ABSTRACT
As noted in previous chapters, group care continues to be used as a placement resource for children of all ages. At times, large numbers of children were served in group care, a service corresponding to popular beliefs in the convenience and appropriateness of this form of supervision for children (Kadushin, 1980). At other times, however, popular and professional concerns about the importance of childrearing in the most homelike environment have shifted the emphasis on care for dependent children to foster family care and away from group care (Ashby, 1984; Lerman, 1982; Wolins & Piliavin, 1969). Although that debate continues to provoke controversy, many see group care as an appropriate alternative for children who might not otherwise be served in foster family homes. Seen as one residential alternative along a continuum, the group home offers one more option for hard-to-place children. Wells (1993) sees gro jp care as an essential placement option for seriously emotionally disturb >ed children but also notes that it should be used sparingly, because it is “a radical and costly intervention” (p. 165). For many adolescents, g oup care may be the placement of choice, when, under the supervision of their county probation department, they might otherwise be served in fai- more restrictive environments.
