Comparison of community residential supports on measures of information & planning; access to & delivery of supports; choice & control; community connections; satisfaction; and, overall perception of outcomes.
Group and family-model homes still beat independent or birth-family living on planning, support, and happiness for adults with ID.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team mailed surveys to the adults with intellectual disability. They asked about six life areas: planning, getting help, choice, friends, happiness, and overall results.
Each person lived in one of four places: a group home, a family-model home, an independent place, or with birth family only.
What they found
Group homes and family-model homes won on five of six areas. People in these settings said they got better plans, easier help, more choice, more friends, and higher happiness.
Independent and birth-family settings scored lower on the same items.
How this fits with other research
Young (2006) already showed that scattered small homes beat cluster units on skills and choice. Lam et al. (2011) now adds planning and satisfaction to that win list.
Lerman et al. (1995) found group homes gave better quality without higher cost. The new survey keeps the quality edge and shows it holds across more life areas.
Friedman (2019) warns that provider-run homes can copy old ward habits. Lam et al. (2011) looks rosier, but both agree: the way staff run the home matters more than the label on the door.
Why it matters
When you help pick housing, push for group or family-model homes. Ask for proof of strong staff training, clear plans, and real community links. These two settings keep winning on the things clients say count most.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add a housing checklist to your next ISP meeting: staff training hours, weekly community outing schedule, and client choice documentation.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper reports on some of the findings of a large-scale survey (n = 852) of family members and support staff of adults with intellectual disabilities receiving community living services in British Columbia, Canada, concentrating on comparison of outcomes across four types of community residential settings: group homes, family model homes, independent home or apartment, and family home. METHOD: Comparisons were conducted on six domains: information and planning; access to and delivery of supports; choice and control; community connections; satisfaction; and, overall perception of outcomes. Where applicable, further multivariate analyses were undertaken to determine the effect of the degree of help required by the residents and the respondent type. RESULTS: Findings indicate that on all measures other than choice and control, group homes and family model homes showed better outcomes than either independent settings or family homes. CONCLUSION: The findings may indicate that the move to more independent living settings is not being accompanied by appropriate supports.
Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR, 2011 · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01378.x