The debate about which type of living arrangement works best for youth preparing for independent living has been going on for decades. Some programs swear by the scattered-site model (divide and conquer!), others brag about their wonderful group living model (united we stand!). Of course, the answer depends on whatever works for a particular community and youth. Many programs now use a mix of living arrangement options, recognizing that no one model works for all youth.

Here are some of the pro individual scattered-site arguments:

1. Youth (people) learn best by doing things for themselves, without anyone else to blame when things go wrong.

2. An organization does not have to purchase and maintain a piece of property. Clients can be accepted immediately anywhere in a community, if apartments can be located with landlords willing to rent to teens.

3. The clients can choose a location that is convenient for them, close to work, school and social support network.

4. Youth can keep the apartment, the furnishings and the security deposit and leave the system with a fully furnished living arrangement with long-term possibilities. If, of course, they can afford then rent and convince the landlord that they can take care of the place.

5. The size of the program is not limited to the amount of agency-owned apartment units.

6. Group and crowd control problems are not the primary issue. (Although they can be, if their posse moves in).

7. The transition to self-reliant living can be smoother if the living arrangement resembles the future situation of the youth.

8 .The youth must develop coping skills to deal with loneliness and control of visitors and assertive skills to deal with fellow tenants, landlords etc. from which s/he is protected in a more supervised setting.

9. Some people just can’t live with anyone else!

10. If things get out of control, you work your way out of lease and get out of Dodge and know one even knows the hellion youth was in your program. (This is a little harder with an 8-unit building full of your youth).

Here are some of the pro-group living arguments:

1. It’s too risky for a youth to live alone. An adult needs to be on grounds or close by to keep an eye on things.

2. Youth need to learn how to get along with other people. Few youth can afford to live alone in an apartment.

3. Landlords in some communities won’t rent to teens living alone without adult supervision.

4. The agency wants to own the property the youth live in for financial reasons.

5. Life skills can be taught more easily to multiple youth if they live in close contact.

6. Agencies can often acquire/inherit multi-unit buildings to use for such a purpose and find funding to renovate the property.

7. Boards don’t like the liability of having at teenager living alone.

8. Youth can get emotional support for other youth living close by.

Ideally, as a program evolves, both models are developed along with shared-homes, host homes and other options, which we will discuss in the next column.