GROUP HOMES HAVE PROVEN TO BE EFFECTIVE IN A WIDE VARIETY OF SERVICE SETTINGS FOR CHILDREN IN DIFFERENT AGE GROUPS POSSESSING VARIOUS PHYSICAL, EDUCATIONAL, EMOTIONAL, AND SOCIAL HANDICAPS. GROUP HOMES, AT THE TIME OF THIS WRITING, REPRESENT A CONCEPT MORE THAN A CONSISTENT FORM OF CARE. THEY ARE DEFINED MORE IN TERMS OF SIZE THAN ACCORDING TO TYPES OF PROGRAMS OFFERED. GROUP HOMES PROMOTE PERSONALIZED PEER AND ADULT-CHILD RELATIONSHIPS WITHOUT IMPOSING A FAMILY STRUCTURE ON CHILDREN WHO HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY RELATING TO FAMILY LIVING, WHILE AVOIDING THE SOMETIMES DEPERSONALIZING EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION. FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW, GROUP HOMES ARE AN ECONOMICAL AND EFFICIENT METHOD OF CARING FOR ADOLESCENTS, ALTHOUGH SOME CHILDREN REQUIRE THE CARE AVAILABLE IN THE LARGER INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. SOME CHILDREN CANNOT TOLERATE THE ANXIETY CREATED THROUGH INTIMACY WITH PEERS AND ADULTS IN THE SMALL GROUP HOME WITH 7 TO 12 CHILDREN. THE JEWISH BOARD OF GUARDIANS DECIDED TO ESTABLISH GROUP HOMES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: WAITING LISTS FORCED CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATE MODES OF TREATMENT, THERE WERE PROBLEMS INVOLVING DISTURBED CHILDREN WHO WERE NOT READY FOR DISCHARGE BUT WERE AT RISK OF SUFFERING FROM OVERINSTITUTIONALIZATION, AND THERE WAS A NEED FOR AFTERCARE FACILITIES FOR ADOLESCENTS NOT READY TO RETURN TO THEIR HOMES. FOUR GROUP HOMES WERE OPERATED BY THE BOARD FOR CHILDREN AT SPECIFIC STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND FOR SPECIFIC NEEDS, ALL OF WHICH ARE ANCILLARY TO AN INSTITUTIONAL SETTING. IT IS FELT THAT THE SUCCESS OF GROUP HOMES DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE SELECTION AND GROUPING OF CHILDREN, THE NATURE OF STAFF MEMBERS, AND THE CLARITY OF PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS PROVIDED.