With varying definitions and reports of appropriate transitions to independent living situations, it is difficult to decipher which residential models and approaches have the greatest impact on homeless youth. This project was guided by six research questions that focused on the residential structure and programming frameworks of programs serving runaway and homeless youth. Invited to participate in the study were 299 organizations operating 519 residential programs across the United States. Electronic surveys were sent to identified organizations and were followed by paper surveys. The researcher eventually received 71 completed surveys that were categorized as runaway minor and homeless youth programs. The project findings included differences between the two groups of programming including time spent with case manager (minors m = 156.76 minutes / young adults m = 104.17 minutes), length of stay (minors m = 21.47 days / young adults m = 538.94 days), and reasons for program termination including lack of follow through with case plan, unauthorized guests, and nonpayment of program fees. Similarities found between the two groups included minimum staff requirements, programming frameworks and frequency of programming follow-up. Respondents provided qualitative insight to preferable formal educational characteristics that they had found to be beneficial to the youth that they serve. Respondents indicated that educational culture and services had the greatest impact on runaway minors and homeless youth. Respondents also provided qualitative feedback as to the differences in programming structure and frameworks required when serving street, systems and former foster youth. Conclusions were drawn from the findings providing discussion topics of accessing collateral information and using standardized intake assessments, maintaining low-barrier admission programs, the difference between case management quality and quantity, the specialized needs of homeless youth subpopulations, program continuums and stand alone programs, and educational flexibility, services and partnerships.