed growing numbers of residents—reaching about 80 public and private institutions in the United States by 1923—often in isolated rural settings with a focus on segregation rather than community integration. Conditions in these early institutions varied but frequently emphasized containment over treatment, reflecting societal views of disability as a moral or custodial burden. One notable precursor to modern community-based models was the family foster care system in , , which originated in the 13th century around the shrine of St. and evolved into a structured program by the 19th century where local families boarded individuals with mental illnesses in their homes, providing small-scale, integrated living arrangements supervised by church and later state authorities. This approach, documented as early as the 1500s and continuing into the 20th century, demonstrated that dispersed, family-like residences could manage severe mental disorders without institutional isolation, influencing later normalization principles though it remained exceptional rather than widespread. In the United States and during the pre-deinstitutionalization era (roughly 1800–1950), smaller-scale options like boarding homes or extramural family placements existed sporadically, particularly for less severe cases, but were limited by inadequate funding and oversight; by 1947, only 15 systems had initiated or outpatient extensions as adjuncts to institutional care. Almshouses from the colonial period through the early served as group residences, mixing disabled individuals with paupers and the elderly in overcrowded, unregulated settings that prioritized cost-saving over specialized support. These models laid rudimentary groundwork for later group homes by highlighting the failures of mass institutionalization—such as abuse and neglect—but lacked the focus that characterized post-1950s developments.

Deinstitutionalization Era (1950s-1980s)

Deinstitutionalization in the United States gained momentum in the mid-1950s, driven by the introduction of chlorpromazine (Thorazine), the first effective antipsychotic medication, which enabled the management of psychiatric symptoms outside large hospitals. This pharmacological advance, combined with exposés revealing overcrowding and abuse in state institutions, shifted policy toward community-based care, including the development of smaller residential options like group homes. By the early 1960s, the civil rights era's emphasis on integration influenced reformers to advocate for normalizing environments for those with mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities, reducing reliance on isolated asylums. The Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963, signed by President , marked a pivotal federal commitment, allocating funds for building local centers to provide outpatient services and prevent long-term institutionalization. This legislation envisioned a network of community facilities, including group homes, to support discharged patients, with the goal of treating severe mental illness in less restrictive settings. However, implementation faltered due to insufficient funding and planning, leading many former inpatients to group homes that often lacked adequate therapeutic support. High-profile scandals accelerated closures; the 1972 exposé of on revealed severe neglect and abuse among over 5,000 residents with intellectual disabilities in a facility designed for 4,000, prompting a 1975 consent decree mandating deinstitutionalization and transition to community group homes. Willowbrook closed in 1987, with most residents moved to group homes by 1992, influencing national policy toward smaller, community-integrated residences. Empirical outcomes were mixed: state populations declined from approximately 559,000 in 1955 to 132,000 by 1980, but services underdelivered, resulting in transinstitutionalization to homes, jails, and streets rather than true integration via group homes. Studies attribute 4-7% of incarceration growth from 1980-2000 to reduced psychiatric beds without commensurate alternatives, highlighting causal failures in and oversight. While group homes offered some residents greater , systemic gaps often perpetuated vulnerability, as evidenced by rising among the severely mentally ill.

Modern Expansion and Reforms (1990s-Present)

The expansion of group homes in the United States during the 1990s and early 2000s continued the deinstitutionalization trend, transitioning individuals from large psychiatric hospitals and developmental centers to smaller community residences. In the metropolitan area, the number of residents in group homes rose from 3,735 in 1991 to nearly 8,000 by 2001, reflecting broader policy-driven shifts toward less restrictive environments. This growth was supported by federal initiatives promoting community-based care, including expansions in funding for home and community-based services (HCBS) waivers, which enabled states to offer residential alternatives to institutionalization. The 1999 Supreme Court ruling in Olmstead v. L.C. marked a pivotal reform, holding that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby endorsing community integration through settings like group homes over prolonged institutional stays. This decision spurred states to rebalance long-term services toward HCBS, with expenditures on such programs growing significantly; by the 2010s, HCBS accounted for over half of long-term support spending in many states, funding group homes alongside other options. However, implementation varied, as states grappled with waiting lists for HCBS waivers that exceeded 700,000 individuals nationwide by 2024, limiting access and sustaining reliance on group homes for some populations. Reforms from the 2010s onward emphasized quality assurance and reduced congregate living, driven by the 2014 HCBS Final Rule, which required settings to foster and participation, prompting about one-quarter of states heavily dependent on group homes to cap capacities, retrofit facilities, and prioritize person-centered planning. For youth in or juvenile justice systems, federal policies like the Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 restricted funding for non-family-based group placements exceeding 16 beds or lacking qualified professional treatment, aiming to minimize institutional-like environments amid evidence of poorer outcomes such as higher re-abuse rates compared to family . Persistent challenges include elevated costs for transitioning to individualized —often 20-50% higher than group homes—and oversight gaps, with reports documenting abuse incidents and staffing shortages, particularly during the when group home residents faced disproportionate mortality risks due to communal settings. These issues have fueled for further deinstitutionalization toward private apartments with supports, though empirical data indicate group homes remain prevalent for those with higher support needs, comprising a substantial portion of residences for disabilities as of 2021.

Types and Variations

For Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Group homes for individuals with and developmental disabilities (IDD) are community-integrated residential facilities typically housing 3 to 6 residents in a single-family-style setting, designed to foster independence and normalize daily living while providing necessary support services. These differ from larger institutions by prioritizing smaller group sizes to enhance personal choice, skill development in (ADLs), and participation in local , , and . Residents often receive individualized plans under Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers, which fund supports like vocational training and behavioral therapies, aiming to reduce reliance on institutional care. Staffing in these homes generally includes direct support professionals available 24 hours a day, with ratios varying by resident needs—such as one staff per three residents during waking hours for those with moderate IDD—and training focused on , medication administration, and promoting . Services extend beyond basic supervision to include outings, assistance, and involvement, with the goal of transitioning residents toward more autonomous living arrangements like supported apartments when feasible. In the United States, as of 2020, about 15% of non-family-supported individuals with IDD resided in such group homes with 1-6 residents, reflecting a shift from institutional models, where the number of people served in non-family settings rose from 403,066 in 2000 to 551,017 in 2020. Empirical evaluations show community group homes generally yield better outcomes than institutional settings in areas like social networks and adaptive behaviors, with longitudinal studies linking deinstitutionalization to gains in quality-of-life indicators such as choice-making and community inclusion. For example, residents in smaller homes report higher frequencies of unscheduled social activities and friendships compared to those in facilities with 16 or more peers. However, indicates variability: group homes with 7-15 residents correlate with elevated risks of behavioral disorders and poorer health metrics, potentially due to reduced individualized attention. Per-person costs in community settings often exceed those of institutions—sometimes by 20-50%—driven by higher staffing demands, though proponents argue the investments align with federal policies favoring integration over segregation. Critiques highlight persistent risks, including understaffing and , as documented in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services audits revealing gaps in oversight for over 100,000 in group homes as of 2022, with recommendations for enhanced monitoring to prevent or exploitation. Despite these, models within or evolving from group homes—offering more autonomy—demonstrate superior long-term outcomes in independence and satisfaction over traditional congregate care. Approximately 16,000 individuals with IDD remained in state-operated institutions in 2024, underscoring incomplete transitions and ongoing debates over scaling community options amid waitlists exceeding 200,000 for HCBS services.

For Mental Health Conditions

Group homes for mental health conditions provide residential support for adults with serious mental illnesses, such as , , and severe depression, in community-based settings typically 4 to 12 residents. These facilities emerged as alternatives to long-term psychiatric hospitalization, emphasizing supervised through on-site staff assistance with daily living, medication adherence, and access to . Unlike institutional care, residents often share common areas while maintaining private bedrooms, with services tailored to foster skill-building for eventual transition to less restrictive . Operational models vary, including supervised apartments where staff visit periodically or live-in arrangements for higher needs, funded primarily through government programs like in the United States. Key services include , case management, and vocational training, aimed at reducing relapse and hospitalization rates. Empirical studies indicate these homes achieve housing stability for most residents, with one review finding decreased inpatient days and cost savings compared to institutional models. However, permanent variants show limited impact on symptom severity or substance use, suggesting efficacy depends on integrated clinical support. Challenges persist, including risks of inadequate staffing leading to neglect or abuse, as highlighted in oversight reports on group homes generally. Community integration can falter due to stigma or resident conflicts, and some analyses reveal higher odds of mood or psychotic disorders in small group settings versus independent living with outreach. Compared to pre-deinstitutionalization asylums, group homes correlate with better quality of life and reduced institutionalization, though former long-stay patients often require ongoing supervision to avoid homelessness. Long-term outcomes underscore the need for individualized matching, as congregate living may exacerbate isolation for some while providing necessary structure for others.

For Youth in Foster Care or Justice Systems

Group homes serve as residential placements for youth in the foster care system who exhibit severe behavioral challenges, trauma histories, or other needs that render traditional family foster care placements unstable or unsafe. These facilities typically house 6 to 12 adolescents, often aged 12 to 18, providing structured environments with on-site staff supervision, therapy, and life skills training as an alternative to institutionalization or repeated foster home disruptions. In the United States, such placements represent a subset of congregate care, which accounted for approximately 10-14% of out-of-home foster care arrangements in recent years, though exact figures for group homes specifically vary by state and are concentrated among older youth unable to secure family-based options. Placement in group homes is often viewed as a transitional or last-resort measure, prioritizing stability for youth with histories of aggression, substance involvement, or failed prior placements. For youth involved in the juvenile justice system, s—sometimes termed therapeutic or community-based residential facilities—aim to address delinquency through rehabilitative programming, including counseling, education, and al interventions, as an alternative to detention centers. These programs emerged post-deinstitutionalization reforms to reduce reliance on secure facilities, emphasizing reintegration into communities. However, empirical studies indicate mixed short-term benefits, such as improved in-placement , but elevated long-term s; for instance, adolescents with at least one placement face a relative delinquency 2.5 times higher than those in family . Recidivism rates post-release remain a concern, with limited evidence of sustained reductions in offending compared to community-based family interventions. Comparative research consistently shows inferior long-term outcomes for youth in group homes versus foster care across metrics like , emotional stability, and post-care independence. Meta-analyses reveal that children in residential group care experience higher rates of school failure (e.g., mostly C grades or lower), increased likelihood of , incarceration, and upon aging out, attributed to the congregate setting's potential to reinforce deviant peer influences and limit individualized attachment. Prolonged exposure exacerbates these risks, with one study linking extended congregate stays to doubled odds of adverse adult outcomes relative to placements. While some youth achieve favorable discharges and reunifications from group homes—outpacing treatment foster care in select cases—overall evidence favors -based care for fostering prosocial development and reducing reentry into care. Policy shifts since the have trended toward minimizing such placements through incentives for or therapeutic foster homes, reflecting data on cost inefficiencies (group homes averaging $100,000+ annually per youth) and suboptimal causal pathways to self-sufficiency.

For Substance Abuse Recovery and Seniors

Group homes for recovery, commonly known as sober living houses or recovery residences, provide alcohol- and -free communal living environments for individuals post-treatment, emphasizing , house rules promoting , and connections to outpatient services. These facilities typically house 6 to 15 residents in a single-family home setting, requiring participation in recovery activities like 12-step programs without on-site clinical treatment. Empirical studies demonstrate that residents experience significant reductions in substance use, with one analysis showing improved alcohol and rates alongside gains in and decreased arrests over 12 months. Affiliation with larger recovery networks correlates with better outcomes, including longer and lower risks, though individual factors like prior treatment engagement influence success. For seniors, group homes—often structured as adult family homes or small facilities—offer shared housing for 2 to 6 elderly residents needing personal care, supervision, or assistance with , but not skilled nursing. These settings prioritize a home-like atmosphere to foster , with operators providing meals, medication management, and light housekeeping tailored to age-related needs or mild disabilities. In the U.S., such arrangements serve a subset of the approximately 1.2 million older adults in broader , but smaller group models like family-type homes target those preferring intimate, non-institutional care to avoid larger facilities. About 15% of older adults receiving formal help reside in supportive residential settings, where group homes contribute by enabling community integration and reducing isolation, though data specific to small-group formats remain limited compared to institutional alternatives. Outcomes include sustained for residents with moderate needs, with lifetime risks indicating 48% of those reaching age 65 eventually require some paid residential support. Variations exist by state regulation, with emphasis on operator to ensure without over-medicalization.

Operational Framework

Staffing, Training, and Daily Management

Staffing in group homes primarily consists of direct support professionals (DSPs) who handle round-the-clock supervision and assistance for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, conditions, or other needs. Unlike nursing homes, which face a federal minimum of 3.48 total nurse staffing hours per resident day finalized in 2024, group homes lack uniform national ratios and are governed by state regulations tailored to resident acuity. Typical daytime ratios range from 1:3 to 1:6 staff-to-residents, with adjustments for higher-needs individuals, as seen in guidelines assuming 1:3 for facilities where most residents remain home during the day. Nighttime staffing is often reduced to 1 staff per home. High annual turnover among DSPs, averaging 43.3% across U.S. states in 2021 and 39.7% in 2023, stems from low wages, demanding shifts, and burnout, contributing to care inconsistencies. Qualifications for DSPs are minimal, generally requiring only a , a clean criminal , and valid , with no college degree mandated for entry-level roles. States may prefer prior experience in caregiving or , but empirical data show many enter with limited preparation, exacerbating turnover and skill gaps. Managers or supervisors often hold associate or bachelor's degrees in or related fields, overseeing DSP teams. Training standards vary by state but emphasize initial orientation covering resident rights, , medication assistance, and disability-specific needs, often totaling 40 hours or more before independent shifts. Ongoing annual training, such as 6-20 hours on or , is required in many jurisdictions like and . Peer-reviewed studies demonstrate that behavioral training programs, including classroom instruction and in-home feedback, increase positive staff-resident interactions by up to 50% and reduce coercive practices, though implementation fidelity remains inconsistent due to resource constraints. Daily management revolves around individualized service plans, with DSPs coordinating (ADLs) like meal preparation, hygiene, and mobility support to foster resident . Routines typically include structured mornings for personal care, daytime outings or vocational activities, evening , and overnight monitoring, with 24/7 shift rotations ensuring coverage. Staff document incidents, administer medications under protocols, and address behaviors via techniques, though high turnover disrupts continuity and elevates risks of unmet needs. Empirical evaluations link stable staffing to better ADL outcomes, underscoring causal ties between understaffing and reduced .

Services Provided and Resident Autonomy

Group homes offer a range of supportive services tailored to residents' needs, including 24-hour supervision, assistance with such as , dressing, , and medication administration. These facilities also provide services to develop , housekeeping, personal care, and sometimes educational or vocational support to promote functional independence. In settings for adults with developmental disabilities, services emphasize protective oversight while encouraging community integration through transportation and recreational activities. Resident in group homes is structured around person-centered planning, where individuals participate in decisions about their daily routines, care plans, and goals, aiming to balance support with . However, highlights constraints on this autonomy; for example, staff practices in group homes often involve directive power dynamics during daily tasks, limiting resident choice despite formal policies promoting . Studies in similar residential settings indicate that autonomy levels correlate with staff training in supportive interactions and facility design that facilitates independent access to spaces and resources. In practice, residents typically retain control over personal preferences like activities and social contacts, but require oversight for and , resulting in graduated rather than full self-governance.

Regulation and Quality Control Measures

Group homes in the United States are subject to licensing and primarily at the state level, with oversight typically managed by departments of health, , or developmental disabilities. States mandate licenses for operators, requiring compliance with standards for physical facilities, , , and to ensure resident safety and suitability for vulnerable populations such as those with intellectual disabilities or conditions. For example, in Ohio, adult group homes provide accommodations to 6 to 16 unrelated adults. For instance, in , group homes must adhere to Rules 403, which specify operational protocols including approval for resident travel exceeding 48 hours and facility authorization limits. Federal involvement is limited but includes protections under the Fair Housing Act against discriminatory zoning and requirements for Medicaid-funded homes to meet Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) criteria, emphasizing community integration over institutional settings. Quality control measures encompass regular inspections, incident reporting, and performance monitoring, though enforcement varies significantly by state and has been criticized for inconsistencies. State agencies conduct periodic surveys—often annually or biennially—to verify compliance with staffing ratios, training requirements, medication management, and prevention protocols; for example, New York State's Department of inspects adult care facilities, including group homes, every 12 to 18 months. The U.S. Department of and Human Services Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG) has highlighted systemic gaps, such as states failing to report up to 99% of critical incidents like or in group homes, undermining federal oversight of providers. To address these, a 2018 joint HHS report recommended states implement holistic strategies including mandatory incident tracking, staff background checks, and resident grievance mechanisms to enhance health and safety. For homes serving individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), draws from evolving performance metrics under HCBS waivers, focusing on outcomes like resident , stability, and community participation rather than process compliance alone. The (CMS) endorses HCBS measure sets that include domains such as care coordination, provider communication, and specific clinical issues, with states required to report data for federal funding eligibility. by bodies like the Council on Quality and Leadership provides additional voluntary benchmarks, emphasizing evidence-based standards amid the expansion of into IDD services. Despite these frameworks, empirical evaluations reveal persistent challenges, including underreporting and variable state capacity, prompting calls for standardized federal metrics to mitigate risks of substandard care.

Empirical Outcomes and Evaluations

Evidence of Positive Impacts

Studies on community-based group homes for individuals with and developmental disabilities (IDD) indicate improvements in following deinstitutionalization. A 2024 of 90 participants transitioning from institutions to settings, compared to 72 who remained institutionalized, found significant enhancements in overall after nine months, with large to very large effect sizes across domains including , , and ; these benefits extended to those with high support needs, contingent on effective daily supports and decision-making opportunities. Smaller group homes (2-3 residents) have been associated with protective health effects, such as reduced odds of (odds ratio 0.38) and other mental disorders ( 0.53), based on post-2020 National Core Indicators data for IDD populations. For those with conditions, models, which often incorporate elements with on-site services, demonstrate high housing retention rates and health gains. Research syntheses report that at least 75% of homeless individuals with severe mental illness maintain stable housing for 18-24 months in such programs, with over 50% sustaining it for up to five years; associated benefits include reduced substance use among veterans and improved integrity (63% higher survival likelihood) for those with comorbid . A New York evaluation of permanent placements showed statistically significant reductions in psychiatric hospitalizations and visits, alongside enhanced housing stability. In substance abuse recovery contexts, sober living group homes correlate with measurable recoveries in key metrics. A study of residents in such facilities documented sustained reductions in alcohol and use, alongside gains in rates, decreased arrests, and better psychiatric functioning during and post-residency. For youth in , evidence of positives is more circumscribed, primarily showing short-term behavioral improvements. Therapeutic group homes yield rapid, significant progress in problem behaviors during initial months of placement, though long-term outcomes lag behind family-based care. Group homes for seniors, often structured as small facilities, offer advantages in care delivery and . These settings provide higher staff-to-resident ratios enabling individualized attention, a homelike environment fostering comfort, and lower costs relative to nursing homes; recent analyses link senior housing participation to decreased injury vulnerability, increased in-home healthcare access, and overall health improvements compared to .

Documented Failures and Risks

Group homes have been associated with elevated rates of and compared to family-based care settings. A peer-reviewed study found that children in , including group homes, were six times more likely to be assessed by pediatricians for than children in the general population. Similarly, research indicates higher maltreatment rates in congregate care facilities like group homes than in foster family homes. For individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, victimization by caregivers exceeds 59%, encompassing , , and , with those in residential settings facing particular risk relative to home-based arrangements. In state-supervised systems, underreporting exacerbates these risks. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General audits revealed that up to 99% of critical incidents—such as serious injuries requiring emergency room visits—in group homes for developmentally disabled adults went unreported to required authorities. In , from 2017 to 2023, state care for 15,000 developmentally disabled individuals (many in group homes) recorded 2,682 deaths (averaging one per day), alongside 1,858 reports of verbal, physical, or ; investigations substantiated in cases like the 2020 suffocation death of Ronald Scheer via improper wheelchair restraint and the 2019 choking death of Lisa Goodman on uneaten food left unattended. Mortality risks appear heightened in group homes versus family care. During the , adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities in New York group homes experienced case rates of 7,841 per 100,000—substantially above state averages—and elevated fatality rates compared to community or family settings. Nationally, such individuals diagnosed with were 2.6 times more likely to die than those without disabilities, with congregate living contributing to transmission vulnerabilities. Financial mismanagement compounds operational failures, diverting resources from resident care. In County, auditors documented over $11 million in taxpayer funds misspent by foster group home operators on personal items like cigarettes and perfume between 2000 and 2010; subsequent cases included of over $100,000 at Moore’s Cottage in 2015 and thousands at Little People’s World, leading to guilty pleas. Systemic understaffing and inadequate oversight, as highlighted in OIG reviews, further enable neglect, with recommendations for stricter funding penalties unmet in many jurisdictions.

Comparative Data Against Institutions and Family Care

Studies comparing group homes to large-scale institutions, such as psychiatric hospitals or developmental centers, indicate that residents in group homes often experience greater integration and autonomy. For individuals with intellectual disabilities, group home residents reported higher access to support services and assistance in arranging external aid compared to those in institutional settings. Deinstitutionalization efforts transitioning patients from hospitals to -based group homes have correlated with reduced hospital populations and improved metrics, including social participation, in cases with adequate support. However, outcomes vary by condition severity; for severe mental illnesses, incomplete has led to higher rates of and incarceration among former institutional residents compared to sustained institutional care.
Outcome MetricGroup HomesInstitutions
Community IntegrationHigher reported participation in daily activities and social networksLower due to isolation and regimented environments
Cost per Resident (Annual Average, U.S. Data)$50,000–$100,000, depending on state and services$200,000+, driven by overhead and scale
Health OutcomesImproved stability with proper staffing; risks of if under-resourcedBetter medical oversight but higher rates and dependency
In contrast to family-based care, group homes for in foster or systems show inferior long-term outcomes. in group homes are less likely to graduate high school (completion rates 20–30% lower) and more prone to adult or than those in family . Family care promotes stronger emotional attachments and skill development, reducing placement disruptions by up to 50% compared to group settings. For adults with disabilities or seniors, family care yields lower victimization risks and better physical health trajectories, though group homes outperform when family resources are insufficient. Cost analyses reinforce family care's advantages: annual per-child expenses in family foster care average $25,000–$40,000, versus $100,000+ for group homes, with even greater disparities for institutional equivalents. Despite these metrics favoring family settings, group homes serve as a necessary intermediate for cases where biological or foster family placement fails, though empirical data underscores the causal link between smaller, familial environments and sustained independence.

Controversies and Criticisms

Abuse Scandals and Neglect Cases

In group homes serving individuals with developmental disabilities, documented cases of , , and have highlighted vulnerabilities stemming from inadequate staffing and reporting failures. A joint investigation by the Department of Justice and HHS Office of Inspector General found that up to 99% of critical incidents, including serious injuries requiring emergency care, went unreported to required authorities in group homes across multiple states. In , a 2017 jury awarded $11.05 million to the family of Deshaun Becton, an 11-year-old resident with challenges at an EMQ FamiliesFirst group home, after staff neglected supervision leading to a sexual assault by a peer in 2013; the facility's chaos from layoffs and policy changes contributed to unchecked violence. A 2025 investigative series in revealed systemic in homes serving over 8,000 adults, including untreated injuries like fractured ribs and collapsed lungs, medication overdoses causing deaths such as that of 21-year-old Moronski shortly after admission, and residents found in urine-soaked conditions without food or water; the $1.5 billion privatized system relies on self-policing by 132 providers amid overburdened staff. Sober living homes and group residences for recovery have been plagued by schemes enabling environments conducive to and harm, rather than structured abuse by staff. In , at least five deaths from drug and alcohol use occurred in sober living homes in April 2023 alone, amid widespread where operators fumbled oversight, leading to dozens of fatalities linked to fraudulent facilities masquerading as recovery supports. A 2023 California lawsuit alleged certain sober homes operated as "little more than drug dens," with residents exposed to ongoing substance use that perpetuated cycles, though direct staff-perpetrated appears less prevalent than financial exploitation via kickbacks. These cases underscore how profit-driven models, including $3.2 million schemes targeting vulnerable patients, can undermine recovery by prioritizing billing over safety protocols. For seniors in group homes or adult family care settings, neglect often manifests as unmet due to understaffing, though high-profile scandals are less frequent than in larger facilities. Reports indicate that despite regulations, residents face risks of passive , such as failure to address bedsores or provide adequate , with staff in smaller homes admitting to oversight lapses comparable to those in facilities. Financial exploitation by operators or caregivers has been cited in cases where seniors' assets are mismanaged in these less-monitored environments, exacerbating isolation without the visibility of institutional settings. Internationally, similar concerns arise in Japanese group homes primarily for individuals with disabilities, where online criticisms highlight hypocrisy in operations claiming charitable intent while prioritizing profits through government subsidies and resident fees for rent and food. These facilities adhere to regulatory standards on staffing and services set by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, with violations subject to audits and corrective guidance. The 2024 reimbursement revisions, effective October 2024 and continuing into 2025, maintained some base fees while imposing stricter conditions for add-ons, which have been noted to increase operational challenges for providers; however, no specific official evidence of exploitation has been confirmed for 2025 or 2026 despite persistent critiques. Overall, underreporting persists across these residences, with empirical data suggesting that community-based models intended to enhance autonomy can inadvertently reduce external scrutiny, enabling harm to go undetected longer than in centralized institutions.

Community Resistance and Externalities

Communities frequently oppose the siting of group homes through organized protests, petitions, and legal challenges, driven by fears of diminished property values, heightened safety risks, elevated traffic, and disruptions to neighborhood tranquility. This resistance, often characterized as "Not In My Backyard" () behavior, manifests in tactics such as for zoning restrictions or invoking maximum occupancy laws to block or shutter facilities. A qualitative study in documented such opposition, where residents framed group homes as incompatible with local norms, leading to delays or relocations despite regulatory approvals. In the U.S., NIMBY efforts have prompted judicial scrutiny, with federal courts invalidating exclusionary practices under the Fair Housing Act when motivated by animus toward disabled residents rather than legitimate land-use concerns. Empirical assessments of externalities reveal that these apprehensions are largely unsubstantiated. Multiple econometric analyses of transactions near group homes—comparing sale prices, appreciation rates, and market times—consistently report no statistically significant negative effects on adjacent properties. For instance, a study of 525 homes sold proximate to 13 group homes found equivalent sale-to-list price ratios and days-on-market durations as control samples. Similarly, broader reviews of placements indicate that any observed value dips often reflect preexisting neighborhood trajectories rather than causal impacts from the facilities. On public safety, shows negligible correlations between group home presence and localized increases, with resident behaviors typically lower-risk than community averages due to supervision and selection criteria. Positive externalities, though less emphasized in resistance narratives, include enhanced community integration and modest economic activity from staff and services, which can stabilize underutilized areas without imposing measurable burdens. Resistance persists despite this evidence, potentially amplified by media portrayals of isolated incidents over , underscoring a gap between and verifiable outcomes. Successful mitigations involve preemptive neighbor engagement and transparency, reducing opposition in nearly half of psychiatric residence cases through informed .

Ideological Critiques of Deinstitutionalization

Critiques of deinstitutionalization often center on its roots in ideology, which prioritized patient autonomy and the "least restrictive alternative" principle over evidence-based assessments of treatment needs. Emerging in the 1960s amid the broader , advocates drew parallels between institutionalization and , framing state hospitals as oppressive relics that violated individual freedoms, as exemplified by exposés like Geraldo Rivera's 1972 Willowbrook investigation. This perspective, embraced across political lines but particularly by liberals sympathetic to anti-authoritarian reforms, influenced landmark U.S. Supreme Court rulings such as (1975), which held that nondangerous mentally ill individuals could not be confined against their will if they could survive outside with support from family or welfare. Psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey has argued that deinstitutionalization's ideological underpinning—rather than scientific progress from antipsychotic medications—drove the rapid discharge of hundreds of thousands from state hospitals, with bed counts plummeting from over 550,000 in 1955 to under 50,000 by 2016, without commensurate community infrastructure. Torrey attributes this to an uncritical extension of civil rights rhetoric to severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia, ignoring biological impairments such as anosognosia, where up to 50% of patients lack insight into their condition, rendering abstract autonomy illusory and leading to cycles of relapse, homelessness, and victimization. He posits that the policy's appeal stemmed from ideological momentum, not data, as early proponents assumed community integration would naturally follow release, a assumption falsified by subsequent rises in untreated mentally ill individuals comprising 25-30% of urban homeless populations by the 1980s. Philosophically, opponents contend that deinstitutionalization embodies a flawed libertarian-paternalism , overemphasizing (freedom from confinement) at the expense of positive protections against and societal risks, as articulated in critiques of the movement's influence from figures like , who equated mental illness with moral deviance amenable to voluntary choice rather than medical necessity. This view, Torrey notes in reflections on the era, conflated civil rights advocacy with therapeutic hubris, disregarding causal realities: severe disrupts executive function, necessitating structured environments for medication adherence and stability, which group homes often fail to provide due to underfunding and lax oversight. Empirical fallout, including a 10-fold increase in mentally ill inmates from 1970 to 2005, underscores the ideological blind spot to human variability, where ideological commitments to normalization supplanted pragmatic realism. From a communitarian standpoint, the policy has been faulted for eroding social responsibilities toward the vulnerable, prioritizing individual rights rhetoric that absolved states of custodial duties while externalizing costs to families, communities, and emergency services—a dynamic evident in California's post-Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (1967) surge of untreated patients burdening public systems. Critics like Senator highlighted how this ideological shift, by the , had devolved into "transinstitutionalization" to jails, where mentally ill inmates rose to 20-25% of the U.S. prison population by 2000, reflecting a failure to reconcile ideals with the ethical imperative for protective intervention in cases of profound incapacity. Such arguments maintain that true truth-seeking demands subordinating ideological purity to causal evidence of better outcomes in supervised settings for the subset of residents—estimated at 10-20% of severe cases—who cannot sustain community living without .

Major U.S. Laws and Judicial Precedents

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, as amended in 1988, prohibits discrimination in housing based on , including local and land-use practices that effectively exclude group homes for persons with disabilities. This includes refusals to grant reasonable accommodations, such as variances from occupancy limits or special permits applied only to group homes, when such measures are necessary to permit equal housing opportunities. The U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Housing and Urban Development have clarified that ordinances imposing undue restrictions on group homes—such as arbitrary spacing requirements between facilities or classifications treating disabled residents differently from non-disabled unrelated groups—violate the FHA's prohibition on and . The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 further reinforces protections by requiring public entities, under Title II, to administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. This integration mandate applies to state and local governments' decisions and support for community-based residences like group homes, prohibiting unjustified segregation in institutional settings over less restrictive alternatives. Complementing these, Section 504 of the bars discrimination against individuals with disabilities in any program receiving federal financial assistance, extending to and services that could favor group homes as non-discriminatory options. In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985), the U.S. invalidated a municipal ordinance under the that required a special use permit for a group home serving mentally retarded adults while exempting other residential uses, deeming the distinction irrational and rooted in prejudice rather than legitimate governmental interests. The landmark (1999) decision interpreted Title II of the ADA to hold that states violate the law by unnecessarily confining individuals with disabilities to institutions when community-based treatment, such as in group homes, is medically appropriate and feasible without fundamental alteration to state services. This ruling has spurred enforcement actions and policy shifts toward deinstitutionalization, emphasizing group homes as viable integrated living arrangements.

Resident Protections vs. Safety Trade-offs

Legal frameworks governing group homes, such as those under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), mandate placements in the least restrictive environments to protect residents' rights to independence, dignity, and community integration, often prioritizing autonomy over heightened supervision. These protections include safeguards against arbitrary restraint, rights to privacy, and freedom from abuse or neglect, enforced through state licensing and federal oversight like the guidelines. However, empirical data indicate that such emphases can create safety vulnerabilities, as smaller group home settings typically feature lower staff-to-resident ratios—often 1:4 or less—compared to institutional averages of 1:2 or tighter, reducing immediate monitoring for vulnerable individuals with or developmental disabilities. Safety trade-offs manifest in elevated risks of victimization, with U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reporting that persons with disabilities experience violent crime victimization rates 2.5 times higher than non-disabled individuals from 2009–2019, including in community-based residences where isolation from institutional safeguards exacerbates exposure. Children and adults with disabilities in group homes face nearly fourfold increased likelihood of physical abuse or neglect relative to the general population, per analyses of child welfare and developmental disability reports, often due to understaffing, inadequate training, or profit-driven under-resourcing in privatized facilities. Deinstitutionalization policies, while advancing rights-based integration, have correlated with transinstitutionalization into under-regulated group homes or homelessness for some, where reduced oversight—intended to foster autonomy—has led to documented neglect cases, such as unreported self-injurious behaviors or exploitation, as highlighted in U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General audits of group home operations. Regulatory responses attempt to mitigate these tensions through mandatory reporting of incidents and resident grievance mechanisms, yet gaps persist; for instance, state investigations reveal that only a fraction of allegations in group homes result in substantiated actions or facility closures, partly because rights-focused litigation prioritizes placement continuity over temporary heightened security measures. Peer-reviewed studies on deinstitutionalization outcomes underscore that while quality-of-life metrics improve in community settings for many, safety indicators like prevalence worsen for subsets with severe cognitive impairments, necessitating individualized risk assessments that balance protections with evidence-based safeguards like 24-hour monitoring or vetted . Critics, including watchdogs, argue that ideological commitments to deinstitutionalization overlook causal links between diluted institutional structures and persistent vulnerabilities, advocating for hybrid models that integrate rights protections without compromising verifiable safety protocols.

International Comparisons and Policy Variations

Policies on group homes for individuals with disabilities exhibit significant international variation, often reflecting differing commitments to deinstitutionalization, models, and oversight mechanisms. , federal policies such as the 1999 Olmstead ruling have accelerated the transition from large-scale institutions to community-based group homes, emphasizing integration under the with Disabilities Act, though this has resulted in uneven quality and persistent reliance on congregate settings for those with severe needs. In contrast, Nordic European countries like and prioritize individualized community support over traditional group homes, with policies personalized housing and services that achieve lower institutionalization rates—Sweden's model, for example, integrates disability support within universal welfare systems, reporting higher resident autonomy but higher per-capita costs exceeding €50,000 annually per person in some cases. Australia's (NDIS), implemented from 2013, subsidizes group homes as Specialist Disability Accommodation, yet a 2023 analysis revealed that approximately 17,000 residents face elevated risks of , coercion, and injury, prompting recommendations to phase out such models within 15 years in favor of supported arrangements that cost 20-30% less while enhancing choice. In , provincial regulations promote community living akin to U.S. approaches, with initiatives like accessible housing loans through the , but comparative reviews indicate persistent challenges in rural areas, where group homes serve as de facto institutions due to limited alternatives, leading to outcomes comparable to U.S. variability in resident health and . In the , post-1990s deinstitutionalization policies shifted toward group homes and supported housing, yet studies document higher incidences of chronic conditions like among former institutional residents now in settings, attributing this to inadequate transition support rather than the settings themselves. Eastern European post-socialist states, including and , have pursued EU-mandated deinstitutionalization since the early 2000s, closing large facilities but often relocating residents to under-resourced group homes, resulting in "trans-institutionalization" with reported increases in isolation and unmet needs due to funding shortfalls averaging 40% below Western European levels. Japan's approach integrates wheelchair-accessible group homes for those with severe disabilities, regulated by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare which establishes public standards for staffing configurations and service provisions, with violations subject to audits, guidance, and enforcement measures; residents exhibit higher dependency levels than in standard facilities, supported by national since 2000, though accessibility remains limited outside urban areas, and 2024 fiscal reimbursement modifications—applied from October 2024 with ongoing 2025 effects—have held certain base remunerations steady while imposing stricter conditions on add-on payments, contributing to noted increases in operational rigors for providers. Cross-national evaluations highlight that while individualized housing models in countries like and correlate with improved outcomes, such as greater participation, group home-centric policies in the U.S. and frequently encounter scalability issues, with costs per resident ranging from $100,000 to $200,000 annually without proportional gains in independence. In regions with rapid policy shifts, such as , empirical data underscore risks of policy implementation gaps, where deinstitutionalization without robust leads to worse metrics than sustained institutional care. These variations underscore causal factors like funding adequacy and regulatory enforcement, with peer-reviewed comparisons favoring hybrid models blending group homes with family-like supports for optimal risk-benefit balances.

Economic Analysis

Funding Sources and Cost Structures

In the United States, group homes for individuals with and developmental disabilities (IDD) or needs are predominantly funded through programs, particularly Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers under Section 1915(c) of the , which enable states to reimburse providers for residential supports as an alternative to institutionalization. These waivers cover services like room, board, staffing, and supervision, with federal matching funds typically covering 50-83% of costs depending on the state's Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP). Supplemental state funding from general revenue or dedicated streams often fills gaps, while smaller portions derive from (SSI), (SSDI), or private family contributions. Non-profit providers may access grants from sources like the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for specific populations, such as youth in transition from . Cost structures for group homes emphasize reimbursement rates set by states, which bundle expenses for , direct care staff (often 24/7 ratios of 1:3 to 1:6 depending on resident needs), utilities, , transportation, and administrative overhead. constitutes 60-80% of operating costs due to mandated , background checks, and requirements, with additional variability from behavioral interventions or supports. National averages for equivalents hover around 4,000−4,000-5,000 monthly per resident (133−133-167 daily) for semi-private or private arrangements, though IDD-specific group homes range 2,500−2,500-5,000 monthly (83−83-167 daily), escalating in urban areas or for high-needs cases requiring specialized care. State examples include Virginia's Tier 4 rates up to $314 daily for larger IDD group homes as of 2024, reflecting adjustments for and acuity levels. Providers often operate on thin margins, with rate-setting processes criticized for lagging behind rising labor and costs, potentially straining service quality.

Cost-Effectiveness Studies and Findings

A 1995 benefit-cost comparing community residences to institutional care for 11 individuals with severe disabilities found that placements yielded net societal benefits, with annual per-person costs averaging $45,000 in institutions versus $32,000 in settings, alongside gains in adaptive behaviors and reduced restrictive management needs. This study accounted for direct service costs, family benefits, and productivity gains, attributing savings to economies from smaller-scale operations and decreased medical interventions typical in large facilities. Similar patterns emerged in a 2004 cost-benefit evaluation of placements for children with , where programs showed significantly lower adjusted annual costs—approximately 20-30% less than institutional equivalents—while delivering higher integration levels and service intensity without proportional expense increases. Historical reviews of cost comparisons for persons with and developmental disabilities confirm that residential settings, including group homes, have consistently lower per-person expenditures than institutions across decades of , with differences persisting after controlling for acuity levels and support needs; for example, one synthesis reported institutional daily rates exceeding $300 per person in the 1990s-2000s, compared to $150-200 for group homes of 4-6 residents. A 2012 analysis by the for the American Network of Options and Resources further substantiated this, noting that institutional models incur higher capital and staffing overheads, leading to per-diem costs 1.5-2 times those of group homes, though it highlighted limited empirical on ultra-small (1-2 person) versus mid-sized options. These findings underscore scale efficiencies in deinstitutionalized models but caution that unadjusted comparisons may overlook hidden societal costs, such as crisis interventions for unsupported transitions. Within community-based alternatives, cost-effectiveness varies by staffing intensity; a 2017 UK study of adults with disabilities found arrangements (with flexible, on-call staff) achieved comparable quality-of-life outcomes to traditional group homes at 15-25% lower annual costs—around £40,000 versus £50,000 per person—due to reduced 24/7 staffing ratios. For populations, analogous residential models like group homes have shown mixed results, with a 2004 analysis indicating that well-maintained community housing reduced service utilization costs by up to 20% compared to congregate institutional care, though benefits depended on building quality and ongoing supports. Overall, peer-reviewed evaluations emphasize that group homes enhance cost-effectiveness through better resident outcomes relative to expenditures when contrasted with institutions, but optimal models prioritize individualized supports over uniform group configurations to minimize inefficiencies.

Provider Incentives and Market Failures

Group home providers operate under a funding model dominated by Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers, which reimburse via fixed rates per , typically set prospectively based on historical costs and adjusted infrequently for inflation or wage growth. This structure aligns provider incentives toward achieving high occupancy—often nearing capacity limits—to maximize revenue, while discouraging investments in higher-quality staffing or individualized care that exceed reimbursement thresholds, as excess costs are not recouped. Analogous dynamics in facilities demonstrate how such payments prompt providers to prioritize profitable or lower-needs residents, shortening or skimping on services for others to free resources, with provider response elasticities to financial signals exceeding those of patients by a factor of six. Direct support professionals (DSPs), essential for resident oversight in group homes, earn average hourly of $12.26, fostering annual turnover rates of 48.4% across surveyed states, with national replacement costs estimated at $2.3 billion yearly. Offered incentives like referral bonuses (45% of organizations) or supplements (44%) show no retention benefits and may correlate with higher churn, whereas increases of $1 per hour predict a 3.61% turnover drop; persistent vacancies (e.g., 17.5% in New York non-profits) and lean staffing ratios amplify risks, including doubled emergency visits and injury rates in unstable settings. firms, acquiring operators like BrightSpring (over 600 sites via KKR in 2019), intensify these pressures through debt-financed expansions and cost optimizations, drawing regulatory scrutiny for correlated abuse incidents and operational strains in consolidated markets. Internationally, similar funding and incentive structures appear in other systems, such as Japan's group homes for disabled individuals, which rely on government subsidies and user burdens like rent and food costs. Providers may present operations as charitable while prioritizing financial sustainability, though subject to Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare standards with audits for violations. The 2024 reimbursement revisions, effective from October 2024 and impacting 2025, maintained some group home rates while strictening add-on payments, potentially heightening provider pressures without confirmed instances of exploitation from official sources. Systemic market failures exacerbate incentive misalignments: government as dominant payer exerts monopsonistic rate suppression without outcome linkages, while licensing, , and capital barriers deter new entrants, enabling oligopolies where holds sway over fragmented non-profits. Residents and guardians face acute information asymmetries, unable to verify hidden care lapses amid opaque quality metrics, fostering where neglect persists undetected until substantiated complaints arise. Oversight gaps, as in New Jersey's documented persistence of unsafe conditions despite inflows, underscore and enforcement shortfalls, with market consolidation reducing competitive discipline on quality.00040-X/fulltext)

References

  1. https://www.justice.gov/crt/joint-statement-department-justice-and-department-housing-and-urban-development
  2. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-24/subtitle-B/chapter-IX/part-982/subpart-M/subject-group-ECFRa166ac8aacb6568
  3. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/group_homes.pdf
  4. https://lacounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Group-Quarters-Adult-and-Juvenile-Group-Homes.pdf
  5. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/tech_docs/group_definitions/2012GQ_Definitions.pdf
  6. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/group-home-technical-advisory-2022.pdf
  7. https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/foster-care/group-homes
  8. https://dss.mo.gov/dys/residential-treatment.htm
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0190740908000418
  10. https://www.casey.org/group-placement-impacts/
  11. https://www.casey.org/media/22.07-QFF-SF-Group-placements_fnl-1.pdf
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2515489/
  13. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=locus
  14. https://www.arvadaco.gov/424/Group-Homes
  15. https://www.autismhousingnetwork.org/learn/blog/group_homes_people_disabilities/
  16. https://www.specialneedsalliance.org/blog/a-place-of-her-own/
  17. https://www.nami.org/your-journey/individuals-with-mental-illness/finding-stable-housing/
  18. https://www.dds.ca.gov/general/eligibility/community-care-facilities-for-adults/
  19. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/33-flsa-group-homes
  20. https://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0300-0399/0393/Sections/0393.063.html
  21. https://des.az.gov/sites/default/files/media/DDD_Provider_Policy_Manual_Chapter_54_Group_Home_Requirements.pdf
  22. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/assisted-living-and-nursing-homes/long-term-care-facilities-assisted-living-nursing-homes
  23. https://digitalcommons.unmc.edu/wolf_books/1/
  24. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels2/pdf/80s/87/87-NDI-LAB.pdf
  25. https://www.peoplefirstofwashington.org/downloads/evidence_based_policy.pdf
  26. https://archive.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_about.htm
  27. https://www.olmsteadrights.org/about-olmstead/
  28. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31262701/
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224002415
  30. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1468017318793620
  31. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels/4d.html
  32. https://www.nps.gov/articles/disabilityhistoryearlytreatment.htm
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4967781/
  34. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/07/01/484083305/for-centuries-a-small-town-has-embraced-strangers-with-mental-illness
  35. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1832&context=jssw
  36. https://mn.gov/mnddc/parallels/4a.html
  37. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html
  38. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/deinstitutionalization-people-mental-illness-causes-and-consequences/2013-10
  39. https://cottonwooddetucson.com/blog/1963-community-mental-health-act/
  40. https://www.nyc.gov/site/mopd/events/our-history.page?slide=10
  41. https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-commemorates-50th-anniversary-willowbrook-consent-decree-and-celebrates-new
  42. https://disabilityjustice.org/the-closing-of-willowbrook/
  43. https://www.lsu.edu/hss/psychology/faculty/biological/SecondHarvardReviewPaper.pdf
  44. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/p71.pdf
  45. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/08/15/group-homes-on-the-rise/ff101f99-6dae-4e97-8374-110b97babf0e/
  46. https://www.ancor.org/sites/default/files/news/gwu_residential_report.pdf
  47. https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/community-living-and-olmstead/index.html
  48. https://www.macpac.gov/publication/twenty-years-later-implications-of-olmstead-v-l-c-on-medicaids-role-in-providing-long-term-services-and-supports/
  49. https://www.kff.org/medicaid/a-look-at-waiting-lists-for-medicaid-home-and-community-based-services-from-2016-to-2024/
  50. https://stateline.org/2018/06/14/giving-group-homes-a-21st-century-makeover/
  51. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/risp/infographics/where-do-people-with-intellectual-or-developmental-disabilities-live-when-they-dont-live-with-their-family
  52. https://oadd.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/V26-N2-20-331-Roebuck-v2.pdf
  53. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638288.2020.1785023
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7442944/
  55. https://publications.ici.umn.edu/risp/data-bytes/more-people-with-idd-get-services-in-homes-shared-by-three-or-fewer-people
  56. https://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/fulltext/2002/09000/residential_settings_and_outcomes_for_individuals.7.aspx?generateEpub=Article%257Cco-psychiatry:2002:09000:00007%257C%257C
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11892719/
  58. https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/featured/group-homes/
  59. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/16000-people-disabilities-institutions-no-place-like-home-cbs-reports/
  60. https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/community-living-and-participation
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7032537/
  62. https://www.rethink.org/advice-and-information/living-with-mental-illness/treatment-and-support/supported-housing-for-adults-living-with-mental-illness/
  63. https://grouphomeapp.org/mental-health-group-homes-a-comprehensive-guide/
  64. https://portal.ct.gov/dmhas/divisions/community-services-division/plc-mental-health-group-homes
  65. https://mhanational.org/resources/housing/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7576524/
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468266720300554
  68. https://www.cbpp.org/research/housing/supportive-housing-helps-vulnerable-people-live-and-thrive-in-the-community
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10247480/
  70. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201300261
  71. https://ficw.fsu.edu/assets/documents/TechnicalReport-ImprovingQualityResidentialGroupCare.pdf
  72. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/model-programs-guide/literature-reviews/juvenile_residential_programs.pdf
  73. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/why-youth-incarceration-fails-an-updated-review-of-the-evidence/
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6732825/
  75. https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/btb24-precon1a-1.pdf
  76. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2832&context=etd
  77. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ914409
  78. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.201300243?download=true
  79. https://narronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Primer-on-Recovery-Residences.pdf
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6605057/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3057870/
  82. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ps.201300243
  83. https://www.recoveryanswers.org/research-post/recovery-resident-positive-outcomes/
  84. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02791072.2023.2225502
  85. https://ocfs.ny.gov/programs/adult-svcs/ftha/
  86. https://www.ahcancal.org/Assisted-Living/Facts-and-Figures/Pages/default.aspx
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4221755/
  88. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/what-lifetime-risk-needing-receiving-long-term-services-supports-0
  89. https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/medicare-and-medicaid-programs-minimum-staffing-standards-long-term-care-facilities-and-medicaid-0
  90. https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=136098
  91. https://idd.nationalcoreindicators.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2021StateoftheWorkforceReport-20230209.pdf
  92. https://idd.nationalcoreindicators.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2023-NCI-IDD-SoTW_241126_FINAL.pdf
  93. https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/working-in-group-homes
  94. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/54630NCJRS.pdf
  95. https://dbh.ohio.gov/supporting-providers/housing-providers/training-learning-series/residential-facility-class-2-training-requirements
  96. https://mh.alabama.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Direct-Service-Personnel-Qualifications-and-Training-Requirements_Updated-3-19-25.pdf
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9442775/
  98. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1049731507314000
  99. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470404/
  100. https://www.rori.care/post/understanding-life-in-group-homes-for-adults-with-disabilities-an-in-depth-tutorial
  101. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/web-mm/managing-care-challenges-group-home-setting-staffing-adequate-unplanned-incidents
  102. https://ltc.ohio.gov/care-information/care-options/residential-facilities-class-two
  103. https://copahealth.org/copa-residential-services/
  104. https://cdphe.colorado.gov/community-residential-homes
  105. https://1on1comprehensivehealthcare.com/post/discover-the-benefits-of-group-homes-a-guide-to-person-centered-care
  106. https://sjdr.se/articles/10.16993/sjdr.1108
  107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26892618.2025.2552796?src=
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7910412/
  109. https://dbh.ohio.gov/static/Portals/0/assets/SchoolsAndCommunities/CommunityAndHousing/HousingResources/ACF%20Business%20Tool%20Kit.pdf
  110. https://dcfs.illinois.gov/content/dam/soi/en/web/dcfs/documents/about-us/policy-rules-and-forms/documents/rules/rules-403.pdf
  111. https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd22003.pdf
  112. https://www.osc.ny.gov/state-agencies/audits/2025/07/09/oversight-adult-care-facilities
  113. https://oig.hhs.gov/newsroom/videos/eye-oversight-group-homes/
  114. http://acl.gov/aging-and-disability-in-america/joint-report-ensuring-beneficiary-health-and-safety-group-homes
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9445309/
  116. https://www.cms.gov/medicare/quality/home-health/home-health-quality-measures
  117. https://www.c-q-l.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Building-The-Framework-For-IDD-Quality-Measures-2018.pdf
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5505658/
  119. https://health.usnews.com/senior-care/caregiving/articles/group-homes
  120. https://seniorshousingbusiness.com/nic-norc-study-seniors-have-better-health-outcomes-in-seniors-housing-than-at-home/
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213499000964
  122. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/21111990_A_Descriptive_Study_of_Abuse_and_Neglect_in_Out-of-Home_Placement
  123. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422224000210
  124. https://missouriindependent.com/2025/02/24/developmentally-disabled-missourians-suffer-abuse-death-in-states-dysfunctional-system/
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1936657420301898
  126. https://www.prb.org/articles/u-s-adults-with-intellectual-and-developmental-disabilities-are-living-longer-but-covid-threatens-to-erase-recent-gains/
  127. https://www.propublica.org/article/los-angeles-county-examines-troubled-group-homes-finances
  128. https://oig.hhs.gov/documents/reports/10119/group-homes-joint-report.pdf
  129. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016025270000042X
  130. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13668250.2017.1299117
  131. https://www.hhs.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/rider4-sb1-cost-comparison-report-aug-2024.pdf
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12294198/
  133. https://cyc-net.org/pdf/s10826-023-02696-9.pdf
  134. https://bettercarenetwork.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/family-type_care_vs_residential_care_costs.pdf
  135. https://www.faithtoaction.org/abandoned-to-transformed/
  136. https://www.propublica.org/article/california-group-home-liable-for-millions-in-case-of-abused-boy
  137. https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/watchdog/2025/05/03/nj-group-home-investigation-adults-with-developmental-disabilities/82240685007/
  138. https://www.propublica.org/article/arizona-sober-homes-deaths-medicaid-fraud
  139. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/18/sober-living-homes-were-little-more-than-drug-dens-lawsuit-says/
  140. https://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0100-press-releases/2020/release008-2020.cfm
  141. https://www.olympiainjurylawyer.com/are-group-homes-and-assisted-living-facilities-protecting-vulnerable-adults/
  142. https://www.evanslaw.com/san-francisco-financial-elder-abuse-attorneys-neglect-and-financial-abuse-of-seniors-in-group-homes/
  143. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2641&context=wvlr
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3205983/
  145. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263921517_Becoming_the_victim_A_study_on_community_reactions_towards_group_homes
  146. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1397&context=ulj
  147. https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/landec/v76y2000i4p615-637.html
  148. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2739565/
  149. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ328151
  150. https://furmancenter.org/files/publications/A3ImpactofSHonNeighborhoods_000.pdf
  151. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00778810
  152. http://www.planningcommunications.com/gh/illinois_impact_on_surrounding_neighborhood.pdf
  153. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268137046_Group_Homes_and_Apartments_NIMBY_and_Neighbor_Relations
  154. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/imd/closed-hospitals-eftwsj.html
  155. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/truth-about-deinstitutionalization/618986/
  156. https://albertmohler.com/2014/04/21/an-american-psychosis-a-conversation-with-psychiatrist-e-fuller-torrey/
  157. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/mental-illness-civil-liberty-and-common-sense
  158. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/media/eft/deinstitutionalization-deadly-moynihan-torrey.html
  159. https://www.ada.gov/resources/disability-rights-guide/
  160. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf
  161. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/432/
  162. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/527/581/
  163. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/capd0919st.pdf
  164. https://nala.org/abuse-of-special-needs-children/
  165. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6502057/
  166. https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/overview-long-term-care-five-nations-australia-canada-netherlands-norways-united-states-0
  167. https://deinstitutionalisationdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/eeg-di-report-2020-1.pdf
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3166640/
  169. https://theconversation.com/people-with-disabilities-in-group-homes-are-suffering-shocking-abuse-new-housing-models-could-prevent-harm-197989
  170. https://grattan.edu.au/phase-out-group-homes-to-give-disabled-australians-a-better-life/
  171. https://cresa.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/working-paper-2.pdf
  172. https://www.housingagency.ie/sites/default/files/2022-01/Disability%2520and%2520Housing%2520Approaches%2520in%2520Other%2520Jurisdictions_1.pdf
  173. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09687599.2019.1680341
  174. https://eurochild.org/uploads/2021/12/Children-in-alternative-care_Comparable-statistics-to-monitor-progress-on-DI-across-the-EU.pdf
  175. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2475-8876.12239
  176. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10566-021-09666-6
  177. https://enil.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Study-on-Deinstitutionalization-of-Children-and-Adults-with-Disabilities-in-Europe-and-Eurasia.pdf
  178. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227693074_A_Five-Country_Comparative_Review_of_Accommodation_Support_Policies_for_Older_People_With_Intellectual_Disability
  179. https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/home-community-based-services
  180. https://www.h2hhc.com/blog/financial-assistance-options-group-homes-individuals-with-i-dd
  181. https://acf.gov/cb/grants
  182. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/DDA/dda/documents/policy/policy6.02.pdf
  183. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11855932/
  184. https://www.aplaceformom.com/caregiver-resources/articles/cost-of-care-homes
  185. https://www.adinaaba.com/post/costs-of-group-homes-for-autistic-adults
  186. https://www.facebook.com/groups/732719531430807/posts/1317630586273029/
  187. https://www.newschannel5.com/news/group-homes-offer-all-the-comforts-of-home-but-that-care-is-getting-expensive-you-can-chip-in
  188. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7779348/
  189. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S089142220400068X
  190. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10867949_Cost_Comparisons_of_Community_and_Institutional_Residential_Settings_Historical_Review_of_Selected_Research
  191. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15333112/
  192. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/73916/costeff.pdf
  193. https://www.nber.org/papers/w25178
  194. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10288864/
  195. https://www.nysenate.gov/sites/default/files/admin/structure/media/manage/filefile/a/2024-02/ny-disability-advocates.pdf
  196. https://stateline.org/2025/05/16/private-equity-snaps-up-disability-services-challenging-state-regulators/
  197. https://www.nj.gov/treasury/njombudsman/documents/pdf/NJsDisabilityWatchdogWarnsThatNextGovernorWillInheritGroupHomeSystemInCrisis.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.