Youth Villages was founded in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1986 through the merger of two campuses that...

Transcribed Image Text:

Youth Villages was founded in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1986 through the merger of two campuses that provided residential treatment to young people with emotional or behavioral issues. In subsequent years, the organization expanded, eventually opening offices in 20 states and the District of Columbia. As it grew, (Continued) (Continued) over hard i digique ringen od Youth Villages also expanded its programs beyond residential treatment to include intensive in-home services, treatment foster care, adoption services, community-based services, transitional living services, family-based care for children with developmental disabilities, and specialized crisis services. By 2018, it was operating programs in 72 locations and was still expanding (Youth Villages, 2019). By offering a continuum of services, Youth Vil- lages aims to help children overcome their challenges and live at home. If a child must receive help beyond his or her own home, residential treatment is pro- vided in the least restrictive setting for the shortest amount of time possible, with the child transitioning to a group home or foster home if necessary before returning home. The adoption program helps to find permanent homes when it is not possible for children to return to their birth families (Youth Villages, 2019). Youth Villages' model, which is called "Eviden- tiary Family Restoration, reflects five core tenets: (1) The program treats families as well as children simultaneously; (2) Outcomes are measured long term; (3) The program continues in the community, with children being kept with original families or adoptive families, keeping out-of-home placements temporary; (4) Highly intensive services are delivered 24/7 by main- taining low caseloads and trained, accountable staff; and (5) Programs are research based, data driven, and accountable to children, families, and funders (Youth Villages, 2019). Youth Villages reports that 86 percent of young people who complete the program are living successfully two years later (Youth Villages, 2018). The use of performance metrics is a central fea- ture of Youth Villages' approach. As CEO Pat Lawler explains, "Youth Villages' goal always has been to pro- vide the best services for children and families. That's one of the reasons we started collecting data.... It was all about getting better outcomes for kids" (Les- ter, 2016, p. 32). The organization established its own research department in 1994, which collects and ana- lyzes data from all youth who have participated in its programs for at least 60 days. The youth are tracked at 6, 12, and 24 months after discharge, and Youth Villages has amassed one of the largest outcome data- sets in the country. In addition, the organization has formed research partnerships with an array of scholars. and academic institutions that study its data and refine its outcome evaluation process. In addition to outcome data, day-to-day opera- tions are tracked through a performance management system, which is focused on several core indicators related to program and organizational performance. Initially, the performance management system used off-the-shelf software, but now it uses a more complex system in order to track the various core indicators, which include Actual number of children being served versus projections (312 Data on staff turnover Physical interventions required ● Serious incidents, such as runaways ● ● ● ● . ● Perceptions of Youth Villages' programs by children served and their families Financial performance, measured by the margin of revenue over expenses Compliance with regulatory guidelines and best practices Success in moving children to less-restrictive environments, including returning them to live with their families or having them live in group homes or independently (Lester, 2016) Youth Villages' results have attracted the attention and support of national funders. The Edna McCon- nell Clark Foundation has invested more than $36 million in the organization since 2004 and helped Youth Villages receive an additional $25 million from 11 other funders who were participating in Clark's Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot (GCAP) program, which ran from 2007 to 2012. Youth Villages and other organizations receiving the investments were permitted to draw down funds for growth capital only if they achieved agreed-upon performance milestones, which included securing reliable, renewable funding. In 2015, Blue Meridian Partners, which is affiliated with the Clark Foundation, committed $200 million over 11 years to make programs based on the Youth Villages model available to nearly all young people in the country in need of such services, both through expansion of Youth Villages' programs and through partnerships with other organizations (Edna McCon- nell Clark Foundation, 2019). Questions Related to Case 6.2 1. How are the concepts of effectiveness, efficiency, and organizational performance reflected in the Youth Villages case? 2. Which of the approaches to measuring and reporting performance discussed in this chapter are illustrated in the case of Youth Villages? Additional source: Author's personal communications with Sarah Hurley, PhD, Managing Director of Data Science, Youth Villages, Memphis, TN, September 8, 2017. 3. If Youth Villages were to apply the social return on investment (SROI) approach, what would be some of the cost savings to society that might be calculated (i.e., the social benefits in dollar terms)? 4. How does the view of Renz and Herman (2016) that effectiveness is socially constructed relate to the case of Youth Villages? Youth Villages was founded in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1986 through the merger of two campuses that provided residential treatment to young people with emotional or behavioral issues. In subsequent years, the organization expanded, eventually opening offices in 20 states and the District of Columbia. As it grew, (Continued) (Continued) over hard i digique ringen od Youth Villages also expanded its programs beyond residential treatment to include intensive in-home services, treatment foster care, adoption services, community-based services, transitional living services, family-based care for children with developmental disabilities, and specialized crisis services. By 2018, it was operating programs in 72 locations and was still expanding (Youth Villages, 2019). By offering a continuum of services, Youth Vil- lages aims to help children overcome their challenges and live at home. If a child must receive help beyond his or her own home, residential treatment is pro- vided in the least restrictive setting for the shortest amount of time possible, with the child transitioning to a group home or foster home if necessary before returning home. The adoption program helps to find permanent homes when it is not possible for children to return to their birth families (Youth Villages, 2019). Youth Villages' model, which is called "Eviden- tiary Family Restoration, reflects five core tenets: (1) The program treats families as well as children simultaneously; (2) Outcomes are measured long term; (3) The program continues in the community, with children being kept with original families or adoptive families, keeping out-of-home placements temporary; (4) Highly intensive services are delivered 24/7 by main- taining low caseloads and trained, accountable staff; and (5) Programs are research based, data driven, and accountable to children, families, and funders (Youth Villages, 2019). Youth Villages reports that 86 percent of young people who complete the program are living successfully two years later (Youth Villages, 2018). The use of performance metrics is a central fea- ture of Youth Villages' approach. As CEO Pat Lawler explains, "Youth Villages' goal always has been to pro- vide the best services for children and families. That's one of the reasons we started collecting data.... It was all about getting better outcomes for kids" (Les- ter, 2016, p. 32). The organization established its own research department in 1994, which collects and ana- lyzes data from all youth who have participated in its programs for at least 60 days. The youth are tracked at 6, 12, and 24 months after discharge, and Youth Villages has amassed one of the largest outcome data- sets in the country. In addition, the organization has formed research partnerships with an array of scholars. and academic institutions that study its data and refine its outcome evaluation process. In addition to outcome data, day-to-day opera- tions are tracked through a performance management system, which is focused on several core indicators related to program and organizational performance. Initially, the performance management system used off-the-shelf software, but now it uses a more complex system in order to track the various core indicators, which include Actual number of children being served versus projections (312 Data on staff turnover Physical interventions required ● Serious incidents, such as runaways ● ● ● ● . ● Perceptions of Youth Villages' programs by children served and their families Financial performance, measured by the margin of revenue over expenses Compliance with regulatory guidelines and best practices Success in moving children to less-restrictive environments, including returning them to live with their families or having them live in group homes or independently (Lester, 2016) Youth Villages' results have attracted the attention and support of national funders. The Edna McCon- nell Clark Foundation has invested more than $36 million in the organization since 2004 and helped Youth Villages receive an additional $25 million from 11 other funders who were participating in Clark's Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot (GCAP) program, which ran from 2007 to 2012. Youth Villages and other organizations receiving the investments were permitted to draw down funds for growth capital only if they achieved agreed-upon performance milestones, which included securing reliable, renewable funding. In 2015, Blue Meridian Partners, which is affiliated with the Clark Foundation, committed $200 million over 11 years to make programs based on the Youth Villages model available to nearly all young people in the country in need of such services, both through expansion of Youth Villages' programs and through partnerships with other organizations (Edna McCon- nell Clark Foundation, 2019). Questions Related to Case 6.2 1. How are the concepts of effectiveness, efficiency, and organizational performance reflected in the Youth Villages case? 2. Which of the approaches to measuring and reporting performance discussed in this chapter are illustrated in the case of Youth Villages? Additional source: Author's personal communications with Sarah Hurley, PhD, Managing Director of Data Science, Youth Villages, Memphis, TN, September 8, 2017. 3. If Youth Villages were to apply the social return on investment (SROI) approach, what would be some of the cost savings to society that might be calculated (i.e., the social benefits in dollar terms)? 4. How does the view of Renz and Herman (2016) that effectiveness is socially constructed relate to the case of Youth Villages?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

1How are the concepts of effectivenessefficiency and organizational performance reflected in the Youth Villages case In the case of Youth Villages the concepts of effectiveness efficiency and organiza... View the full answer