The description of each hostel covers facilities available, philosophy and type of regime, staffing, resident selection criteria, work undertaken by residents, availability of remedial education, and ways leisure time is used. Results are compared to a similar study conducted in 1978. Most hostels were using facilities built for other purposes and did not offer single rooms. Staff in seven hostels viewed their programs as direct alternatives to custody; staff in 11 other hostels stated they used treatment strategies to help residents return to the community and cope with the stresses of modern life. The degree of structure imposed on residents varied considerably. The ratio of staff to residents was reasonably high at all hostels. Only 23 percent of the residents on probation were in full-time employment, compared to 80 percent in 1978, due to the large increase in unemployment over the last 5 years. Hostel staffs were just becoming aware of the need to provide work experience and skills training, although they already provided remedial education for less able residents. Tables and footnotes are included.