Youth Center of Texas Inc

What it reported doing in 2024

On March 1, 2020, The Youth Center opened its Sunflower Home Program, an 8-bedroom transitional living program for female identifying survivors of CSEY ages 18-22, and their babies. The Youth Center is actively contributing to fill the gap in providing services to youth aging out of foster care; youth that without a continuum of services are at elevated risk of homelessness, incarceration, revictimization and most likely to engage in survival-sex and substance abuse. Currently, the population served at Youth Center is 50% Hispanic/Latina; 10% Black/African American; 10% White, non-Latina/Caucasion; 30% Multiple races and approximately 19.2 years. Most survivors have also reported one or more history of secondary victimizations including sexual abuse, bullying, child sexual abuse, family violence and hate crimes. In 2023, the program served 114 survivors in Bexar County and provided 1,152 bed nights at the Sunflower Home with an average stay length of 110 days. The Sunflower Home program provides Transitional Living Housing and Day Services in a holistic, individualized and trauma-informed program with services and support provided by case managers trained in Trust-Based Relational Intervention, individual and group therapy by a licensed professional counselor (LPC) certified in Trauma-Focus Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy , and Nurturing Parenting Program for survivors who are pregnant and/or have children provided by a certified Case Manager. At the Sunflower Home Program, each survivor is assessed using the CSE-IT (Commercial Sexual Exploitation Identification Tool) screening upon admission into the program. Our program utilizes a relational and strategic framework of services for all Survivors based on Trust-Based Relational Intervention and the Transtheoretical Model of Change. The framework is intended to improve trauma-informed best practices to produce better outcomes for each survivor, promptly identifying and responding to gaps in services and increasing success while building sustainable capacity. Each developing goal is created and evaluated for outcomes quarterly during meetings between survivor and assigned case manager.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
• Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
• Fundraising efficiency: $21.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: Limited
• Foreign activity oversight: Limited
• Grant itemization coverage: Limited
• Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
• Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

• Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Fail
  • Document-retention policy: Fail
  • CEO compensation review process: Fail
  • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Missing
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -53.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
• Officer compensation ratio: 20.9%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -12.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -33.3% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -60.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings