Critical issues in the residential care of people with autism.

McClannahan et al. (1990) looked at group homes for people with autism. They asked what makes a good home, not just a bigger one.

The paper lists must-have parts: staff who know ABA, clear goals, and data on every resident. It says beds alone do not help.

The review found most homes lacked rules based on science. Quality dipped as more homes opened fast.

Authors warned that without data, bad habits spread. They called for checklists and outcome tracking.

Donahoe et al. (2000) picked up the same thread. They added cost and staff training gaps, showing money and know-how still lag.

Cox (2012) moved the lens to adults. It says the adult autism crowd is still underserved, echoing the 1990 call for more but better.

Jackson (2011) widened the view to people with ID in any residential or community home. It repeats the plea for demo projects and staff who relate, not just babysit.

Adams et al. (2024) jumped ahead with a systematic map. They show today’s autism studies rarely report if community teams can keep gains going, a direct echo of the 1990 worry about sustainability.

If you run or consult for a residential program, treat this paper as your baseline checklist. Ask for data on adaptive gains, behavior reduction, and family satisfaction. Push for in-house ABA supervision and regular probe reviews. The field has talked quality for three decades; you can make it real by tying funding to measurable outcomes, not head-count.