In recent years, the number of alternative schools has continued to grow and an increasingly large number of students at-risk for school failure have been enrolled in alternative settings. Critics blame this increase on the fact that the school-aged population has become increasingly diverse, presenting a broad range of issues that the schools have not been able to effectively address. Furthermore, with the renewed push for accountability and the mounting challenge of serving students who exhibit emotional and behavioral problems, schools have had little choice but to resort to enrolling these students in alternative educational settings. Federal legislation emphasizes that educational programs serving students at-risk for school failure should use strategies and procedures for which there is empirical support regarding their efficacy (F. A. Hughes, P. Baker, A. Criste, J. Huffy, M. Link, C. Piripavel, et al., 2006). C. A. Lehr and C. M. Lange (2003) argued that although it is clear that students with disabilities are attending alternative schools, the extent to which these students are being educated and the nature and quality of these educational programs is still unclear. In this article, the authors will provide an overview of strategies and practices that work in effective alternative and day treatment programs. The authors will examine research and pedagogical literature relevant to the aforementioned core characteristics and discuss practical recommendations for integrating these core characteristics into daily practices using specific examples from model programs. (Contains 1 table.)