In March 1969 Rex Smith, one of the original founders of Hearts & Homes for Youth, prepared a report called “The House That People Built: Anatomy of a Group Home in Suburbia.” The subject of the report was the Boys’ Home of Montgomery County, which is now known as Hearts & Homes for Youth. Here are some excerpts from the report.
The Anatomy of the Program
The program of the homes is designed to be flexible enough to meet every aspect of the youngsters day to day life, always with any eye toward the future and a plan of smooth transition either back to his own home or toward more full independence within the community. The Boys’ Home program is interested in three interrelated services:
- The development of maturity and responsibility of each boy;
- Family counseling; and
- Follow-up services to former residents and their families
With the assistance of the referring agent, be it the Juvenile Court Probation Officer, the Department of Social Services Social worker, or the Pupil Services Worker, a planned program is established for each youngster prior to his entering into the home, again considering the length of time this program must be in effect before his release. A program as set up thus far has emphasized a relatively short-term stay in the home, averaging six months to nine months, with a maximum of one year.
The Boys’ Home approach is aimed at developing individual responsibility. The youngster will have duties and assignments as appropriate in the development of self-initiative and self respect. The Boys’ Home will involve to greater of lesser degrees every social service agency and resource within the community that has offered its services as part of its total responsibility for youngsters…
The most dynamic and important part of the Boys’ Home program involves the development of a significant and meaningful relationship between the counselors and the boys themselves.
“These boys are good boys. In most cases all they need is to know that someone loves them and cares what happens to them.” -Mrs. Gipe, Former Housemother
Mrs. Gipe continued, saying “To be awakened in the morning or just to sit on the bed and talk with them for a few minutes, usually gets them up. but once in a while we get a sleepy head that nothing short of a glass of water will work. I might say that after one experience of getting water in their faces, I do not usually have any more trouble getting them up. Surprisingly, they do not get too upset about it. Of course, they know that this could happen. Sometimes I think that they just try me to see if I will really do it”…
Normally one would not think of the home environment as being part of the program. We would ordinarily think of it as being part of our overall concept, but without the need for planning a home atmosphere. Not that we must program the homelike atmosphere but maintenance of our integrity about it being a home atmosphere is often challenged, not only by critics who would rather see a stockade-like structure, but also by the boys who quite often don’t know how to react to the relative tolerance and freedom of the home situation. The reactions by some of the boys is an overindulgence because of the relative tolerance. The reaction of the others used to rigid and restrictive living conditions really puts us on our mettle in trying to maintain the “home.”
Those so unused to what we might call a normal home setting where there is a lot of give and take and opportunity for making mistakes and taking responsibility, do engage in testing our home to see what it’s all about. The counselors are quite involved in helping the youngsters to redefine themselves with regard to our home situation and reduce their confusion. It would be very easy for us as a staff to fall into the pit of reacting to these testing situations by increasing tenfold our rules and regulations, which would in fact move us closer to being an institutional setting rather than a home setting. We have always emphasized with the boys from the very first day and repeatedly throughout their stay, that this home of ours is just that, and that we have no bars, no locks, and if they were of a mind to get up and walk out, we will not call the police or otherwise detain them. Our emphasis is on wanting to make them feel at home so that they do not have to have desires to leave. If a young man decides to “blow up” and leave the home, we are more inclined to reduce his anger and high-pitched feelings by discussion of what the home has meant to him and what he has meant to us. This has arisen on occasion, particularly when a youngster nears release. Quite frankly this has been effective and we have avoided attempts by the boys, at least subconsciously, to have us put bars around them…
The development of an identity with the boys home by each of the youngsters as a place for them to call their own has been quite significant in this regard. Each boy knows that he could walk out at any time and would not be physically withheld or “collared” by one of the counselors, but he also knows that they will give him time and an ear so that he can express himself about whatever he feels is important at the moment…
Some observers feel quite concerned that the home does not have a rulebook for each youngster to look at and read and understand, or a “sign in” and “sign out” sheet so that we will know every moment where every youngster is. If we are to maintain a homelike atmosphere then we cannot get in the business of developing institutional mechanisms… It is with the judges consent that he be placed in the home, in the community…