All Youth Villages In-Home Services Outcomes through March 2013

In-Home Services Programs Information from October 1994 through March 2013 Youth Villages provides In-Home Services through two programs - Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Intercept.

Current MST locations include: North Carolina, District of Columbia and Alabama.* Current Intercept locations include: Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Indiana, North Carolina and Oregon.** *MST previously provided in Texas **Intercept previously provided in Virginia and Mississippi

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Summary Youth Served •

More than 33,000 youth served in In-Home Services since 2000

•

More than 4,000 admissions per year for the past three fiscal years

Outcomes •

More than 85% discharged home with family

•

More than 80% still at home with family at 12 months post-discharge •

80% report no trouble with the law

•

Nearly 90% are in school, graduated from high school, or in GED classes

All contents ©2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Demographics Youth served October 1994 through March 2013 N = 33,503

100%

80% 62% 57% 60% 38%

35%

40%

20% 3%

5%

0% Male

Female

Gender

African American

Caucasian

Hispanic

Race/Ethnicity

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Other

In-Home Services Programs Age Group Youth served October 1994 through March 2013 N = 33,503

12%

43%

13%

32%

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

8 Years Old and Younger 9 to 11 Years Old 12 to 14 Years Old 15 to 18 Years Old

In-Home Services Programs Presenting Issues Youth served July 2000 through March 2013 N = 33,503

100%

91%

80%

62% 60%

48%

34%

33%

40%

37%

20%

0% Behavioral Disorders

Substance Abuse

Emotional Disorders

Victim of Abuse and/or Neglect

Suicidal Ideations or Gestures

More than 85% of youth have multiple presenting issues All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Legal Issues

Program Characteristics • Growth – Fairly steady growth in program admissions since 2001 – More than 4,200 admissions in FY 2011 and over 4,100 in FY 2012

• Geographic Distribution – Tennessee has served the largest number of youth in the in-home services program – More than 3,500 youth have been served in North Carolina – More than 1,200 youth have been served in Alabama, Mississippi, and Massachusetts

All contents ©2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Admissions by Fiscal Year October 1994 through March 2013 5,000 4,500

4,181

4,274 4,243

4,000

3,744

3,500 3,000

2,719

2,500 2,027 1,854

2,000

There have been 3,033 admissions in the first half of the current fiscal year.

1,404 1,241

1,500 862

1,584

679

1,000 144

500

292

377

295

490

410

16 0 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998 1999

2000 2001 2002

Youth may have multiple admissions to the In-Home program

2003 2004 2005 2006

2007 2008 2009

2010 2011 2012

Fiscal Year – July 1 to June 30

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Admissions by Region October 1994 through March 2013

9,000

8,007 8,000

7,000

7,287 6,332

6,000

5,000

3,578

4,000

3,000

1,756

1,953

2,000

999

1,285 791

683

1,000

679 45

129

148

NH

OR

197

0 West TNMiddle TNEast TN

AL

MS

TX* Washington NC DC

Youth may have multiple admissions to the In-Home program

MA

FL

GA

VA*

IN

*Services are no longer provided in these areas All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Current Census by Program Census on March 2013 N = 1,464

MST, 15.5%

Intercept, 84.5% MST Programs are currently located in North Carolina, Washington, DC, and Dothan, AL; Intercept Programs operate in all other Youth Villages locations.

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Outcomes • At Discharge – More than 85% of youth are discharged home with family or are living independently

• At One Year Post-Discharge – More than 80% of youth are living home with family or are living independently – Gains made during treatment are sustained (as measured by the SDQ) – 80% of youth report no trouble with the law – Nearly 90% of youth are in school, have graduated from high school, or are in GED classes – Few youth have experienced an out-of home placement; 7% have been in residential treatment, 3% in a psychiatric hospital, and 7% in a detention or correctional facility – 16% of youth under 18 at the time of follow-up are in state custody; youth who participate in In-Home Services are at high risk of placement into state custody at the time of admission

All contents ©2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Discharge Location Youth discharged October 1994 through March 2013 N = 26,616

100%

86%

80%

60%

40%

20%

3%

7% 1%

3%

0% Home

Residential Treatment Center

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service; 15.0% (4,714 out of 31,330) of admissions ended prior to 60 days.

Psychiatric Hospital

Detention/ Corrections

Other*

*Other includes placements such as group homes, runaway, foster care and rehab centers

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Parent Satisfaction at Discharge Parents surveyed October 2009 through March 2013

100%

89%

86%

89%

92%

92%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Satisfaction w ith the Quality of Services Received

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

Satisfaction w ith the Kind of Services Received

Would Return to YV services if Needed

Satisfaction w ith the Quantity of Services Received

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Overall Satisfaction

In-Home Services Programs Success at Follow-up Follow-ups conducted October 1994 through March 2013 100% 81%

82%

82%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Six Months

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

Twelve Months

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Twenty-four Months

Success is defined as living with family or independently at the time of follow-up

In-Home Services Programs Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Assessments conducted July 2007 through March 2013 77%

Conduct Difficulties

67%

53% 52%

Emotional Difficulties

The SDQ is administered at admission and discharge to all caregivers as well as youth over 10 years old; this instrument is also administered at one year postdischarge to the follow-up survey respondent .

42% 35% 55%

Hyperactivity

45% 45% 58%

Peer Problems

55% 47% 72%

Impact of Difficulties

60%

41%

62%

Prosocial Behavior

59%

38%

69%

Total Score

58% 50%

0%

20%

40%

Twelve Months Post-Discharge Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

60% Discharge

Assessments by Type: Admission: n = 15,682 Discharge: n = 12,459 12-Months Post Discharge: n = 2,037

80%

100%

Admission Bars represent percent of youth in the clinical range (includes Borderline, High, and Very High for all domains except Prosocial Behavior; Borderline, Low, and Very Low are included in the bar for Prosocial Behavior).

In-Home Services Programs Youth reporting NO Trouble with the Law Follow-ups conducted October 1994 through March 2013

100% 81%

80%

80%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Six Months

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

Twelve Months

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Twenty-four Months

In-Home Services Programs School Status Follow-ups conducted October 1994 through March 2013

100%

89%

89%

85%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Six Months

Twelve Months

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

Twenty-four Months Indicates the percent of youth in school, graduated from high school, or in GED classes at the time of follow-up

In-Home Services Programs Out of Home Placements Follow-ups conducted October 1994 through March 2013

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

6%

6%

3%

7%

3%

7%

6%

2%

8%

0% Six Months Residential Treatment Center Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

Twelve Months Psychiatric Hospital

Twenty-four Months Detention/Corrections

All contents Š2013 by Youth Villages, Inc. with all rights reserved

In-Home Services Programs Youth under 18 in State Custody at Follow-up Follow-ups conducted October 1994 through March 2013

100%

80%

60%

40% 15%

16%

16%

20%

0% Six Months

Only includes youth who received at least 60 days of service

Twelve Months

Twenty-four Months

Youth who participate in the In Home Services program are at significantly increased risk of placement into state custody either due to abuse/neglect or delinquency issues.

About our Response Rates Surveys conducted Jan 1994 through March 2013 Discharge Survey

68.1% (7,143 out of 10,483)

6-Month Follow-up

61.1% (17,094 out of 27,999)

12-Month Follow-up

54.4% (13,763 out of 25,285)

24-Month Follow-up

46.0% (9,562 out of 20,789)

Surveys are conducted by research staff via phone with letter surveys to non-respondents.

•

Please note: Surveys are completed with youth/families who have discharged from YV services altogether. If a youth re-enters YV services, the survey cycle is reset and begins again at their discharge.

•

Rate of re-entry into YV services: (July 2000 to March 2013) 6-Month Follow-up – 5.0% (1,387 out of 27,669) 12-Month Follow-up – 8.8% (2,278 out of 25,859) 24-Month Follow-up – 12.4% (2,701 out of 21,807)

Internet search of public records (Lexis-Nexis) is completed to locate accurate contact information While no consensus exists regarding adequate response rates, 40% - 60% has been identified as appropriate for surveys of this type and size1.

Satisfaction surveys (conducted shortly after discharge) are only conducted with families who were involved in the youth’s treatment.

A new satisfaction survey was introduced in October 2009; figures reflect only responses to the new survey

WGSC (Public Works and Government Services Canada). (2008). Advisory Panel on