Program Profile: Boys Town Family Home Program

This is a residential program that focuses on improving behavioral and academic skills in a family-style setting with the goal of family reunification. The program is rated Promising. Participants showed a statistically significant increase in their grade point averages and perceptions of the importance of going to college, compared with the control group. However, the program did not show an impact on the years of school completed or likelihood of receiving a high school diploma or GED.

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

A Promising rating implies that implementing the program may result in the intended outcome(s).

Program Goals

The Boys Town Family Home Program SM (Boys Town) is a residential program that uses the Teaching Family Model (TFM) approach to residential care for delinquent or pre-delinquent youth. Youths are referred by other Boys Town organization (formerly known as Father Flanagan's Boys' Home) programs, social service agencies, juvenile justice agencies, or by parents/caregivers. Many of the children have serious emotional/behavioral problems and cannot stay in their own family homes, but can function safely in a community setting. The ultimate goal of the program is to reunite youth with their families.

Program Components

The TFM approach emphasizes behavioral and academic skills in a family-style setting. A married couple, with help of a full-time assistant, lives in the home with six to eight children. The married couple is called Family-Teachers® and the assistant is called Assistant Family-Teacher®.

The average length of stay is 12 to18 months. In the traditional TFM approach, youths attend public school; however, at Boys Town, youths attend an on-campus school run by the Boys Town organization.

Boys Town is characterized by five key elements. These elements are 1) building and maintaining healthy relationships; 2) interpersonal and life skills development; 3) moral and social development, with emphasis on a spiritual foundation; 4) a family-style approach; and 5) teaching and practicing self-government and self-determination (Heufner et al. 2007). The program teaches behavior modification, character education, socialization, and academics (Thompson et al. 2005).

Emphasis is placed on youths getting along with others and developing positive, non-exploitative relationships. They are taught proper interpersonal skills and how to follow directions. Typical life skills taught include housecleaning, food shopping, and meal preparation. Youths also attend religious services weekly. Their living environment is meant to mimic normal family life with typical family activities, such as chores and leisure activities. Youths are encouraged to make meaningful life decisions and take on leadership roles within the program (Huefner et al.2007).

Study

Thompson and colleagues (1996) evaluated the short- and long-term educational effects of the Boys Town home campus program using a quasi-experimental, longitudinal research design. Study participants were recruited from all program admissions between May 1981 and June 1985. Children were referred by a juvenile justice agency, a social service agency, or treatment provider.

To be eligible for the study, children had to be eligible for admission to the residential program, had to have parental consent, and had to have the first interview within 36 hours of becoming a resident. The final study sample consisted of 587 children, with 503 in the treatment group and 84 in the comparison group. Children in the comparison group were those who met admission criteria, but did not enter the program either by choice or because of space limitations. The comparison group received treatment-as-usual, which included counseling or some other type of treatment.

The treatment group was predominantly male (92 percent), white (71 percent), and on average about 14.4 years old. The average length of stay in the program was 20 months. Similarly, the comparison group was predominately male (92 percent) and white (68 percent), and on average about 14.7 years old. There were no significant differences between the groups at the initial interview, and potential group differences at follow-up were controlled for in the statistical analysis.

Participants were interviewed when they entered the study, and then continuously every 3 months after until the spring of 1987, after which they were interviewed every 6 months until their 13th interview (the 13th interview was conducted for all youths by 1988).Final interviews were attempted for all participants in 1989. All interviews were conducted via the telephone. The CrimeSolutions review looked at the differences between the pre-intervention interview and the final interview. Outcome measures included grade point average, years of school completed, receiving a high school diploma or GED, and importance or chance of college. Most measures were analyzed using hierarchical linear modeling and the average length of stay was used as time of departure. The outcomes were examined at the initial interview, during placement, and after placement. No subgroup analyses were conducted.

Information about the Boys Town Family Home program can be found on the Boys Town website: https://www.boystown.org/Pages/default.aspx

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Huefner, Jonathan C., Jay L. Ringle, M. Beth Chmelka, and Stephanie D. Ingram. 2007. “Breaking the Cycle of Intergenerational Abuse: The Long-term Impact of a Residential Care Program.” Child Abuse and Neglect 31:187–199. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Thompson, Ronald W., Jonathan C. Huefner, Jay L. Ringle, and Daniel L. Daly. 2005. “Adult Outcomes of Girls and Boys Town Youth: A Follow-Up Report.” 17th Annual Conference Proceedings: A System of Care for Children’s Mental Health: Expanding the Research Base: 529–534. (This study was reviewed but did not meet Crime Solutions' criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)