ModivCare Inc - Annual Report: 2012 (Form 10-K)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

OR

For the transition period from              to             

Commission file number 001-34221

The Providence Service Corporation

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code

(520) 747-6600

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    ¨  Yes    x  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.    ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer”, “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    ¨  Yes    x  No

The aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity of the registrant held by non-affiliates based on the closing price for such common equity as reported on The NASDAQ Global Select Market on the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (June 30, 2012) was $177.1 million.

As of March 12, 2013, there were outstanding 12,884,123 shares (excluding treasury shares of 933,350) of the registrant’s Common Stock, $.001 par value per share, which is the only outstanding capital stock of the registrant.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s Definitive Proxy Statement for its 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which Definitive Proxy Statement will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the registrant’s fiscal year-ended December 31, 2012, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Form 10-K.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1

PART I

Development of our business

We provide and manage government sponsored social services and non-emergency transportation services. With respect to our social services, our counselors, social workers and behavioral health professionals work with clients who are eligible for government assistance due to income level, emotional/educational disabilities or court order. The state and local government agencies that fund the social services we provide are required by law to provide counseling, case management, foster care and other support services to eligible individuals and families. We do not own or operate any hospitals or residential treatment centers. Instead, we provide social services primarily in the client’s home or community, reducing the cost to the government of such services while affording the client a better quality of life. With respect to our non-emergency transportation services, we manage and arrange for client transportation to health care related facilities and services for state or regional Medicaid agencies, health maintenance organizations, or HMOs, and commercial insurers.

Our social services revenue is derived from our provider contracts with state and local government agencies and government intermediaries, HMOs, commercial insurers, and our management contracts with not-for-profit social services organizations. The government entities that pay for our social services include welfare, child welfare and justice departments, public schools and state Medicaid programs. Under a majority of our social services provider contracts, we are paid an hourly fee. Under some of our social services provider contracts, however, we receive a set monthly amount or we are paid amounts equal to the costs we incur plus agreed margins on such costs to provide agreed upon services. Where we contract to manage the operations of not-for-profit social services organizations, we receive management fees based on a percentage of revenues of the managed entity or a predetermined fee.

Where we provide management services for non-emergency transportation, we contract with either state or regional Medicaid agencies, local governments, or private managed care companies. Most of our contracts for non-emergency transportation management services are capitated (i.e. our compensation is based on a per member per month payment for each eligible member). For a majority of our contracts we do not direct bill our payers for non-emergency transportation services as our revenue is based on covered lives. Our special needs school transportation contracts are with local governments and are paid on a per trip basis or per bus per day basis.

When we formed our business as a Delaware corporation in 1996, most government social services were delivered directly by governments in institutional settings such as psychiatric hospitals, residential treatment centers or group homes. We recognized that social services could be delivered more economically and effectively in a home or community based setting. Additionally, we anticipated that payers would increasingly seek to privatize the provision of these social services in order to reduce costs and provide quality social services to an increasing number of recipients. Based on this outlook, we developed a system for delivering these services that is less costly and, we believe, more effective than the traditional social services delivery system.

During our first year of operations, we acquired Parents and Children Together, Inc. (now known as Providence of Arizona, Inc.) and Family Preservation Services, Inc., which provided the foundation upon which our business was built. From 2002 to 2008 we completed 22 acquisitions which we believe broadened our home based and foster care platform, expanded our reach into many new states, enhanced our workforce development services and presented opportunities for us to offer home and community based and foster care services in Canada, and expanded our continuum of services to include the management of non-emergency transportation services. No acquisitions were completed in 2009 and 2010. On June 1, 2011, we acquired all of the equity interest of The ReDCo Group, Inc., or ReDCo. ReDCo is a Pennsylvania corporation that provides home and community based services. The purchase price consisted of cash in the amount of $605,000. Additionally, we

1

repaid ReDCo’s debt of approximately $8.0 million in connection with the acquisition. Historically, we had provided various management services to ReDCo for a fee under a management services agreement. This acquisition further expands our home and community based services in Pennsylvania.

Since our inception, we have grown from 1,333 clients served in a single state to approximately 72,400 clients served either directly or through our managed not-for-profit entities. We, and our managed entities, operate from an aggregate of over 500 locations in 42 states, the District of Columbia, British Columbia and Alberta, Canada as of December 31, 2012. Additionally, 15.1 million individuals were eligible to receive services under our non-emergency transportation services contracts as of December 31, 2012.

Historically, we have relied exclusively on decentralized field offices to drive growth initiatives and independently manage sales and marketing activities. This approach has served us well by supporting steady and consistent organic growth. As our industry continues to rapidly change we see an opportunity to coordinate our efforts to pursue potential acquisitive and organic growth in our businesses by focusing on improving operating efficiencies, and developing performance management systems designed to enhance and leverage our core competencies. Our core competencies include: enduring customer relationships, geographic reach, breadth of services and experience, management of populations (consisting of covered lives and provider networks), contract bidding infrastructure, managed care contracting experience and technology platform development. By enhancing and leveraging these core competencies, we believe we can benefit from emerging trends in healthcare such as healthcare reform, integrated healthcare (by providing services to individuals who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare benefits and by managing more populations eligible to receive our services to reduce the cost of care) and outsourcing of transportation management.

Financial information about our segments

We operate in two segments: Social Services and Non-Emergency Transportation Services, or NET Services. Financial information about segments and geographic areas, including revenues, net income and long-lived assets of each segment and from domestic and foreign operations for the company as a whole is included in Note 9 of our consolidated financial statements presented elsewhere in this report and is incorporated herein by reference.

See Item 1A Risk Factors under the headings “Our international operations expose us to various risks, any number of which could harm our business”, “We may be exposed to liabilities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws, and any determination that we violated any of these laws could have an adverse effect on our business” and “Increased competition in British Columbia, Canada due to the service delivery system reorganization in 2012 could hinder our ability to gain new business and negatively impact our revenues related to our international operations” for a discussion of risks related to our foreign operations.

Description of our business

Social Services

Services offered. We provide home and community based services, foster care and provider management services, directly and through entities we manage. The following describes such services:

Home and community based counseling

2

We also provide intensive home based counseling, which consists of up to 20 or more hours per client per week. Our intensive home based counselors are masters or Ph.D. level professional therapists or counselors. Intensive home based counseling is designed for clients struggling to cope with everyday situations. Our counselors are qualified to assist with marital and family issues, depression, drug or alcohol abuse, domestic violence, hyperactivity, criminal or anti-social behavior, sexual misbehavior, school expulsion or chronic truancy and other disruptive behaviors. In the absence of this type of counseling, many of these clients would be considered for 24-hour institutional care or incarceration.

For 2010, 2011 and 2012, our home and community based services accounted for 33.3%, 33.4% and 28.0%, respectively, of our consolidated revenue.

Foster care

Not-for-profit managed services

3

Revenue and payers. Substantially all of our revenue related to our Social Services operating segment is derived from contracts with state or local government agencies, government intermediaries or the not-for-profit social services organizations we manage.

Fee-for-service contracts

A majority of our contracts are negotiated fee-for-service arrangements with payers. Home and community based services are generally payable by the hour depending on the type and intensity of the service. Foster care services are generally payable pursuant to a fixed monthly fee. Approximately 68.1%, 71.1% and 72.5% of our Social Services operating segment revenue for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 was related to fee-for-service arrangements. A significant number of our fee-for-service contracts allow the payer to terminate the contract immediately for cause (such as for our failure to meet our contract obligations). Additionally, these contracts permit the payer to terminate the contract at any time prior to its stated expiration date without cause, at will and without penalty to the payer, either upon the expiration of a short notice period, typically 30 days, and/or immediately, in the event federal or state appropriations supporting the programs serviced by the contract are reduced or eliminated.

We generate a significant portion of our revenue from a few payers. Under our contract with the State of Virginia’s Department of Medical Assistance Services, we derived approximately 11.7%, 11.5% and 10.1% of our Social Services segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Cost based service contracts

Revenues from our cost based service contracts are generally recorded based on a combination of direct costs, indirect overhead allocations, and stated contractual margins on those incurred costs. These revenues are compared to annual contract budget limits and, depending on reporting requirements, allowances may be

4

recorded for certain contingencies such as projected costs not incurred, excess cost per service over the allowable contract rate and/or insufficient encounters. This policy results in recognizing revenue from these contracts based on allowable costs incurred. The annual contract amount is based on projected costs to provide services under the contracts with adjustments for changes in the total contract amount. Annually, we submit projected costs for the coming year which assist the contracting payers in establishing the annual contract amount to be paid for services provided under the contracts. After the contracting payers’ year end, we submit cost reports which are used by the contracting payers to determine the amount, if any, by which funds paid to us for services provided under the contracts were greater than the allowable costs to provide these services. Completion of this review process may range from one month to several years from the date we submit the cost report. In cases where funds paid to us exceed the allowable costs to provide services under contract, we may be required to pay back the excess funds.

Our cost reports are routinely audited by our contracted payers on an annual basis. We periodically review our provisional billing rates and allocation of costs and provide for estimated adjustments from the contracting payers. We believe that adequate provisions have been made in our consolidated financial statements for any adjustments that might result from the outcome of any cost report audits. Differences between the amounts provided and the settlement amounts are recorded in our consolidated statement of income in the year of settlement. Cost based service contracts represented approximately 21.3%, 19.3% and 18.6% of our Social Services operating segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Block purchase (capitated) contract

We provide services under one annual block purchase contract in Arizona with The Community Partnership of Southern Arizona. We are required to provide or arrange for the behavioral health services to eligible populations of beneficiaries as defined in the contract. We must provide a complete range of behavioral health clinical, case management, therapeutic and administrative services. We are obliged to provide services only to those clients with a demonstrated medical necessity. There is no contractual limit to the number of eligible beneficiaries that may be assigned to us, or a limit to the level of services that must be provided to these beneficiaries if the services are deemed to be medically necessary. Therefore, we are at-risk if the costs of providing necessary services exceed the associated reimbursement. The terms of the contract typically are reviewed prospectively and amended as necessary to ensure adequate funding of our service offerings under the contract; however, no assurances can be made that such funding will adequately cover the costs of services previously provided. The annual block purchase contract represented 6.7%, 6.1% and 5.4% of our Social Services operating segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Management contracts

Due to the nature of our business and the requirement or desire by certain payers to contract with not-for-profit social services organizations, we sometimes enter into management contracts with not-for-profit organizations for the purpose of developing strategic relationships or providing administrative, program and management services. These organizations contract directly or indirectly with state government agencies to supply a variety of community based mental health and foster care services to children and adults. Typically these organizations are separately incorporated and organized with their own board of directors. Our management fees under these contracts are either based upon a percentage of the managed entities’ revenues or a predetermined fee. Management fees earned pursuant to our management contracts with these organizations represented approximately 4.0%, 3.5% and 3.5% of our Social Services operating segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012.

Seasonality. Our quarterly operating results and operating cash flows normally fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations in our Social Services operating segment, principally due to lower client demand for our home and community based services during the holiday and summer seasons. As we have grown our home and community based services business, our exposure to seasonal variations has grown and will continue to grow, particularly with respect to our school based services, educational services and tutoring services. We experience

5

lower home and community based services revenue when school is not in session. Our expenses, however, do not vary significantly with these changes and, as a result, such expenses may not fluctuate significantly on a quarterly basis. As a result, our Social Services operating segment experiences lower operating margins during the holiday and summer seasons. We expect quarterly fluctuations in operating results and operating cash flows to continue as a result of the uneven seasonal demand for our home and community based services. Moreover, as we enter new markets, we could be subject to additional seasonal variations along with any competitive response to our entry by other social services providers.

Competition. The social services industry is a highly fragmented industry. We compete for clients with a variety of organizations that offer similar services. Most of our competition consists of local social services organizations that compete with us for local contracts, such as United Way supported agencies and faith-based agencies such as Catholic Social Services, Jewish Family and Children’s Services and the Salvation Army. Other competitors include local, not-for-profit organizations and community based organizations. Historically, these types of organizations have been favored in our industry as incumbent providers of services to government entities. On a national level, there are very few organizations that compete for local, county and state contracts to provide the types of services we offer. We also compete with larger companies, such as Res-Care, Inc., which provides support services, training and educational programs predominantly to Medicaid eligible beneficiaries. National Mentor, Inc. is the country’s largest provider of foster care services and competes with us in certain markets for foster care services. Many institutional providers offer some type of community based care including such organizations as The GEO Group, Inc. and The Devereaux Foundation. While we believe that we compete on the basis of price and quality, many of our competitors have greater financial, technical, political and marketing resources, name recognition, and a larger number of clients and payers than we do. In addition, some of these organizations offer more services than we do. We have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, competition from new entrants into our markets. Increased competition may result in pricing pressures, loss of or failure to gain market share or loss of clients or payers, any of which could harm our business.

Sales and marketing. Substantially all of our marketing is performed at the local and regional level. Through our local and regional managers, we have successfully developed and maintained extensive relationships with various payers. These relationships allow us to develop leads on new business, cross-sell our other services to existing payers and negotiate payer contracts. A significant portion of our business is procured in this manner. We also seek to market our services to payers in geographical areas contiguous to existing markets and in which we believe our reputation as a low cost quality service provider will enhance our ability to compete for and win business. From time to time we respond to requests for proposals, or RFPs. Additionally, we subscribe to a service that keeps us informed of and tracks on a national basis RFPs for privatization of social services. We selectively choose the RFPs to which we respond based upon whether our reputation enhances our ability to compete or if the RFP presents a unique opportunity to develop a new service offering.

NET Services

Services offered. We are the preferred provider of non-emergency transportation management servicing clients under 84 contracts in 38 states and the District of Columbia. We provide responsive and innovative solutions for a healthcare recipient’s transportation needs through centralized call processing, development and management of transportation networks through the use of proprietary technologies. Our current payers include state Medicaid programs, local government agencies, hospital systems and HMOs providing Medicare, Medicaid and commercial products. For 2010, 2011 and 2012, our NET services accounted for 61.1%, 61.7% and 67.9%, respectively, of our consolidated revenue.

We provide services to a wide variety of people with varying needs. Our clients are primarily state Medicaid agencies, and managed healthcare organizations. Non-emergency transportation services are provided to eligible members, as defined by our clients most of which may include individuals with limited mobility, people with limited means of transportation, and people with disabilities that prevent them from using conventional methods

6

of transportation. The majority of our programs provide Medicaid non-emergency transportation services to Medicaid members. Utilization rates and vehicle requirements differ depending on the individual’s condition, the location of the individual relative to the final destination, and other available transportation systems. We also provide school transportation services to school children, including special needs students who are physically fragile, or mentally ill children who cannot commute to school via traditional mainstream transportation and/or need to be taken out of school for therapy.

As a transportation logistics manager, we match transportation services with the recipient’s needs. We employ a proprietary information technology platform and operational processes to manage the transportation services that we outsource to a network of local third party transportation providers. We typically do not provide direct transportation to end users. Rather, to fulfill requests under our contracts, we subcontract with local transportation providers, such as multi-passenger and wheelchair equipped vans, taxi companies and ambulance companies. We receive transportation requests from members or their representatives (such as social workers) and arrange for the least costly and most effective transportation. We process transportation requests at one of our 16 regional reservation centers and assign appropriate local transportation providers. These decisions are aided by our proprietary logistics software. After we assign an appropriate transportation provider to the member we carefully monitor the transportation service provided to ensure that the transport was completed before we pay the transportation vendor. We do not normally pay for services if the member does not show up for transport or if the transport is not completed. A majority of the requests for transportation are standing orders, mostly for patients who require frequent, recurring services such as dialysis treatment. Other transportation requests are required to be scheduled with 48 to 72 hour advance notice, with a small number of requests scheduled on the same day, such as with hospital discharges.

We subcontract with larger transportation companies as well as a number of diverse, small, local companies in order to provide superior coverage in both urban and rural areas. In each region that we serve, we actively manage a network of local transportation providers. As part of this comprehensive management we provide screening and credentialing of drivers and transportation companies, provide program rule orientation, and monitor performance on an ongoing basis through field audits, performance reporting and other reviews. Each of our state operations uses multiple transportation providers in our network, with an average provider fleet size of less than 10 vehicles. To ensure compliance and safety quality standards for all third party transportation providers, we perform a credentialing process on all of our network transportation providers who must meet minimum standards set by us and our payers. These standards include: (i) successful completion of criminal and driving record checks; (ii) required drug testing; (iii) required driver and program training on such things as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, defensive driving, patient sensitivity, cultural diversity, first aid; (iv) inspections, both scheduled and random of provider owned and or leased vehicles and communication systems; and (v) insurance coverage that complies with federal and/or state statutory requirements. We contract with third party transportation providers for trips on a per completed trip basis. Our subcontracts do not contain volume guarantees and can be cancelled with or without cause given 45 days notice.

Revenue and payers. We contract primarily with state and local government entities and, managed healthcare organizations. Approximately 83% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue is generated under capitated contracts where we assume the responsibility of meeting the transportation needs of a specific geographic population. These contracts are generally structured with per member per month rates based on a defined scope of work and population to be served. Typical state payer contracts cover three to five years with renewal options and range in size from approximately $1 million to $110 million annually. Approximately 17% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue is derived from fee-for-service and fixed cost contracts. Our school transportation contracts are with local governments and are paid on a per trip basis or per bus per day basis.

We generate a significant portion of our revenue from a few payers. Under our contract with the State of New Jersey, we derived approximately 15%, 18% and 15% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Additionally, under our contract

7

with the State of Virginia’s Department of Medical Assistance Services we derived approximately 13%, 13% and 10% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Our next three largest payers in the aggregate comprised approximately 21%, 19% and 18% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Our contracted per member per month fee is predicated on actual historical transportation data for a defined population and geographical region, future assumptions on key cost and program drivers, actuarial analysis performed in-house as well as by third party actuarial firms and actuarial analyses provided by our payers. Typically our government contracts are cancellable for cause with 180 days to 365 days notice. Our contract pricing is regularly revisited and may be reset based on actual experience under the contract with adjustments for membership fluctuations and such inflation factors as cost of labor, fuel, insurance and utilization increases and decreases stemming from program re-designs.

Seasonality. The quarterly operating results and operating cash flows of our NET Services operating segment normally fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations in the business, principally due to lower client demand for our non-emergency transportation services during the holiday and winter seasons. Due to the fixed revenue stream and variable expense base structure of our NET Services operating segment, expenses vary with these changes and, as a result, such expenses fluctuate on a quarterly basis. We expect quarterly fluctuations in operating results and operating cash flows to continue as a result of the seasonal demand for our non-emergency transportation services. As we enter new markets, we could be subject to additional seasonal variations along with any competitive response to our entry by other transportation providers.

Competition. We compete with a variety of organizations that provide similar non-emergency transportation services to Medicaid eligible beneficiaries in local markets such as American Medical Response, Coordinated Transportation Solutions, Inc., First Transit, Inc., Medical Transportation Management Inc., MV Transportation, Inc., and Southeast Trans. as well as a host of local/regional transportation providers. Most local competitors may seek to win contracts for specific counties or small geographic territories whereas we and the larger competitors listed above, seek to win contracts for the entire state or large regional areas. Historically, we have been successful in competitively bidding our non-emergency transportation management services for state-wide or other large Medicaid population programs, as well as specialized non-emergency transportation benefits often offered to populations covered by managed care organizations. We compete based on our technical expertise and experience, which is delivered in a high service, competitive price environment although we are not necessarily the lowest priced management service provider. We have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, competition from new entrants into our markets that may be able to provide services at a lower cost. Regardless of how well we perform under our contracts (based on service or cost), we face competitive rebid situations from time to time. Increased competitive pressure could result in pricing pressures, loss of or failure to gain market share or loss of payers, any of which could harm our business.

Sales and marketing. With respect to our non-emergency transportation services sales and marketing strategy, we focus on providing information to key legislators and agency officials. We pursue potential opportunities through various methods including engaging lobbyists to assist in tracking legislation and funding that may impact non-emergency transportation programs, and monitoring state websites for upcoming request for proposals. In addition, we generate new business leads through trade shows and conferences, referrals, the Internet and direct marketing. The sales cycle usually takes between 6 to 24 months and there are various decision makers who provide input into the decision to outsource. By providing valuable information to key legislators and agency officials and creating a strong presence in the regions we serve, we are able to solidify the chance of renewal when contract terms expire. Additional payers are targeted within existing states in order to leverage pre-existing provider networks, technology, office and human resources investments. Furthermore, we target key commercial accounts which we define as accounts that are growing and located in multiple geographic areas.

8

In many of the states where we have regional contracts, we seek to expand to include additional regions in these states and in contiguous states. All decisions about which RFPs to consider are centralized and selectively targeted based on our goals and service capabilities. Medicaid non-emergency transportation contracts with state agencies and larger Medicaid HMOs represent the largest source of our non-emergency transportation revenue.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, our operations were conducted with approximately 8,400 clinical, client service representatives and administrative personnel. The operations of the entities we manage under contract were conducted with over 3,000 clinical and administrative personnel.

We believe that our employee relations are good because we offer competitive compensation, including stock-based compensation to key employees, training, education assistance and career advancement opportunities. By offering competitive compensation and benefit packages to our employees, we believe we are able to consistently deliver high quality service, recruit qualified candidates and increase employee confidence, satisfaction and retention.

Regulatory environment

Overview. As a provider of social services, we are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations. These laws and regulations significantly affect the way in which we operate various aspects of our business. We must also comply with state and local licensing requirements and requirements for participation in Medicaid, federal block grant requirements, requirements of various state Children’s Health Insurance Programs, or CHIP, and contractual requirements imposed upon us by the state and local agencies with which we contract for such health care and social services. CHIP is a federal program providing benefits administered by states that submit plans for health benefits for children whose parents meet certain financial needs tests. Failure to follow the rules and requirements of these programs can significantly affect our ability to be paid for the services we provide.

In addition, our revenue is largely derived from contracts that are directly or indirectly paid or funded by government agencies, including Medicaid. A significant decline in expenditures, shift of expenditures or funding could cause payers to reduce their expenditures under those contracts or not renew such contracts, either of which could have a negative impact on our future operating results. As funding under our contracts is dependent in part upon federal funding, such funding changes could have a significant effect upon our business.

The healthcare industry is highly regulated and the federal and state laws that affect our business are significant. Federal law and regulations are based primarily upon the Medicare and Medicaid programs, each of which is financed, at least in part, with federal money. State jurisdiction is based upon a state’s authority to license certain categories of healthcare professionals and providers and the state’s interest in regulating the quality of healthcare in the state, regardless of the source of payment. The significant areas of federal and state regulatory laws that may affect our business, include, but are not limited to the following:

9

A violation of these laws could result in civil and criminal penalties, the refund of monies paid by government and/or private payers, our exclusion from participation in federal healthcare payer programs, and/or the loss of our license to conduct business within a particular state’s boundaries. Although we believe that we are able to maintain material compliance with all applicable laws, these laws are complex and a review of our practices by a court, or applicable law enforcement or regulatory authority, could result in an adverse determination that could harm our business. Furthermore, the laws applicable to our business are subject to change, interpretation and amendment, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct its business.

Federal Law. Federal healthcare laws apply in any case in which we are providing an item or service that is reimbursable by a federal healthcare payer program. The principal federal laws that affect our business include those that prohibit the filing of false or improper claims with federal healthcare payer programs and those that prohibit unlawful inducements for the referral of business reimbursable under federal healthcare payer programs.

False and Other Improper Claims. Under the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733), the government may fine us if we knowingly submit, or participate in submitting, any claims for payment to the federal government that are false or fraudulent, or that contain false or misleading information. A provider can be found liable not only for submitting false claims with actual knowledge, but also for doing so with reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of such falseness. In addition, knowingly making or using a false record or statement to receive payment from the federal government is also a violation. Recent amendments to the False Claims Act extend liability for “knowingly and improperly avoiding or decreasing an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the government.” Consequently, a provider need not take an affirmative act to conceal or avoid an obligation to the government, but the mere retention of an overpayment from the government could lead to potential liability under the False Claims Act.

If we are ever found to have violated the False Claims Act, we could be required to make significant payments to the government (including damages and penalties in addition to the reimbursements previously collected) and could be excluded from participating in federal healthcare programs. Many states also have similar false claims statutes. In addition, healthcare fraud is a priority of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and state Attorneys General. These agencies have devoted a significant amount of resources to investigating healthcare fraud.

While the criminal statutes generally are reserved for instances evidencing fraudulent intent, the civil and administrative penalty statutes are being applied by the federal government in an increasingly broad range of circumstances. Examples of the types of activities giving rise to liability for filing false claims include billing for services not rendered, misrepresenting services rendered (i.e., mis-coding) and applications for duplicate reimbursement. Additionally, the federal government takes the position that a pattern of claiming reimbursement for unnecessary services violates these statutes if the claimant should have known that the services were unnecessary. The federal government also takes the position that claiming reimbursement for services that are substandard is a violation of these statutes if the claimant should have known that the care was substandard. Criminal penalties also are available in the case of claims filed with private insurers if the federal government shows that the claims constitute mail fraud or wire fraud or violate any of the federal criminal healthcare fraud statutes.

State Medicaid agencies and state Attorneys General also have authority to seek criminal or civil sanctions for fraud and abuse violations. In addition, private insurers may bring actions under state false claim laws. In certain circumstances, federal and state laws authorize private whistleblowers to bring false claim or “qui tam” suits on behalf of the government against providers and reward the whistleblower with a portion of any final recovery. In addition, the federal government has engaged a number of nongovernmental-audit organizations to assist it in tracking and recovering false claims for healthcare services.

Governmental investigations and whistleblower “qui tam” suits against healthcare companies have increased significantly in recent years and have resulted in substantial penalties and fines. Although we plan to

10

monitor our billing practices for compliance with applicable laws, such laws are very complex and we might not be able to detect all errors or interpret such laws in a manner consistent with a court or an agency’s interpretation.

Health information practices

Under HIPAA, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or DHHS, issued rules to define and implement standards for the electronic transactions and code sets for the submission of transactions such as claims, and privacy and security of individual health information in whatever manner it is maintained.

In February 2006, DHHS published its Final Rule on Enforcement of the HIPAA Administrative Simplification provisions, including the transaction standards, the security standards and the privacy rule. This enforcement rule addresses, among other issues, DHHS’s policies for determining violations and calculating civil monetary penalties, how DHHS will address the statutory limitations on the imposition of civil monetary penalties, and various procedural issues. The rule extends enforcement provisions currently applicable to the health care privacy regulations to other HIPAA standards, including security, transactions and code sets.

On February 17, 2009, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, was enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ARRA, to, among other things, extend certain of HIPAA’s obligations to parties providing services to health care entities covered by HIPAA known as “business associates,” impose new notice of privacy breach reporting obligations, extend enforcement powers to state attorney generals and amend the HIPAA privacy and security laws to strengthen the civil and criminal enforcement of HIPAA, establishing four categories of violations that reflect increasing levels of culpability, four corresponding tiers of penalty amounts that significantly increase the minimum penalty amount for each violation, and a maximum penalty amount of $1.5 million for all violations of an identical provision. With the additional HIPAA enforcement power under HITECH, the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health and Human Services and states are increasing their investigations and enforcement of HIPAA compliance. We have taken steps to ensure compliance with HIPAA and we are monitoring compliance on an ongoing basis.

Lastly, on January 17, 2013, DHHS released the HITECH Final Rule. This recently released HITECH Final Rule imposes various new requirements on covered entities and business associates, and also expands the definition of “business associates.” Although we plan to be in material compliance with these above-mentioned privacy and security laws, they are expected to impact us operationally and financially and will pose increased regulatory risk.

Federal and state anti-kickback laws

Federal law commonly known as the “Anti-Kickback Statute” prohibits the knowing and willful offer, solicitation, payment or receipt of anything of value (direct or indirect, overt or covert, in cash or in kind) which is intended to induce:

Interpretations of the Anti-Kickback Statute have been very broad and under current law, courts and federal regulatory authorities have stated that this law is violated if even one purpose (as opposed to the sole or primary purpose) of the arrangement is to induce referrals. Even bona fide investment interests in a healthcare provider may be questioned under the Anti-Kickback Statute if the government concludes that the opportunity to invest was offered as an inducement for referrals.

11

This act is subject to numerous statutory and regulatory “safe harbors.” The safe harbor regulations, however, do not cover all lawful relationships between healthcare providers and referral sources. Failure of an arrangement to satisfy all of the requirements of a particular safe harbor does not mean that the arrangement is unlawful. However, it may mean that such an arrangement will be subject to scrutiny by the regulatory authorities.

We believe that our operations are in material compliance with applicable Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse laws. We seek to structure all applicable arrangements to comply with applicable safe harbors where reasonably possible. There is a risk however, that the federal government might investigate such arrangements and conclude they violate the Anti-Kickback Statute. If our arrangements are found to violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, we, along with our clients would be subject to civil and criminal penalties, which may include exclusion from participation in government reimbursement programs, and our arrangements would not be legally enforceable, which could materially and adversely affect our business.

Many states, including some where we do business, have adopted similar anti-kickback laws that are similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. Some of these state laws are very closely patterned on the federal Anti-Kickback Statute; others, however, are broader and reach reimbursement by private payers. If our activities were deemed to be inconsistent with state anti-kickback or illegal remuneration laws, we could face civil and criminal penalties or be barred from such activities, any of which could harm our business.

Federal and State Self-Referral Prohibitions

We may be subject to federal and state statutes banning payments for referrals of patients and referrals by physicians to healthcare providers with whom the physicians have a financial relationship. Section 1877 of the Social Security Act, or the Stark Law, prohibits physicians from making a “referral” for “designated health services” for Medicare (and in many cases Medicaid) patients from entities or facilities in which such physicians directly or indirectly hold a “financial relationship”.

A financial relationship can take the form of a direct or indirect ownership, investment or compensation arrangement. A referral includes the request by a physician for, or ordering of, or the certifying or recertifying the need for, any designated health services.

Certain services that we provide may be identified as “designated health services” for purposes of the Stark Law. We cannot assure you that future regulatory changes will not result in other services we provide becoming subject to the Stark Law’s ownership, investment or compensation prohibitions in the future.

Many states, including some states where we do business, have adopted similar or broader prohibitions against payments that are intended to induce referrals of clients. Moreover, many states where we operate have laws similar to the Stark Law prohibiting physician self-referrals. We contract with a significant number of social services providers and practitioners, including therapists, physicians and psychiatrists, and arrange for these individuals or entities to provide services to our clients. While we believe that these contracts are in compliance with the Stark Law, no assurance can be made that such contracts will not be considered in violation of the Stark Law.

Healthcare Reform. On March 23, 2010, the President of the United States signed into law comprehensive health reform through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 11-148), or PPACA. On March 30, 2010, the President signed a reconciliation budget bill that included amendments to the PPACA (Pub. L. 11-152). These laws in combination form the “Health Care Reform Act” referred to herein. The changes to various aspects of the healthcare system in the Health Reform Act are far-reaching and include, among many others, substantial adjustments to Medicare reimbursement, establishment of individual mandates for healthcare coverage, extension of coverage to certain populations, restrictions on physician-owned hospitals, and increased efficiency and oversight provisions.

12

Some of the provisions of the Health Care Reform Act took effect immediately, while others will take effect later or will be phased in over time, ranging from a few months following approval to ten (10) years. Due to the complexity of the Health Care Reform Act, it is likely that additional legislation will be considered and enacted. The Health Care Reform Act requires the promulgation of regulations that will likely have significant effects on the health care industry and third party payers. Thus, the healthcare industry and our operations may be subjected to significant new statutory and regulatory requirements and contractual terms and conditions, and consequently to structural and operational changes and challenges.

The Health Care Reform Act also implements significant changes to healthcare fraud and abuse laws that will intensify the risks and consequences of enforcement actions. These include expansion of the False Claims Act by: (a) narrowing the public disclosure bar; and (b) explicitly stating that violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute trigger false claims liability. In addition, the Health Care Reform Act lessens the intent requirements under the Anti-Kickback Statute to provide that a person may violate the statute without knowledge or specific intent. The Health Care Reform Act also provides new funding and expanded powers to investigate fraud, including through expansion of the Medicare Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program to Medicare Parts C and D and Medicaid. Finally, the legislation creates enhanced penalties for noncompliance, including increased criminal penalties and expansion of administrative penalties under Medicare and Medicaid. Collectively, such changes could have a materially adverse impact on our operations.

State Law.

Surveys and audits

Our programs are subject to periodic surveys by government authorities and/or their contractors to ensure compliance with various requirements. Regulators conducting periodic surveys often provide reports containing statements of deficiencies for alleged failures to comply with various regulatory requirements. In most cases, if a deficiency finding is made by a reviewing agency, we will work with the reviewing agency to agree upon the steps to be taken to bring our program into compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. In some cases, however, an agency may take a number of adverse actions against a program, including:

While we believe that our programs are in material compliance with Medicaid and other program certification requirements and state licensure requirements, failure to comply with these requirements could have a material adverse impact on our business and our ability to enter into contracts with other agencies to provide services.

Billing/claims reviews and audits

Agencies and other payers periodically conduct pre-payment or post-payment medical reviews or other audits of our claims. In order to conduct these reviews, payers request documentation from us and then review that documentation to determine compliance with applicable rules and regulations, including the eligibility of clients to receive benefits, the appropriateness of the care provided to those clients, and the documentation of that care.

13

For-profit ownership

Certain of the agencies for which we provide services restrict our ability to contract directly as a for-profit organization. Instead, these agencies contract directly with a not-for-profit organization and in certain cases we negotiate to provide administrative and management services to the not-for-profit providers. The extent to which other agencies impose such requirements may affect our ability to continue to provide the full range of services that we provide or limit the organizations with which we can contract directly to provide services.

Professional licensure and other requirements

Many of our employees are subject to federal and state laws and regulations governing the ethics and practice of their professions. In addition, professionals who are eligible to participate in Medicaid as individual providers must not have been excluded from participation in government programs at any time. Our ability to provide services depends upon the ability of our personnel to meet individual licensure and other requirements.

Additional information

Our website is www.provcorp.com. We make available, free of charge at this website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. The information on the website listed above, is not and should not be considered part of this annual report on Form 10-K and is not incorporated by reference in this document. In addition, we will provide, at no cost, paper or electronic copies of our Forms 10-K, 10-Q and 8-K and amendments to those reports filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Requests for such filings should be directed to Robert Wilson, Chief Financial Officer, telephone number: (520) 747-6600.

14

The following risks should be read in conjunction with other information contained, or incorporated by reference, in this report, including the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” section and our consolidated financial statements and related notes. If any of the following risks actually occurs, our business, financial condition and operating results could be adversely affected.

The domestic economic downturn in recent years and current uncertain economic environment could cause a severe disruption in our operations.

Our business could be negatively impacted by significant domestic economic downturns and the current uncertain economic environment. If this uncertainty is prolonged or economic conditions worsen, there could be several severely negative implications to our business that may exacerbate many of the risk factors we identified below including, but not limited to, the following:

Our indebtedness may harm our financial condition and results of operations.

As of December 31, 2012, our total consolidated long-term debt was $130 million. On March 11, 2011, we refinanced our then existing debt under a new credit agreement. Under the repayment terms of the new credit agreement, we are obligated to repay the term loan in quarterly installments on the last day of each calendar quarter, which commenced on June 30, 2011, so that the following percentages of the outstanding principal amount will be paid as follows: 10% in year one, 10% in year two, 15% in year three, 15% in year four and the remaining balance in year five. As discussed below, the maturity date of our credit facility could be accelerated.

Our level of indebtedness could have important consequences to us, including:

15

Our operations may not generate sufficient cash to enable us to service our debt. If we were to fail to make any required payment under the agreements governing our indebtedness or fail to comply with the financial and operating covenants contained in these agreements, we would be in default. In the event we are not in compliance with the financial and operating covenants, it is uncertain whether the lenders will grant waivers for our non-compliance. Our lenders would have the ability to require that we immediately pay all outstanding indebtedness. If the lenders were to require immediate payment, we might not have sufficient assets to satisfy our obligations under our credit facility or our 6.5% convertible senior subordinated notes due in 2014, or the Notes. In such event, we could be forced to seek protection under bankruptcy laws, which could have a material adverse effect on our existing contracts and our ability to procure new contracts as well as our ability to recruit and/or retain employees. Accordingly, a default could have a significant adverse effect on the market value and marketability of our common stock.

Our liquidity may be materially and adversely affected in the event that the maturity date of our credit facility is accelerated.

Our credit facility matures on March 11, 2016; provided however that, if there are more than $25.0 million in aggregate principal amount of our Notes outstanding on September 30, 2013, the credit facility will terminate and all amounts outstanding thereunder will be due and payable in full on November 15, 2013, unless we have provided the administrative agent with cash collateral on or before September 30, 2013 in an amount sufficient to repay the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Notes. In the event that there is more than $25.0 million in aggregate principal amount of our Notes outstanding on September 30, 2013, the maturity date will be automatically reinstated to March 11, 2016 if: (i) we reduce the principal amount of the Notes to an aggregate amount of no more than $25.0 million on a date prior to November 15, 2013, (ii) we have availability under the revolving credit facility plus unrestricted cash in an amount at least equal to the aggregate outstanding principal amount of the Notes on such date and (iii) there is no default or event of default under the credit facility on such date. If the debt outstanding under the credit facility is accelerated and we were unable to pay in full our obligations thereunder by refinancing the debt outstanding under our credit facility or obtain new financing and we are unable to obtain sufficient cash to provide the cash collateral required, we would have to consider other options, such as the sale of assets, sales of equity and/or negotiations with our lenders to restructure the applicable indebtedness. There is no guarantee that we will be able to do so, in which case we may have to significantly reduce our spending and may be unable to execute our existing short- or long-term business plan, and our liquidity and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Lack of access to the credit market could negatively impact our ability to operate our business and to execute our business strategy. Due to the changes in the global credit market in the recent past, there has been deterioration in the credit and capital markets and access to financing is limited and uncertain. If the capital and credit markets continue to experience weakness and the availability of funds remains limited, we may incur increased costs associated with any additional financing we may require for future operations or we may be unable to obtain such financing at all.

Changes in budgetary priorities of the government entities that fund the services we provide could result in our loss of contracts or a decrease in amounts payable to us under our contracts.

Our revenue is largely derived from contracts that are directly or indirectly paid or funded by government agencies. All of these contracts are subject to legislative appropriations and state budget approval. Consequently, a significant decline in government expenditures, shift of expenditures or funding away from programs that call for the types of services that we provide or change in government contracting or funding policies could cause payers to terminate their contracts with us or reduce their expenditures under those contracts, either of which could have a negative impact on our future operating results.

16

The availability for funding under our contracts with state governments is dependent in part upon federal funding to states. Changes in Medicaid methodology may further reduce the availability of federal funds to states in which we provide services. Among the alternative Medicaid funding approaches that states have explored are provider assessments as tools for leveraging increased Medicaid federal matching funds. Provider assessment plans generate additional federal matching funds to the states for Medicaid reimbursement purposes, and implementation of a provider assessment plan requires approval by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in order to qualify for federal matching funds. These plans usually take the form of a bed tax or a quality assessment fee, which were required to be imposed uniformly across classes of providers within the state, except that such taxes only applied to Medicaid health plans.

However, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, or Deficit Reduction Act, requires states that desire to impose provider taxes to impose taxes on all managed care organizations, not just Medicaid managed care organizations. This uniformity requirement as it relates to taxing all managed care organizations may make states more reluctant to use provider assessments as a vehicle for raising matching funds and, thus, reduce the amount of funding that the states receive and have available. Moreover, under the Deficit Reduction Act, states may be allowed to reduce the benefits provided to certain Medicaid enrollees, which could affect the services that states contract for with us. We cannot make any assurances that these Medicaid changes will not negatively affect the funding under our contracts.

As funding under our contracts is dependent in part upon federal funding, such funding changes could have a significant effect upon our business.

Currently, many of the states in which we operate are facing budgetary shortfalls or changes in budgetary priorities. In addition, in some states eligibility requirements for social services clients have been tightened to stabilize the number of eligible clients and in certain instances states have implemented or are considering implementing a single point of access to care or a managed care model, which reduces the size of our potential market in those states. While many of these states are dealing with budgetary concerns by shifting costs from institutional care to home and community based care such as we provide, there is no assurance that this trend will continue.

We conduct business in a heavily regulated healthcare industry; compliance with existing regulations is costly and changes in regulations or violations of regulations may result in increased costs or sanctions that reduce our revenue and profitability.

The healthcare industry is subject to extensive federal and state regulation relating to, among other things:

Both federal and state government agencies have increased coordinated civil and criminal enforcement efforts related to the healthcare industry. Regulations related to the healthcare industry are extremely complex and, in many instances, the industry does not have the benefit of significant regulatory or judicial interpretation of those laws. Medicare and Medicaid anti-fraud and abuse laws prohibit certain business practices and relationships related to items and services reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid and other governmental healthcare programs, including the payment or receipt of remuneration to induce or arrange for referral of patients or recommendation for the provision of items or services covered by Medicare or Medicaid or any other federal or state healthcare program. Federal and state laws prohibit the submission of false or fraudulent claims,

17

including claims to obtain reimbursement under Medicare and Medicaid. We have implemented compliance policies to help assure our compliance with these regulations as they become effective; however, different interpretations or enforcement of these laws and regulations in the future could subject our practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality or could require us to make changes in our facilities, equipment, personnel, services or the manner in which we conduct our business.

We could be subject to actions for false claims if we do not comply with government coding and billing rules which could harm our business.

If we fail to comply with federal and state documentation, coding and billing rules, we could be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, loss of licenses and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which could harm our business. In billing for our services to third-party payers, we must follow complex documentation, coding and billing rules. These rules are based on federal and state laws, rules and regulations, various government pronouncements, and on industry practice. Failure to follow these rules could result in potential criminal or civil liability under the federal False Claims Act, under which extensive financial penalties can be imposed and/or under various state statutes which prohibit the submission of false claims for services covered. It could further result in criminal liability under various federal and state criminal or civil statutes. While we plan to carefully and regularly review our documentation, coding and billing practices, the rules are frequently vague and confusing and we cannot assure that governmental investigators, private insurers or private whistleblowers will not challenge our practices. Such a challenge could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we fail to comply with the federal Anti-kickback Statute, we could be subject to criminal and civil penalties, loss of licenses and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which could materially harm us.

The federal Anti-kickback Statute prohibits the offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form of remuneration in return for referring, ordering, leasing, purchasing or arranging for or recommending the ordering, purchasing or leasing of items or services payable by a federally funded healthcare program. Any of our financial relationships with healthcare providers will be potentially implicated by this statute to the extent Medicare or Medicaid referrals are implicated. Violations of the Anti-kickback Statute could result in substantial civil or criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $25,000 per violation, imprisonment of up to five years, civil penalties under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a) of up to $50,000 per violation, plus three times the remuneration involved, civil penalties under the False Claims Act of up to $11,000 for each claim submitted, plus three times the amounts paid for such claims and exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Any such penalties could have a significant negative effect on our operations. Furthermore, the exclusion, if applied to us, could result in significant reductions in our revenues, which could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of our operations. In addition, many states have adopted laws similar to the federal Anti-kickback Statute.

If we fail to comply with physician self-referral laws, to the extent applicable to our business operations, we could incur a significant loss of reimbursement revenue.

We may be subject to federal and state statutes and regulations banning payments for referrals of patients and referrals by physicians to healthcare providers with whom the physicians have a financial relationship and billing for services provided pursuant to such referrals if any occur. Violation of these federal and state laws and regulations, to the extent applicable to our business operations, may result in prohibition of payment for services rendered, loss of licenses, fines, criminal penalties and exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs. To the extent we do maintain such financial relationships with physicians, we plan to rely on certain exceptions to self-referral laws that we believe will be applicable to such arrangements.

18

We will be subject to potential risks as a result of the regulations relating to privacy and security of patient information.

There are numerous federal and state regulations addressing patient information privacy and security concerns. In particular, the federal regulations issued under HIPAA, contain provisions that:

Compliance with state and federal laws and regulations is costly and requires our management to expend substantial time and resources. Further, the HIPAA regulations and state privacy laws expose us to increased regulatory risk, as the penalties associated with a failure to comply, even if unintentional, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We have appointed an internal committee to maintain our privacy and security policies regarding client information in compliance with HIPAA. This committee is responsible for training our employees, including our regional and local managers and staff, to comply with HIPAA and monitoring compliance with the policy. The costs associated with our ongoing compliance could be substantial, which could negatively impact our profitability.

We derive a significant amount of our revenues from a few payers, which puts us at risk.

We provide, or manage the provision of, government sponsored social services and non-emergency transportation services to individuals and families who are eligible for government assistance pursuant to federal mandate with respect to government sponsored social services and members of the disability community, or senior citizens with respect to non-emergency transportation services under various contracts with state and local governmental entities. We generate a significant amount of our revenues from a few payers under a small number of contracts. For example, in 2010, 2011 and 2012 we generated approximately 48.8%, 48.6% and 48.5%, respectively, of our total revenue from ten payers. Additionally, our top five payers related to our NET Services operating segment represent, in the aggregate, approximately 49%, 49% and 43%, respectively, of our NET Services operating segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The top five payers related to our Social Services operating segment represent, in the aggregate, approximately 36%, 38% and 39%, respectively, of our Social Services operating segment revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The loss of, reduction in amounts generated by, or changes in methods or regulations governing payments for our services under these contracts could materially reduce our revenue.

Our contracts are not only short-term in nature but can also be terminated prior to expiration, without cause and without penalty to the payers, and there can be no assurance that they will survive until the end of their stated terms or that upon their expiration these contracts will be renewed or extended.

Most of our contracts contain base periods of only one year. While some of them also contain options for renewal, usually successive six month or one year terms, payers are not required to extend their contracts into these option periods. In addition, a significant number of our social services contracts not only allow the payer to terminate the contract immediately for cause (such as for our failure to meet our contract obligations) but also permit the payer to terminate the contract at any time prior to its stated expiration date. In most cases the payer may terminate the social services contract without cause, at will and without penalty to the payer, either upon the expiration of a short notice period, typically 30 days, and/or immediately, in the event federal or state appropriations supporting the programs serviced by the contract are reduced or eliminated. In the case of our non-emergency transportation services contracts, these contracts are only cancellable for performance after notice and a cure period that typically ranges from 180 days to 365 days in length. The failure of payers to renew

19

or extend significant contracts or their early termination of significant contracts could adversely affect our financial performance. We cannot anticipate if, when or to what extent a payer might terminate its contract with us prior to its expiration or fail to renew or extend its contract with us.

Each of our contracts is subject to audit and modification by the payers with whom we contract, in their sole discretion.

Our business depends on our ability to successfully perform under various government funded contracts. The payers under these contracts can review our performance under these contracts, as well as our records, accounting and general business practices at any time and may, in their discretion:

As a government contractor, we are subject to an increased risk of litigation and other legal actions and liabilities.

As a government contractor, we are subject to an increased risk of investigation, criminal prosecution, civil fraud, whistleblower lawsuits and other legal actions and liabilities not often faced by companies that do not provide government sponsored services. The occurrence of any of these actions, regardless of the outcome, could disrupt our operations and result in added expense and could limit our ability to obtain additional contracts in other jurisdictions.

A loss of our status as a licensed provider in any jurisdiction could result in the termination of a number of our contracts, which could negatively impact our revenues.

If we lost our status as a licensed provider in any jurisdiction, the contracts under which we provide services in that jurisdiction would be subject to termination. Moreover, such an event could constitute a violation of provisions of our contracts in other jurisdictions, resulting in further contract terminations.

If we fail to satisfy our contractual obligations, we could be liable for damages and financial penalties and harm our ability to keep our existing contracts or obtain new contracts.

Our failure to comply with our contract obligations could, in addition to providing grounds for immediate termination of the contract for cause, negatively impact our financial performance and damage our reputation, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain new contracts. Our failure to meet contractual obligations could also result in substantial actual and consequential damages. The termination of a contract for cause could, for instance, subject us to liability for excess costs incurred by a payer in obtaining similar services from another source. In addition, our contracts require us to indemnify payers for our failure to meet standards of care, and some of them contain liquidated damages provisions and financial penalties that we must pay if we breach these contracts.

Moreover, negative results of audits by government auditors or their contractors may cause us to lose, not be considered for, or to otherwise not receive, business opportunities with government-funded or other agencies or customers.

20

If we fail to estimate accurately the cost of performing certain contracts, we may incur losses on these contracts.

Under our fee-for-service contracts, we receive fees based on our interactions with government sponsored clients. To earn a profit on these contracts, we must accurately estimate costs incurred in providing services. Our risk on these contracts is that our client population is not large enough to cover our fixed costs, such as rent and other overhead. Our fee-for-service contracts are not reimbursed on a cost basis and therefore, if we fail to estimate our costs accurately, we may incur losses on these contracts.

Additionally, approximately 83% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue is generated under capitated contracts with the remainder generated through fee-for service and fixed cost contracts. Under our capitated contracts, we assume the responsibility of managing the needs of a specific geographic population by contracting out transportation services to local van, cab and ambulance companies on a per ride or per mile basis. We use a “pricing model” to determine applicable contract rates, which take into account factors, such as estimated utilization, state specific data, previous experience in the state and/or with similar services, estimated volume and availability of mass transit. The amount of the fixed monthly per member per month fee is determined in the bidding process but predicated on actual historical transportation data for the subject geographic region (provided by the payer), actuarial work performed in-house as well as by third party actuarial firms and actuarial analyses provided by the payer. If the utilization of our services is more than we estimated, the contract may not be profitable.

Approximately 19.3% and 18.6% of our Social Services segment revenues or approximately 7.4% and 6.0% of our consolidated revenues for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, respectively, were derived from cost based service contracts for which we record revenue based on a combination of direct costs, indirect overhead allocations, and stated contractual margins on those costs, which puts us at risk that we may be required to subsequently refund a portion of the excess funds, if any.

Our cost based service contracts require us to allow for contingencies such as budgeted costs not incurred, excess cost per service over the allowable contract rate and/or an insufficient number of encounters. For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, revenues from these contracts represented approximately 7.4% and 6.0% of our total revenues for the respective period. In cases where funds paid to us exceed the allowable costs to provide services under the contracts, we may be required to pay back the excess funds.

Our results of operations will continue to fluctuate due to seasonality.

Our quarterly operating results and operating cash flows normally fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations in our business. In our Social Services operating segment, lower client demand for our home and community based services during the holiday and summer seasons generally results in lower revenue during those periods; however, our expenses related to the Social Services operating segment do not vary significantly with these changes. As a result, our Social Services operating segment experiences lower operating margins during the holiday and summer seasons. Our NET Services operating segment also experiences fluctuations in demand for our non-emergency transportation services during the summer, winter and holiday seasons. Due to higher demand in the summer months and lower demand in the winter and holiday seasons, coupled with a fixed revenue stream based on a per member per month based structure, our NET Services operating segment experiences lower operating margins in the summer season and higher operating margins in the winter and holiday seasons. We expect quarterly fluctuations in operating results and operating cash flows to continue as a result of the seasonal demand for our home and community based services and non-emergency transportation services. As we enter new markets, we could be subject to additional seasonal variations along with any competitive response by other social services and transportation providers.

21

Our reported financial results could suffer if there is an impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets.

Goodwill may be impaired if the estimated fair value of one or more of our reporting units is less than the carrying value of the respective reporting unit. Because we have grown in part through acquisitions, goodwill and other intangible assets represent a significant portion of our assets. We perform an analysis on our goodwill balances to test for impairment on an annual basis. Similarly, interim impairment tests may also be required in advance of our annual impairment test if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value, including goodwill, of one or more of our reporting units below the reporting unit’s carrying value. Such circumstances could include but are not limited to: (1) loss of significant contracts, (2) a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the climate of our business, (3) unanticipated competition, or (4) an adverse action or assessment by a regulator. For example, as discussed in more detail below in “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition”, given the reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia, Canada, during 2012, we determined that events, referred to as triggering events, had occurred during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 that would require us to perform an interim period goodwill impairment test as of September 30, 2012. Based on the results of our interim asset impairment test as of September 30, 2012 and our annual asset impairment test completed as of December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we determined that none of our goodwill was impaired as of such dates. However, if events occur or circumstances change, we may be required to record an impairment adjustment to our goodwill or other intangible assets which could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

While we obtain some of our business through responses to government requests for proposals, we may not be awarded contracts through this process in the future, and contracts we are awarded may not be profitable.

We obtain, and will continue to seek to obtain, a significant portion of our business from state or local government entities. To obtain business from government entities, we are often required to respond to requests for proposals, or RFPs. To propose effectively, we must accurately estimate our cost structure for servicing a proposed contract, the time required to establish operations and the terms of the proposals submitted by competitors. We must also assemble and submit a large volume of information within rigid and often short timetables. Our ability to respond successfully to RFPs will greatly impact our business. We may not be awarded contracts through the RFP process, and our proposals may not result in profitable contracts.

If we fail to establish and maintain important relationships with officials of government entities and agencies, we may not be able to successfully procure or retain government-sponsored contracts, which could negatively impact our revenues.

To facilitate our ability to procure or retain government-sponsored contracts, we rely in part on establishing and maintaining relationships with officials of various government entities and agencies. These relationships enable us to provide informal input and advice to the government entities and agencies prior to the development of an RFP or program for privatization of social services and enhance our chances of procuring contracts with these payers. The effectiveness of our relationships may be reduced or eliminated with changes in the personnel holding various government offices or staff positions. We also may lose key personnel who have these relationships. We may be unable to successfully manage our relationships with government entities and agencies and with elected officials and appointees. Any failure to establish, maintain or manage relationships with government and agency personnel may hinder our ability to procure or retain government-sponsored contracts.

The federal government may refuse to grant consents and/or waivers necessary to permit for-profit entities to perform certain elements of government programs.

Under current law, in order to privatize certain functions of government programs, the federal government must grant a consent and/or waiver to the petitioning state or local agency. If the federal government does not grant a necessary consent or waiver or withdraw approval of any granted waiver, the state or local agency will be

22

unable to contract with a for-profit entity, such as us, to provide service. Failure by state or local agencies to obtain consents and/or waivers could adversely affect our continued business and future growth.

Our business could be adversely affected by future legislative changes that hinder or reverse the privatization of social services.

The market for our services depends largely on federal, state and local legislative programs. These programs can be modified or amended at any time. Moreover, part of our growth strategy includes aggressively pursuing opportunities created by the federal, state and local initiatives to privatize the delivery of social services. However, there are opponents to the privatization of social services and, as a result, future privatization of social services is uncertain. If additional privatization initiatives are not proposed or enacted, or if previously enacted privatization initiatives are challenged, repealed or invalidated, our growth could be adversely impacted.

Our strategic relationships with certain not-for-profit and tax exempt entities are subject to tax and other risks.

Since some government agencies in certain of our markets prefer or require contracts for privatized social services to be administered through not-for-profit organizations, we rely on our long-term relationships with not-for-profit organizations to provide services to these government agencies. We currently maintain strategic relationships with 15 not-for-profit social services organizations with which we have management contracts of varying lengths, 13 of which are federally tax exempt organizations.

Our strategic relationships with tax exempt not-for-profit organizations are similar to those in the hospital management industry where tax exempt or faith based not-for-profit hospitals are managed by for-profit companies.

Federal tax law requires that the boards of directors of not-for-profit tax exempt organizations be independent. The boards of directors of the tax exempt not-for-profit organizations for which we provide management services have a majority of independent members. The board members are predominately selected from independent members of the local community in which the not-for-profit entity operates. Decisions regarding our business relationships with these not-for-profit entities are made by their independent board members including approving the management fees we charge to manage their organizations and any discretionary bonuses. Federal tax law also requires that the management fees we charge the not-for-profit entities we manage be fixed and at fair market rates. Typically a fairness opinion is obtained by the not-for-profit entities we manage from an independent third party valuation consultant that substantiates the fair market rates.

If the Internal Revenue Service determined that any tax exempt organization was paying more than market rates for services performed by us, the managed entity could lose its tax exempt status and owe back taxes and penalties.

Generally, under state law, not-for-profit entities may pay no more than reasonable compensation for services rendered. If the compensation paid to us by these not-for-profit entities is deemed unreasonable, then the state could take action against the not-for-profit entity which could adversely affect us.

Government unions may oppose privatizing government programs to outside vendors such as us, which could limit our market opportunities.

Our success depends in part on our ability to win contracts to administer and manage programs traditionally administered by government employees. Many government employees, however, belong to labor unions with considerable financial resources and lobbying networks. These unions could apply political pressure on legislators and other officials seeking to privatize government programs. Union opposition could result in our losing government contracts or being precluded from providing services under government contracts or maintaining or renewing existing contracts.

23

Inaccurate, misleading or negative media coverage could damage our reputation and harm our ability to procure government sponsored contracts.

The media sometimes provides news coverage about our contracts and the services we provide to clients. This media coverage, if negative, could influence government officials to slow the pace of privatizing government services. Moreover, inaccurate, misleading or negative media coverage about us could harm our reputation and, accordingly, our ability to obtain government sponsored contracts.

We may incur costs before receiving related revenues, which could result in cash shortfalls.

When we are awarded a contract to provide services, we may incur expenses before we receive any contract payments. These expenses include leasing office space, purchasing office equipment and hiring personnel. As a result, in certain large contracts where the government does not fund program start-up costs, we may be required to invest significant sums of money before receiving related contract payments. In addition, payments due to us from payers may be delayed due to billing cycles or as a result of failures to approve government budgets in a timely manner. Moreover, especially under fee for service arrangements, any resulting cash shortfall could be exacerbated if we fail to either invoice the payer or to collect our fee in a timely manner.

Our business is subject to risks of litigation.

We are in the social services and non-emergency transportation services businesses which are subject to lawsuits and claims. A substantial award could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flow and could adversely impact our ability to continue to purchase appropriate liability insurance. We can be subject to claims for negligence or intentional misconduct (in addition to professional liability type claims) by an employee or a third party we engage to assist with the provision of services, including but not limited to, claims arising out of accidents involving vehicle collisions, and various claims that could result from employees or contracted third parties driving to or from interactions with clients and while providing direct client services. We are also subject to claims alleging we did not properly treat an individual or failed to properly diagnose and/or care for a client. We can be subject to employee related claims such as wrongful discharge or discrimination or a violation of equal employment law and permitting issues. While we are insured for these types of claims, damages exceeding our insurance limits or outside our insurance coverage, such as a claim for fraud, certain wage and hour violations or punitive damages, could adversely affect our cash flow and financial condition.

Furthermore, we can be subject to miscellaneous errors and omissions liability relative to the various management agreements we have with the not-for-profit entities we manage. In the event of a claim and depending on, among other things, the circumstances, allegations, and size of the management contract, we could be subject to damages that could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Our use of a reinsurance program to cover certain claims for losses suffered and costs or expenses incurred could negatively impact our business.

We are reinsured with regard to a substantial portion of our general liability, professional liability and workers’ compensation insurance. We also reinsure the general liability, professional liability, workers’ compensation insurance, and automobile liability of certain designated affiliated entities and independent third party transportation providers over various policy years under reinsurance programs through our two wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries. Although, effective February 15, 2011, we did not renew our reinsurance agreement and will not assume liabilities for policies that cover the general liability, automobile liability, and automobile physical damage coverage of our independent third party transportation providers after that date, we will continue to administer existing policies for the foreseeable future and resolve remaining and future claims related to these policies. In the event that actual reinsured losses increase unexpectedly or exceed actuarially determined estimated reinsured losses under the program, the aggregate of such losses could materially increase

24

our liability and adversely affect our financial condition, liquidity, cash flows and results of operations. In addition, as the availability to us of certain traditional insurance coverage diminishes or increases in cost, we will continue to evaluate the levels and types of insurance we include in our self-insurance program. Any increase to this program increases our risk exposure and therefore increases the risk of a possible material adverse effect on our financial condition, liquidity, cash flows and results of operations.

We could be subject to significant state regulation and potential sanctions if our health care benefits program is deemed to be a multiple employer welfare arrangement.

For the purpose of managing and providing employee healthcare benefits we deem ourselves to be a single employer under Section 3(5) of ERISA with regard to our own employees as well as the employees of certain of our managed entities covered by our healthcare benefit program to whom we offered healthcare benefits through June 2007. The Department of Labor or individual states could disagree with our interpretation and consider our program to be a multiple employer welfare arrangement, or MEWA, and, as such, subject to regulation by state insurance commissions. If involuntarily deemed a MEWA, our cost to manage the state-by-state regulatory environment for the self-funded portion of our health insurance program would be prohibitive and we could, as a result, elect to maintain our self-funded health insurance plan only for our owned entities, forcing the three managed entities currently included in our self-funded plan to negotiate and purchase their own health benefits. In addition, if our health care benefits program is determined to be a MEWA, civil and/or criminal sanctions are possible.

We face substantial competition in attracting and retaining experienced professionals, particularly social service professionals with respect to our social services and intellectual technology professionals with respect to our non-emergency transportation services, and we may be unable to grow our business if we cannot attract and retain qualified employees.

Our success depends to a significant degree on our ability to attract and retain highly qualified and experienced social services professionals who possess the skills and experience necessary to deliver high quality services to our clients. Our objective of providing the highest quality of service to our clients is strongly considered when we evaluate education, experience and qualifications of potential candidates for employment as direct care and administrative staff. To that end, we attempt to hire professionals who have attained a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree or higher level of education and certification or licensure as direct care social services providers and administrators. These employees are in great demand and are likely to remain a limited resource for the foreseeable future. We must quickly hire project leaders and case management personnel after a contract is awarded to us. Contract provisions and client needs determine the number, education and experience levels of social services professionals we hire. We continually evaluate client census, case loads and client eligibility to determine our staffing needs under each contract.

Our performance in our non-emergency transportation services business largely depends on the talents and efforts of our highly skilled intellectual technology professionals. Competition for skilled intellectual technology professionals can be intense. Our success depends on our ability to recruit, retain and motivate these individuals.

Our ability to attract and retain employees with the requisite experience and skills depends on several factors including, but not limited to, our ability to offer competitive wages, benefits and professional growth opportunities. Some of the companies with which we compete for experienced personnel have greater financial, technical, political and marketing resources, name recognition and a larger number of clients and payers than we do. The inability to attract and retain experienced personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our success depends on our ability to manage growing and changing operations.

Since 1996, our business has grown significantly in size and complexity. This growth has placed, and is expected to continue to place, significant demands on our management, systems, internal controls and financial

25

and physical resources. In addition, we expect that we will need to further develop our financial and managerial controls and reporting systems to accommodate future growth. This could require us to incur expenses for hiring additional qualified personnel, retaining professionals to assist in developing the appropriate control systems and expanding our information technology infrastructure. The nature of our business is such that qualified management personnel can be difficult to find. Our inability to manage growth effectively could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Any acquisition that we undertake could be difficult to integrate, disrupt our business, dilute stockholder value and harm our operating results.

We have made, and anticipate that we will continue making strategic acquisitions as part of our growth strategy. We have made a number of acquisitions since our inception. The success of these and other acquisitions depends in part on our ability to integrate acquired companies into our business operations. There can be no assurance that the companies acquired will continue to generate income at the same historical levels on which we based our acquisition decisions, that we will be able to maintain or renew the acquired companies’ contracts, that we will be able to realize operating and economic efficiencies upon integration of acquired companies, or that the acquisitions will not adversely affect our results of operations or financial condition.

We continually review opportunities to acquire other businesses that would complement our current services, expand our markets or otherwise offer growth opportunities. In connection with our acquisition strategy, we could issue stock that would dilute existing stockholders’ percentage ownership and/or we could incur or assume substantial debt or assume contingent liabilities. Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including, but not limited to, the following:

We cannot assure you that we will be successful in overcoming problems encountered in connection with any acquisition and our inability to do so could disrupt our operations and adversely affect our business.

Our success depends on our ability to compete effectively in the marketplace.

In our Social Services segment, we compete for clients and for contracts with a variety of organizations that offer similar services. Most of our competition consists of local social services organizations that compete with us for local contracts such as United Way supported agencies and faith-based agencies such as Catholic Social Services, Jewish Family and Children’s Services and the Salvation Army. Other competitors include local not-for-profit organizations and community based organizations. Historically, these types of organizations have been favored in our industry as incumbent providers of services to government entities. We also compete with larger companies, such as Res-Care, Inc., which provides support services, training and educational programs

26

predominantly to Medicaid eligible beneficiaries. National Mentor, Inc. is the country’s largest provider of foster care services and competes with us in existing markets for foster care services. In addition, many institutional providers offer some type of community based care including such organizations as The GEO Group, Inc. and The Devereaux Foundation. Some of these companies have greater financial, technical, political, marketing, name recognition and other resources and a larger number of clients and/or payers than we do. In addition, some of these companies offer more services than we do. We have experienced, and expect to continue to experience, competition from new entrants into the markets in which we operate our social services business. Increased competition may result in pricing pressures, loss of or failure to gain market share or loss of clients or payers, any of which could harm our business.

We compete with a variety of organizations that provide similar non-emergency transportation services to Medicaid eligible beneficiaries in local markets such as American Medical Response, Coordinated Transportation Solutions, Inc., First Transit, Inc., Medical Transportation Management Inc., MV Transportation, Inc., and Southeast Trans. Our competitors largely compete for smaller-scale contract opportunities that encompass smaller geographic areas. For example, most of our competitors seek to win contracts for specific counties, whereas we seek to win contracts for the entire state. If these competitors begin to compete on a larger scale basis, it could result in pricing pressures, loss of or failure to gain market share or loss of clients or payers, any of which could harm our business.

Our business is subject to state licensing regulations and other regulatory provisions, including regulatory provisions governing surveys, and audits and changes to or violations of these regulations could negatively impact our revenues.

In many of the locations where we operate, we are required by state law to obtain and maintain licenses. The applicable state and local licensing requirements govern the services we provide, the credentials of staff, record keeping, treatment planning, client monitoring and supervision of staff. The failure to maintain these licenses or the loss of a license could have a material adverse impact on our business and could prevent us from providing services to clients in a given jurisdiction. Most of our contracts are subject to surveys or audit by our payers. We are also subject to regulations that restrict our ability to contract directly with a government agency in certain situations. Such restrictions could affect our ability to contract with certain payers.

Our business is subject to security breaches and attacks.

We provide social services and therefore our information technology systems store customer information protected by numerous federal and state regulations. Since our systems include interfaces to third-party stakeholders, often connected via the Internet, we are subject to cybersecurity risks. The nature of our business, where services are often performed outside a secured location, adds additional risk. While we have implemented measures to detect and prevent security breaches and cyber-attacks, our measures may not be effective. Any security breach or loss of data could adversely affect our business and, as a result, we could incur liability, regulatory actions, fines or litigation.

Our international operations expose us to various risks, any number of which could harm our business.

We operate in Canada through our wholly-owned subsidiary, WCG International Consultants Ltd., and as a result, we are subject to the risks inherent in conducting business across national boundaries, any one of which could adversely impact our business. In addition to currency fluctuations, these risks include, among other things:

27

One or more of the foregoing factors could impair our current or future operations and, as a result, harm our overall business.

We may be exposed to liabilities under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws, and any determination that we violated any of these laws could have an adverse effect on our business.

Our operations outside the United States are subject to the U.S. and foreign anti-corruption laws and regulations, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA. Generally, the FCPA prohibits us from providing anything of value to foreign officials for the purposes of influencing official decisions or obtaining or retaining business or otherwise obtaining favorable treatment, and requires companies to maintain adequate record-keeping and internal accounting practices to accurately reflect the transactions of the company. We have established policies and procedures designed to assist us and our personnel to comply with applicable U.S. and international laws and regulations. However, there can be no assurance that our policies and procedures will effectively prevent us from violating these regulations in every transaction in which we may engage, and such a violation could adversely affect our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations.

Increased competition in British Columbia, Canada due to the service delivery system reorganization in 2012 could hinder our ability to gain new business and negatively impact our revenues related to our international operations.

As part of the service delivery system reorganization that took place in British Columbia during 2012, all of the contracts for services in this market expired and new contracts were put up for bid. The new contracts combined federal and provincial funding streams and services which were previously contracted separately. As a result, WCG is experiencing an increase in competition as providers who contract for federal dollars have entered the market in which WCG operates. To date, due primarily to an increased level of competition and a decrease in the number of services funded in British Columbia, WCG has been unable to regain the level of business it enjoyed prior to the reorganization of the service delivery system. Increased competition in this market may result in pricing pressures, loss of or failure to gain market share or loss of clients or payers, any of which could further harm our international business.

We operate in multiple tax jurisdictions and we are taxable in most of them and face the risk of double taxation if one jurisdiction does not acquiesce to the tax claims of another jurisdiction.

We currently operate in the United States and Canada and are subject to income taxes in those countries and the specific states and/or provinces where we operate. In the event one taxing jurisdiction disagrees with another taxing jurisdiction, we could experience temporary or permanent double taxation and increased professional fees to resolve taxation matters.

Rising gasoline prices can result in higher unit cost paid to our subcontracted network as well as higher utilization of our non-emergency transportation services which could negatively impact our operating margins.

During 2012, our NET Services segment experienced an increase in utilization of our non-emergency transportation services as compared to prior periods partially due to rising gasoline prices. Rising gasoline prices result in more clients utilizing our non-emergency transportation services as they are unable to economically sustain transportation of their own, which may result in increased costs and levels of service required under our capitated contracts, resulting in a loss of profitability in the segment. In addition, rising gasoline prices could

28

result in increased non-emergency transportation costs as we may not be able to pass on the costs charged by transportation providers with whom we subcontract. Sustained increases in gasoline prices could adversely affect our operating margins.

None.

We lease our approximately 11,000 square foot corporate office building in Tucson, Arizona under a five year lease, with two additional three year renewal options. The lease is currently in its third year. The monthly base rental payment under this lease as of December 31, 2012 in the amount of approximately $18,100 is subject to an annual Consumer Price Index adjustment increase over the initial term of the lease. We also lease office space for other administrative services in Tucson. The lease terms vary and are in line with market rates. In connection with the performance of our contracts and the contracts of our managed entities within our Social Services segment, we lease 316 offices and the entities we manage lease 132 offices for management and administrative functions. In connection with the performance of our contracts within our NET Services segment, we lease 36 offices for management and administrative functions. The lease terms vary and are generally at market rates.

We acquired a 5,760 square foot office building in Pottsville, Pennsylvania in connection with the acquisition of Providence Community Services, Inc. (formerly known as Pottsville Behavioral Counseling Group, Inc.), which is free of any mortgage. Additionally, with the acquisition of ReDCo, we acquired approximately 40 buildings in Pennsylvania which are free from any mortgages.

In 2010, we purchased land and a 46,188 square foot four-story shell building adjacent to our corporate office for cash. We expect to utilize the building for certain information technology operations and sublease and/or sell other space within the building. With this additional space we believe that our properties are adequate for our current business needs. Further, we believe that we can obtain adequate space to meet our foreseeable business needs.

Although we believe we are not currently a party to any material litigation, we may from time to time become involved in litigation relating to claims arising from our ordinary course of business. These claims, even if not meritorious, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources.

Not applicable.

29

PART II

Market for our common stock

Our common stock, $0.001 par value per share, our only class of common equity, has been quoted on NASDAQ under the symbol “PRSC” since August 19, 2003. Prior to that time there was no public market for our common stock. As of March 12, 2013, there were five holders of record of our common stock. The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock for the period indicated, as reported on NASDAQ Global Select Market:

30

Stock Performance Graph

The following graph shows a comparison of the cumulative total return for our Common Stock, Nasdaq Health Index and Russell 2000 Index assuming an investment of $100 in each on December 31, 2007.

Dividends

We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock and do not plan to pay dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. In addition, our ability to pay dividends is prohibited by the terms of our credit agreement. The payment of future cash dividends, if any, will be reviewed periodically by the Board and will depend upon, among other things, our financial condition, funds from operations, the level of our capital and development expenditures, any restrictions imposed by present or future debt instruments and changes in federal tax policies, if any.

31

The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data, other financial data and other data. The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 and as of December 31, 2011 and 2012 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated financial data for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2009 and as of December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this report. You should read this information with our consolidated financial statements and the related notes and Item 7 entitled “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” all of which are included elsewhere in this report.

32

33

34

35

The following discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with Item 6, entitled, “Selected Financial Data” and our consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Item 8 of this report. This discussion and analysis contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Certain risks, uncertainties and other factors, including but not limited to those set forth in Item 1A, entitled, “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report may cause actual results to differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.

Overview of our business

We provide government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit organizations whose operations we manage under contract, and we arrange for and manage non-emergency transportation services. As a result of and in response to the large and growing population of eligible beneficiaries of government sponsored social services and non-emergency transportation services, increasing pressure on governments to control costs and increasing acceptance of privatized social services, we have grown both organically and by making strategic acquisitions.

In November 2012, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial officer retired and we retained our Lead Director to serve as Interim Chief Executive Officer and hired a new Chief Financial Officer. Our executives will continue to focus on improving operating efficiencies, organic and acquisitive growth, and developing performance management systems designed to enhance and leverage our core competencies. Our core competencies include: enduring customer relationships, geographic reach, breadth of services and experience, management of populations (consisting of covered lives and provider networks), contract bidding infrastructure, managed care contracting experience and technology platform development. By enhancing and leveraging these core competencies, we believe we can benefit from emerging trends in healthcare such as healthcare reform, integrated healthcare (by providing services to individuals who are eligible for both Medicaid and Medicare benefits and by managing more populations eligible to receive our services to reduce the cost of care) and outsourcing of transportation management.

While we believe we are well positioned to benefit from healthcare reform legislation and to offer our services to a growing population of individuals eligible to receive our services, there can be no assurances that programs under which we provide our services will receive continued or increased funding. Additionally, there can be no assurance of when the legislation will be implemented or when, and if, we will see any positive impact.

While we believe we are positioned to potentially benefit from recent trends that favor our in-home provision of social services, budgetary pressures still exist that could reduce funding for the services we provide. Medicaid budgets are fluid and dramatic changes in the financing or structure of Medicaid could have a negative impact on our business. We believe our business model allows us to make adjustments to help mitigate state budget pressures that are impacted by federal spending.

During 2012, WCG International Ltd. (our Canadian wholly-owned subsidiary), or WCG, experienced a decline in its business due to the impact of a reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia. These matters are described in further detail below. Under the reorganized service delivery system, WCG faces increased competition for services that we believe could adversely affect our ability to gain new business in this market. These factors resulted in a $2.5 million reduction of the net book value of the customer relationships intangible asset. While the reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia presents challenges to our operations there, we believe our business model allows us to make adjustments in all of our markets to help mitigate system reforms that could challenge our overall profit margins.

With respect to our non-emergency transportation management services segment, or NET Services, 2012 consisted of ongoing implementations and start-up investments in multiple locations. These implementations

36

included expansions in Connecticut, additional regions in South Carolina and Georgia, new implementations in Texas and Wisconsin as well as New York City, which is a multi-phased implementation by borough and population group.

As of December 31, 2012, we were providing social services directly to over 51,000 unique clients, and had approximately 15.1 million individuals eligible to receive services under our non-emergency transportation services contracts. We provided services to these clients from nearly 395 locations in 42 states, the District of Columbia, United States, and British Columbia and Alberta, Canada.

Our working capital requirements are primarily funded by cash from operations and borrowings from our credit facility, which provides funding for general corporate purposes and acquisitions. Under our credit agreement, if we do not reduce the principal amount of our outstanding 6.5% convertible senior subordinated notes due 2014, or the Notes, to $25 million or less (from $47.5 million at December 31, 2012) by September 30, 2013 and certain other conditions are not met, the maturity date of our current credit facility may accelerate and our obligations under these facilities may become due and payable in 2013, which could have a material adverse affect on our liquidity and capital resources. We will consider a variety of alternatives to address this issue over the next few months, which may include sales of assets or equity, refinancing the debt outstanding under our credit facility or obtaining new financing and/or negotiations with our lenders to restructure the applicable indebtedness. We remain focused on deleveraging our balance sheet and continue to identify opportunities to further expand our service offerings.

How we grow our business and evaluate our performance

Our business has grown internally through organic expansion into new markets, increases in the number of clients served under contracts we or the entities we manage are awarded, and through strategic acquisitions.

We typically pursue organic expansion into markets that are contiguous to our existing markets or where we believe we can quickly establish a significant presence. When we expand organically into a market, we typically have no clients or perform no management services in the market and are required to incur start-up costs including the costs of space, required permits and initial personnel. These costs are expensed as incurred and our new offices can be expected to incur losses for a period of time until we adequately grow our revenue from clients or management fees.

We continue to selectively identify and pursue strategic acquisitions in markets where we see opportunities but where we lack the contacts and/or personnel to make a successful organic entry. Unlike organic expansion which involves start-up costs that may dilute earnings, expansion through acquisitions have generally been accretive to our earnings. However, we bear financing risk and where debt is used, the risk of leverage by expanding through acquisitions. We also must integrate the acquired business into our operations which could disrupt our business and we may not be able to realize operating and economic synergies upon integration. Finally, our acquisitions may involve purchase prices in excess of the fair value of tangible assets and cash or receivables. This excess purchase price is allocated to intangible assets, including goodwill, and is subject to periodic evaluation and impairment or other write downs that are charges against our earnings. There are no assurances, however, that we will complete acquisitions in the future or that any completed acquisitions will prove profitable for us.

In all our markets we focus on several key performance indicators in managing our business. Specifically, we focus on growth in the number of clients served, as that particular metric is the key driver of our revenue growth. We also focus on the number of employees and the amount of outsourced transportation cost as these items are our most important variable costs and the key to the management of our operating margins. Going forward we will focus on our core business to make it more efficient and effective by leveraging our technology platforms and expanding our shared services capability.

37

How we earn our revenue

We operate in two segments: Social Services and Non-Emergency Transportation Services, or NET Services.

Social Services

Our revenue is derived from our provider contracts with state and local government agencies and government intermediaries, HMOs, commercial insurers, and from our management contracts with not-for-profit social services organizations. The government entities that pay for our services include welfare, child welfare and justice departments, public schools and state Medicaid programs. Under a majority of the contracts where we provide social services directly, we are paid an hourly fee. In other such situations, we receive a set monthly amount or we are paid amounts equal to the costs we incur to provide agreed upon services. These revenues are presented in our consolidated statements of income as either revenue from home and community based services or foster care services.

Where we contract to manage the operations of not-for-profit social services organizations, we receive a management fee that is either based upon a percentage of the revenue of the managed entity or a predetermined fee. These revenues are presented in our consolidated statements of income as management fees. Because we provide substantially all administrative functions for these entities and our management fees are largely dependent upon their revenues, we also monitor for management and disclosure purposes the revenues of the entities we manage under contract.

NET Services

Where we provide non-emergency transportation management services, we contract with state Medicaid and local agencies, regional and medical hospital systems or private managed care companies. Most of our contracts for non-emergency transportation management services are capitated (where we are paid on a per member per month basis for each eligible member). We do not direct bill for services under our capitated contracts as our revenue is based on covered lives. Our school transportation contracts are with local governments and are paid on a per trip basis or per bus per day basis. These revenues are presented in our consolidated statements of income as non-emergency transportation services revenue.

Critical accounting policies and estimates

General

In preparing our financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, or GAAP, we are required to make estimates and judgments that affect the amounts reflected in our financial statements. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various other assumptions we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. However, actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Critical accounting policies are those policies most important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations. These policies require our most difficult, subjective or complex judgments, often employing the use of estimates about the effect of matters inherently uncertain. Our most critical accounting policies pertain to revenue recognition, accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts, accounting for business combinations, goodwill and other intangible assets, accrued transportation costs, accounting for management agreement relationships, loss reserves for certain reinsurance and self-funded insurance programs, stock-based compensation and income taxes. We have reviewed our critical accounting estimates with our board of directors, audit committee and disclosure committee.

38

Revenue recognition

At times we may receive funding for certain services in advance of services actually being rendered. These amounts are reflected in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets as deferred revenue until the actual services are rendered.

Social Services segment

Fee-for-service contracts. Revenue related to services provided under fee-for-service contracts is recognized at the time services are rendered and collection is determined to be probable. Such services are provided at established billing rates. Fee-for-service contracts represented approximately 71.1% and 72.5% of our Social Services segment revenue for 2011 and 2012, respectively.

As services are rendered, documentation is prepared describing each service, time spent, and billing code under each contract to determine and support the value of each service provided. This documentation is used as a basis for billing under our contracts. The billing process and documentation submitted under our contracts vary among our payers. The timing, amount and collection of our revenues under these contracts are dependent upon our ability to comply with the billing requirements specified by each payer. Failure to comply with these requirements could delay the collection of amounts due to us under a contract or result in adjustments to amounts billed.

The performance of our contracts is subject to the condition that sufficient funds are appropriated, authorized and allocated by each state, city or other local government. If sufficient appropriations, authorizations and allocations are not provided by the respective state, city or other local government, we are at risk of immediate termination or renegotiation of the financial terms of our contracts.

Cost based service contracts. Revenue from our cost based service contracts is recorded based on a combination of direct costs, indirect overhead allocations, and stated contractual margins on those costs. These revenues are compared to annual contract budget limits and, depending on reporting requirements, allowances may be recorded for certain contingencies such as projected costs not incurred or excess cost per service over the allowable contract rate. This policy results in recognizing revenue from these contracts based on allowable costs incurred. The annual contract amount is based on projected costs to provide services under the contracts with adjustments for changes in the total contract amount. We annually submit projected costs for the coming year which assist the contracting payers in establishing the annual contract amount to be paid for services provided under the contracts. After the payers’ year end, we submit cost reports which are used by the contracting payers to determine the amount, if any, by which funds paid to us for services provided under the contracts were greater than the allowable costs. Completion of this review process may take several years from the date we submit a cost report. In cases where funds paid to us exceed the allowable costs to provide services under contract, we may be required to repay amounts previously received.

Our cost reports are routinely audited by our payers on an annual basis. We periodically review our provisional billing rates and allocation of costs and provide for estimated adjustments from the contracting payers. We believe that adequate provisions have been made in our consolidated financial statements for any adjustments that might result from the outcome of any cost report audits. Differences between the amounts provided and the settlement amounts, which historically have not been material, are recorded in our consolidated statement of income in the year of settlement. Cost based service contracts represented approximately 19.3% and 18.6% of our Social Services operating segment revenue for 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Annual block purchase contract. Our annual block purchase contract with The Community Partnership of Southern Arizona requires us to provide or arrange for behavioral health services to eligible populations of beneficiaries as defined in the contract. We must provide a complete range of behavioral health clinical, case management, therapeutic and administrative services. We are obliged to provide services only to those clients with a demonstrated medical necessity. Our annual funding allocation amount is subject to increase when our

39

patient service encounters exceed the contract amount; however, such increases in the annual funding allocation amount are subject to government appropriation and may not be approved. There is no contractual limit to the number of eligible beneficiaries that may be assigned to us, or a specified limit to the level of services that may be provided to these beneficiaries if the services are deemed to be medically necessary. Therefore, we are at-risk if the costs of providing necessary services exceed the associated reimbursement.

The terms of the contract may be reviewed prospectively and amended as necessary to ensure adequate funding of our contractual obligations; however, we cannot guarantee amendments will be approved or that funding will be adequate. Our revenues under the annual block purchase contract for 2011 and 2012 represented approximately 6.1% and 5.4%, respectively, of our Social Services operating segment revenues for each year.

Management agreements. We maintain management agreements with a number of not-for-profit social services organizations whereby we provide certain management services for these organizations. In exchange for our services, we receive a management fee that is either based on a percentage of the revenues of these organizations or a predetermined fee. Management fees earned under our management agreements represented approximately 3.5% of our Social Services operating segment revenue in each of 2011 and 2012.

The costs associated with rendering these management services are shown as client service expense and in general and administrative expense in our consolidated statements of income.

NET Services segment

Capitation contracts. Approximately 83% of our non-emergency transportation services revenue is generated under capitated contracts where we assume the responsibility of meeting the transportation needs of a specific geographic population. Revenues under capitation contracts with our payers are based on per-member monthly fees for the number of participants in the payer’s program. Aggregate revenue from our top five payers for 2011 and 2012 represented approximately 49% and 43% of our NET Services operating segment revenue for such period, respectively.

Fee-for-service contracts. Revenues earned under fee-for-service contracts are recognized when the service is provided. Revenue under these types of contracts is based upon contractually established billing rates less allowance for contractual adjustments. Estimates of contractual adjustments are based upon payment terms specified in the related agreements.

Accounts receivable and allowance for doubtful accounts

Clients are referred to us through governmental social services programs and we only provide services at the direction of a payer under a contractual arrangement. These circumstances have historically minimized any uncollectible amounts for services rendered. However, we recognize that not all amounts recorded as accounts receivable will ultimately be collected.

We record all accounts receivable amounts at their contracted amount, less an allowance for doubtful accounts. We maintain an allowance for doubtful accounts at an amount we estimate to be sufficient to cover the risk that an account will not be collected. We regularly evaluate our accounts receivable, especially receivables that are past due, and reassess our allowance for doubtful accounts based on specific client collection issues. We pay particular attention to amounts outstanding for 365 days and longer. Any account receivable older than 365 days is deemed uncollectible and written off or fully reserved unless we have specific information from the payer that payment for those amounts is forthcoming or other evidence which we believe supports the collection of amounts older than 365 days. In circumstances where we are aware of a specific payer’s inability to meet its financial obligation, we record a specific addition to our allowance for doubtful accounts to reduce the net recognized receivable to the amount we reasonably expect to collect.

40

Our write-off experience for 2011 and 2012 was less than 1.0% of revenue.

Accounting for business combinations, goodwill and other intangible assets

When we consummate an acquisition we separately value all acquired identifiable intangible assets apart from goodwill in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification, or ASC, Topic 805-Business Combinations. We analyze the carrying value of goodwill at the end of each fiscal year. When analyzing goodwill for impairment we first assess qualitative factors to determine whether it is necessary to perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test described below. If we determine, based on a qualitative assessment, that it is more likely than not that the fair value of a reporting unit is less than its carrying amount, then we would calculate the fair value of the reporting unit and perform the two-step quantitative goodwill impairment test. In connection with our year-end asset impairment test, we reconcile the aggregate fair value of our reporting units to our market capitalization including a reasonable control premium. As part of this annual impairment test, we also compare the fair value of each reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill. If the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value, there is an indication of impairment. If an indication of impairment is identified, the impairment loss, if any, is measured by comparing the implied fair value of the reporting unit’s goodwill with its carrying value. In calculating the implied fair value of the reporting unit goodwill, the fair value of the reporting unit is allocated to all of the other assets and liabilities of that unit based on their fair values. The excess of the fair value of a reporting unit over the amount assigned to its other identifiable assets and liabilities is the implied fair value of goodwill. An impairment loss would be recognized when the carrying value of goodwill exceeds its implied fair value.

Similarly conducted interim impairment tests may also be required in advance of our annual impairment test if events occur or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value, including goodwill, of one or more of our reporting units below the reporting unit’s carrying value. Such circumstances could include but are not limited to: (1) loss of significant contracts, (2) a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the climate of our business, (3) unanticipated competition, or (4) an adverse action or assessment by a regulator.

In determining whether or not we had goodwill impairment to report for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, we considered both a market-based valuation approach and an income-based valuation approach when estimating the fair values of our reporting units with goodwill balances as of such dates. In arriving at the fair value of the reporting units, greater weight was attributed to the market approach than the income approach as we place less confidence on the forecasted results after 2013. We weighted the market-based valuation results at 75% and the income-based valuation results at 25% for the majority of our reporting units, which was consistent with our weighting methodology in 2010 and 2011. Under the market approach, the fair value of the reporting unit is determined using one or more methods based on current values in the market for similar businesses. Under the income approach, the fair value of the reporting unit is based on the cash flow streams expected to be generated by the reporting unit over an appropriate period and then discounting the cash flows to present value using an appropriate discount rate. The income approach is dependent on a number of significant management assumptions, including estimates of future revenue and expenses, growth rates and discount rates. Inherent in such fair value determinations are certain judgments and estimates relating to future cash flows, including our interpretation of current economic indicators and market valuations, and assumptions about our strategic plans with regard to our operations. To the extent additional information arises, market conditions change or our strategies change, it is possible that our conclusion regarding whether existing goodwill is impaired could change and result in a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position or results of operations.

Given the reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia, Canada during 2012, we evaluated whether events, referred to as triggering events, had occurred during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 that would require us to perform an interim period goodwill impairment test in accordance with ASC Topic 350-Intangibles-Goodwill and Other, or ASC 350 as of September 30, 2012. During the nine

41

months ended September 30, 2012, the impact of changes in the above mentioned service delivery system resulted in, among other things, the expiration of all contracts for services under this system. The service delivery system reorganization commenced in the latter part of the first quarter of 2012 (in accordance with the time line the payer set forth) when the payer put up for bid new contracts that combined federal and provincial funding streams and services which were previously contracted separately. Due primarily to an increased level of competition (including over 400 bidders for 60 awards) and a decrease in the number of services funded in this market, WCG was unable to regain the level of business it enjoyed prior to the reorganization of the service delivery system. The impact of this system reorganization was not fully realized until the conclusion of the transition to the new system in the third quarter of 2012 and contributed to a decrease in the financial results of operations of WCG for three and nine months ended September 30, 2012. We determined that these factors were indicators that an interim goodwill impairment test was required under ASC 350.

Based on the results of our interim asset impairment test as of September 30, 2012 and our annual asset impairment test completed as of December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, we determined that none of our goodwill was impaired as of such dates. The assumptions used to estimate fair value were based on estimates of future revenue and expenses incorporated in our current operating plans, growth rates and discounts rates, our interpretation of current economic indicators and market valuations. Significant assumptions and estimates included in our current operating plans were associated with revenue growth, profitability, and related cash flows. The discount rate used to estimate fair value was risk adjusted in consideration of the economic conditions of the reporting units. We also considered assumptions that market participants may use. By their nature, these projections and assumptions are uncertain. Potential events and circumstances that could have an adverse effect on our assumptions include the lack of sufficient funds allocated by our state and local government payers to compensate us for the level of services we currently provide or the potential increased level of service we may be required to provide in the future due to the impact of the current economic downturn, and loss of a significant contract.

As of December 31, 2012, the amount of goodwill allocated to WCG was approximately $2.4 million. Based on the results of our annual asset impairment test completed as of December 31, 2012, we determined that, although our goodwill related to WCG was not impaired, the percentage by which the fair value of WCG exceeded the carrying value of its total assets was approximately 1%. In light of the nominal excess of fair value over current carrying values, management cannot guarantee that impairments of WCG’s goodwill will not occur in future periods. The fair values of our other reporting units exceeded their carrying values by a range of 15% to 77%.

In connection with our acquisitions, we allocate a portion of the purchase consideration to management contracts, customer relationships, restrictive covenants, software licenses and developed technology based on the direct or indirect contribution to future cash flows on a discounted cash flow basis expected from these intangible assets over their respective useful lives.

We assess whether any relevant factors limit the period over which acquired assets are expected to contribute directly or indirectly to future cash flows for amortization purposes and determine an appropriate useful life for acquired customer relationships based on the expected period of time we will provide services to the payer. While we use discounted cash flows to value intangible assets, we have elected to use the straight-line method of amortization to determine amortization expense. If applicable, we assess the recoverability of the unamortized balance of our long-lived assets based on undiscounted expected future cash flows. If the review indicates that the carrying value is not fully recoverable, the excess of the carrying value over the fair value of any long-lived asset is recognized as an impairment loss.

In connection with our interim asset impairment analysis conducted as of September 30, 2012, we determined that, for the same reasons noted above related to our goodwill impairment analysis, the value of the customer relationships acquired in connection with our acquisition of WCG was impaired as of September 30, 2012. Consequently, we recorded a non-cash charge of approximately $2.5 million in our Social Services

42

operating segment to reduce the carrying value of customer relationships acquired in connection with our acquisition of WCG based on their revised estimated fair values. In estimating the fair values of these intangible assets, we based our estimates on a projected discounted cash flow analysis. Based on our annual asset impairment analysis as of December 31, 2012, we determined that there was no additional impairment to these assets. The total asset impairment charge related to other intangible assets for 2012 of $2.5 million was included in “Asset impairment charge” in the accompanying consolidated statements of income.

Accrued transportation costs

Transportation costs are estimated and accrued in the month the services are rendered by outsourced providers utilizing gross reservations for transportation services less cancellations, and average costs per transportation service by customer contract. Average costs per contract are derived by utilizing historical cost trends. Actual costs relating to a specific accounting period are monitored and compared to estimated accruals. Adjustments to those accruals are made based on reconciliations with actual costs incurred.

Accounting for management agreement relationships

Due to the nature of our business and the requirement or desire by certain payers to contract with not-for-profit social services organizations, we sometimes enter into management contracts with not-for-profit social services organizations where we provide them with administrative, program and other management services. These not-for-profit organizations contract directly with state and local agencies to provide a variety of community based mental health and foster care services to children and adults. Each of these organizations is separately incorporated and, with respect to the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) entities, organized with its own independent board of directors.

Our management agreements with these not-for-profit organizations typically:

All of our management services are subject to the approval or direction of the managed entities’ board of directors.

We have concluded that our management agreements do not meet the provisions of ASC Topic 810, “Consolidation”, or ASC 810, thus the operations of these organizations are not consolidated with our operations. We will evaluate the impact of the provisions of ASC 810, if any, on future acquired management agreements.

Loss reserves for certain reinsurance and self-funded insurance programs

We reinsure a substantial portion of our general and professional liability and workers’ compensation costs under reinsurance programs through our wholly-owned subsidiary Social Services Providers Captive Insurance Company, or SPCIC. SPCIC is a licensed captive insurance company domiciled in the State of Arizona. SPCIC maintains reserves for obligations related to our reinsurance programs for our general and professional liability and workers’ compensation coverage.

As of December 31, 2011 and 2012, SPCIC had reserves of approximately $7.4 million and $8.8 million, respectively, for the general and professional liability and workers’ compensation programs.

43

In addition, we own Provado Insurance Services, Inc., or Provado, a licensed captive insurance company domiciled in the State of South Carolina. Provado historically provided reinsurance for policies written by a third party insurer for general liability, automobile liability, and automobile physical damage coverage to various members of the network of subcontracted transportation providers and independent third parties within our NET Services operating segment. Effective February 15, 2011, Provado has not renewed its reinsurance agreement and will not assume additional liabilities for policies commencing thereafter. It continues to administer existing policies for the foreseeable future and resolves remaining and future claims related to these policies.

Provado maintains reserves for obligations related to the reinsurance programs for general liability, automobile liability, and automobile physical damage coverage. As of December 31, 2011 and 2012, Provado recorded reserves of approximately $4.7 million and $4.4 million, respectively.

We utilize analyses prepared by third party administrators and independent actuaries based on historical claims information with respect to the general and professional liability coverage, workers’ compensation coverage, automobile liability, and automobile physical damage to determine the amount of required reserves.

We also maintain a self-funded health insurance program provided to our employees. With respect to this program, we consider historical and projected medical utilization data when estimating our health insurance program liability and related expense as well as using services of a third party administrator. As of December 31, 2011 and 2012, we had approximately $1.6 million and $2.1 million, respectively, in reserve for our self-funded health insurance programs.

We regularly analyze our reserves for incurred but not reported claims, and for reported but not paid claims related to our reinsurance and self-funded insurance programs. We believe our reserves are adequate. However, significant judgment is involved in assessing these reserves such as assessing historical paid claims, average lags between the claims’ incurred date, reported dates and paid dates, and the frequency and severity of claims. There may be differences between actual settlement amounts and recorded reserves and any resulting adjustments are included in expense once a probable amount is known. There were no significant adjustments recorded in the periods covered by this report. Any significant increase in the number of claims or costs associated with claims made under these programs above our reserves could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

Stock-based compensation

We follow the fair value recognition provisions of ASC Topic 718-Compensation-Stock Compensation, or ASC 718, which requires companies to measure and recognize compensation expense for all share based payments at fair value. With respect to stock option awards, the fair value is estimated on the date of grant using the Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing formula and amortized over the option’s vesting periods. The Black-Scholes-Merton option-pricing formula requires us to make assumptions for the expected dividend yield, stock price volatility, life of options and risk-free interest rate. We adopted the requirements of ASC 718 using the modified prospective transition method in which compensation costs are recognized beginning with the effective date based on the requirements of ASC 718 for all awards granted to employees prior to the effective date of ASC 718 that remain unvested on the effective date.

We follow the short-cut method prescribed by ASC 718 to calculate our pool of excess tax benefits available to absorb tax deficiencies recognized subsequent to the adoption of ASC 718, or APIC pool. There was no effect on our financial results for 2011 or 2012 related to the application of the short-cut method to determine our APIC pool balance.

Under ASC 718, the benefits of tax deductions in excess of the estimated tax benefit of compensation costs recognized in the statement of income for those options are classified as financing cash flows. For 2010, 2011 and 2012, we had a net tax shortfall resulting from the exercise and cancellation of stock options of approximately $176,000, $100,000 and $215,000 (net of approximately $66,000, $17,000 and $91,000 in excess

44

tax benefits resulting from the exercise of stock options), respectively. The gross excess tax benefits resulting from the exercise of stock options are reflected as cash flows from financing activities for 2010, 2011 and 2012 in our consolidated statements of cash flows. Our 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended, or 2006 Plan, allows us the flexibility to issue up to 4,400,000 shares of our common stock pursuant to awards of stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted stock, unrestricted stock, stock units including restricted stock units and performance awards to employees, directors, consultants, advisors and others who are in a position to make contributions to our success and to encourage such persons to take into account our long-term interests and the interests of our stockholders through ownership of our common stock or securities with value tied to our common stock.

Income Taxes

Deferred income taxes are determined by the liability method in accordance with ASC Topic 740-Income Taxes. Under this method, deferred tax assets and liabilities are determined based on differences between the carrying amounts of assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes and the amounts used for income tax purposes and are measured using the enacted tax rates and laws that will be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. We record a valuation allowance which includes amounts for state net operating loss carryforwards for which we have concluded that it is more likely than not that these net operating loss carryforwards will not be realized in the ordinary course of operations. We recognize interest and penalties related to income taxes as a component of income tax expense.

Results of operations

Segment reporting. Our financial operating results are organized and reviewed by our chief operating decision maker along our service lines in two reportable segments (i.e., Social Services and NET Services). We operate these reportable segments as separate divisions and differentiate the segments based on the nature of the services they offer. The following describes each of our segments.

Social Services

Social Services includes government sponsored social services consisting of home and community based counseling, foster care and not-for-profit management services. Our operating entities within Social Services provide services to a common customer group, principally individuals and families. All of our operating entities within Social Services follow similar operating procedures and methods in managing their operations and each operating entity works within a similar regulatory environment, primarily under Medicaid regulations. We manage our operating activities within Social Services by actual to budget comparisons within each operating entity rather than by comparison between entities.

Our chief operating decision maker regularly reviews financial and non-financial information for each individual entity within Social Services. While financial performance in comparison to budget is evaluated on an entity-by-entity basis, our operating entities comprising Social Services are aggregated into one reporting segment for financial reporting purposes because we believe that the operating entities exhibit similar long term financial performance. In addition, our revenues, costs and contribution margins are not significantly affected by allocating more or less resources to individual operating entities within Social Services because the economic characteristics of our business are substantially dependent upon individualized market demographics which affect the amount and type of services in demand as well as our cost structure (primarily payroll and related costs) and contract rates with payers. In conjunction with the financial performance trends, we believe the similar qualitative characteristics of the operating entities we aggregate within Social Services and budgetary constraints of our payers in each market provide a foundation to conclude that the entities that we aggregate within Social Services have similar economic characteristics. Thus, we believe the economic characteristics of our operating entities within Social Services meet the criteria for aggregation into a single reporting segment under ASC Topic 280-Segment Reporting.

45

NET Services

NET Services involves managing the delivery of non-emergency transportation services. We operate NET Services as a separate division with operational management and service offerings distinct from our Social Services operating segment. Financial and operating performance reporting is conducted at a contract level and reviewed weekly at both the operating entity level as well as the corporate level by our chief operating decision maker. Gross margin performance of individual contracts is consolidated under the associated operating entity and direct general and administrative expenses are allocated to the operating entity.

Consolidated Results

The following table sets forth the percentage of consolidated total revenues represented by items in our consolidated statements of income for the periods presented:

Overview of trends of our results of operations for 2012

Our Social Services revenues for 2012 as compared to 2011 were unfavorably impacted by contract price reductions and terminations and trends in certain of our markets where tighter controls over authorizations and referrals are being implemented in response to continuing state budget challenges as well as waivers granted under the No Child Left Behind Act, or NCLB. In addition, revenue from our Canadian operations declined from 2011 to 2012 due to the impact of a reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia and increased competition in this market as described above. Increased competition in this market could unfavorably impact our ability to generate the level of revenue enjoyed by WCG prior to this reorganization. Partially offsetting decreases in these revenues for 2012 as compared to 2011, was additional revenue contributed by The ReDCo Group, Inc., or ReDCo, which we acquired in June 2011, continued increases in Medicaid enrollment, our preferred provider status we enjoy in many of our markets, and relatively stable rates overall.

46

We believe the industry trend away from the more expensive out of home service providers in favor of home and community based delivery systems like ours will continue. In addition, we believe that our effective low cost home and community based service delivery system is becoming more attractive to certain payers that have historically only contracted with not-for-profit social services organizations. Further, we believe we are well positioned to benefit from emerging trends in healthcare, particularly the development of integrated models of healthcare delivery and financing and increased outsourcing of transportation management.

Our NET Services revenue for 2012 as compared to 2011 was favorably impacted by the expansion of business in the Connecticut, Georgia, and South Carolina markets, as well as continued expansion of our California ambulance commercial and managed care lines of business. Revenue for 2012 also reflects new contracts in New York and Texas, and an additional contract in Wisconsin which commenced on September 1, 2012. Partially offsetting these revenue gains, we incurred additional operating and implementation costs related to these market expansions and new contracts including staffing, training, travel and outreach communication material costs. In addition, we experienced higher utilization in 2012 as compared to 2011 due to the impact of an unusually mild winter in certain of our markets (partially offset by lower utilization due to the impact of Hurricane Sandy in the Northeast) and the sustained high level of gas prices across the country, which resulted in higher transportation costs to us both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of revenue for 2012. While we believe that increased utilization will continue to be a factor which could impact the results of our operations for 2013, we expect continued positive revenue impact from new contracts implemented in 2012 and from negotiated rate adjustments in select programs.

Year ended December 31, 2012 compared to year ended December 31, 2011

Revenues

Home and community based services. Contract price reductions in Arizona, contract terminations in Michigan, Texas, Virginia and Canada, the impact of waivers granted under NCLB and reforms in managed care in certain regions led to a decrease in home and community based services revenue for 2012 as compared to 2011. The decrease in revenue was partially offset by the acquisition of ReDCo in June 2011, which contributed approximately $15.1 million to home and community based services revenue for 2012 as compared to 2011. Further offsetting the decrease in revenue from 2012 to 2011 was the impact of increased census in certain locations as well as new programs being implemented in various markets.

Foster care services. Our foster care services revenue decreased from 2011 to 2012 primarily as a result of a new per diem rate structure implemented in Indiana in January 2012, which reduced payments for foster care services in that state as well as a decrease in foster care services provided in Arizona, Oregon and Nevada due to reduced payer authorizations for these services. This decrease, however, was partially offset by increased foster care services provided in Tennessee as we continue to build our foster care program in that state.

Management fees. Fees for management services provided to certain not-for-profit organizations under management services agreements decreased in 2012 as compared to 2011 primarily due to our acquisition of ReDCo, with whom we previously had a management services agreement. The acquisition of ReDCo resulted in a reduction of management fees of approximately $761,000 in 2012.

47

Non-emergency transportation services. NET Services revenue was favorably impacted by the following:

A significant portion of this revenue was generated under capitated contracts where we assumed the responsibility of meeting the transportation needs of beneficiaries residing in a specific geographic region for fixed payment amounts per beneficiary. Due to the fixed revenue stream and variable expense structure of our NET Services operating segment, expenses related to this segment vary with seasonal fluctuations. We expect our operating results will continuously fluctuate on a quarterly basis.

Operating expenses

Social Services

Client service expense. Client service expense included the following for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012:

Payroll and related costs. Our payroll and related costs increased from 2011 to 2012 because we added over 600 new employees in connection with the acquisition of ReDCo, which resulted in an increase in payroll and related costs of approximately $12.6 million for 2012 as compared to 2011. In addition, we experienced increased healthcare claims activity under our self-funded employee health plan, which resulted in increased expense of approximately $1.4 million for 2012 as compared to 2011. These increases were partially offset by a net decrease in payroll in Michigan, Texas, Virginia and Canada as a result of contract terminations in these markets. As a percentage of revenue of our Social Services segment, payroll and related costs increased from 61.5% for 2011 to 64.4% for 2012 primarily due to the impact of higher payroll and related costs of ReDCo relative to its revenue contribution and increased healthcare claims activity under our self-funded employee health plan.

Purchased services. We subcontract with a network of providers for a portion of the workforce development services we provide throughout British Columbia. In addition, we incur a variety of other support service

48

expenses in the normal course of business including foster parent payments, pharmacy payments and out-of-home placements. In 2012 we experienced decreased costs resulting from contract terminations in Canada of approximately $4.5 million, decreased cost of other support services of approximately $1.0 million, and decreased foster parent payments of approximately $1.3 million, as compared to 2011. Purchased services, as a percentage of our Social Services segment revenue, decreased from 9.1% for 2011 to 7.3% for 2012 due to the fact that we incurred only nominal additional purchased services expense as a result of the inclusion of ReDCo relative to the revenue contributed by this acquired business.

Other operating expenses. The acquisition of ReDCo added approximately $1.7 million to other operating expenses for 2012 as compared to 2011. In addition, expense related to our wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary for workers compensation and general and professional liability claims incurred but not reported increased for 2012 as compared to 2011 due to a change in the estimated cost of these claims as determined by actuarial analysis. The increase in other operating expenses was partially offset by decreased costs associated with our Michigan, Texas and Canada operations due to contract terminations. As a result, other operating expenses, as a percentage of revenue of our Social Service segment, increased from 13.4% for 2011 to 13.6% for 2012.

Stock-based compensation. Stock-based compensation expense primarily consisted of approximately $652,000 and $792,000 for 2011 and 2012, respectively, which represents the amortization of the fair value of stock options and restricted stock awarded to key employees since January 1, 2009 under our 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, or 2006 Plan. In addition, stock-based compensation expense included costs related to performance restricted stock units granted to an executive officer.

NET Services

Cost of non-emergency transportation services.

Payroll and related costs. The increase in payroll and related costs of our NET Services operating segment for 2012 as compared to 2011 was due to additional staff hired to service a new statewide Wisconsin contract effective July 1, 2011, as well as the expansion of our existing business in New Jersey, along with additional staffing needed for expansion of the California ambulance commercial and managed care lines of business. In addition, we re-entered the State of Missouri on October 31, 2011 and hired staff for program implementations in Connecticut, Georgia, New York City, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin commencing at various times from February 2012 to September 2012. Payroll and related costs, as a percentage of NET Services revenue, increased from 10.0% for 2011 to 10.5% for 2012 as additional staff is needed during the first three months of most contracts and or until volume and calls stabilize. In addition, some of these new contracts, such as Texas are more labor intensive than some of our other historical programs.

Purchased services. We subcontract with third party transportation providers to provide non-emergency transportation services to our clients. For 2012, we experienced higher utilization than in 2011 primarily due to relatively warmer weather during the winter months resulting in fewer cancellations of scheduled trips. Additionally, since 2011, we have added a statewide contract in Wisconsin, completed the operations expansion into all counties in New Jersey as well as adding all of New Jersey’s managed care lives to the population we

49

serve. Furthermore, we began a state-wide contract in Missouri, expanded in Connecticut, Georgia and South Carolina, and implemented new contracts in New York and Texas. These factors resulted in an increase in purchased transportation costs for 2012 as compared to 2011. As a percentage of NET Services revenue, purchased services increased from approximately 78.4% for 2011 to approximately 80.0% for 2012 as a result of competitively bid contracts as well as higher utilization within existing and expanded contracts.

Other operating expenses. Other operating expenses increased for 2012 as compared to 2011 due primarily to contract start-up and implementation related expenses such as member communications, telecommunications, software maintenance, business taxes and training. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in claims expense related to Provado Insurance Services, Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary), or Provado, which did not renew its reinsurance agreement or assume liabilities for insurance policies after February 15, 2011, as well as, a decrease in consulting services. Other operating expenses as a percentage of revenue decreased from 4.1% for 2011 to 3.4% for 2012 as a result of these factors.

Stock-based compensation. Stock-based compensation expense primarily consisted of approximately $1.1 million and $1.4 million for 2011 and 2012, respectively, which represents the amortization of the fair value of stock options and restricted stock awarded to employees of our NET Services operating segment since January 1, 2009 under our 2006 Plan. In addition, stock-based compensation expense included costs related to performance restricted stock units granted to an executive officer.

General and administrative expense.

The increase in corporate administrative expenses for 2012 as compared to 2011 was primarily a result of an increase of approximately $2.5 million in rent and related charges, of which approximately $866,000 related to the ReDCo acquisition. Additionally, corporate administrative expenses for 2012 as compared to 2011 increased due to payments related to the retirement of two executive officers in November 2012 of approximately $2.2 million and rent expense related to unused office space of approximately $400,000. Partially offsetting the increase in corporate administrative expenses for 2012 as compared to 2011 was a decrease in stock compensation expense of approximately $602,000 due to the forfeiture of stock based compensation related to the retirement of two executive officers in 2012, net of accelerated vesting of restricted stock grants due to the death of a company director. Corporate administrative costs also included expenses of approximately $593,000 related to third party professional fees associated with the consideration of strategic alternatives, which resulted in increased expense for 2012 as compared to 2011. As a percentage of revenue, general and administrative expense decreased from 5.2% for 2011 to 4.8% for 2012 due to revenue growth outpacing the growth in corporate administrative expenses.

Asset impairment charge

During 2012, WCG experienced a decline in its business due to the impact of a reorganization of the service delivery system in British Columbia. As part of this reorganization, all of the contracts for services in this market expired and new contracts were put up for bid. Due to an increased level of competition in British Columbia and a decrease in the number of services funded, WCG was unable to regain the level of business it enjoyed prior to the reorganization. The impact of this system reorganization was not fully realized until the conclusion of the transition to the new system in the third quarter of 2012 and contributed to a decrease in the financial results of operations of WCG for 2012. Based on these factors, we initiated an analysis of the fair value of goodwill and other intangible assets and determined that customer relationships which comprise other intangible assets were impaired at September 30, 2012. Based on this determination, we recorded a non-cash charge of approximately

50

$2.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012, based on a preliminary assessment, to reduce the carrying value of customer relationships based on their estimated fair values. In connection with our annual asset impairment analysis as of December 31, 2012, we determined that there was no additional impairment.

Depreciation and amortization.

As a percentage of revenues, depreciation and amortization was approximately 1.4% for 2011 and 2012.

Non-operating (income) expense

Interest expense. Our current and long-term debt obligations have decreased from approximately $150.5 million at December 31, 2011 to $130.0 million at December 31, 2012, which was a significant factor contributing to the decrease in our interest expense for 2012 as compared to 2011. Additionally, in March 2011, our interest rate under our credit facility decreased from LIBOR plus 6.5% to LIBOR plus 2.75% due to the refinancing of our long-term debt.

Loss on extinguishment of debt. Loss on extinguishment of debt for 2011 of approximately $2.5 million resulted from the write-off of deferred financing fees related to our credit facility that was repaid in full in March 2011. We accounted for the unamortized deferred financing fees related to the previous credit facility under ASC 470-50—Debt Modifications and Extinguishments. As current and previous credit facilities were loan syndications, and a number of lenders participated in both credit facilities, the Company evaluated the accounting for financing fees on a lender by lender basis, which resulted in a loss on extinguishment of debt of $2.5 million.

Gain on bargain purchase. On June 1, 2011, we acquired all of the equity interest of ReDCo. The fair value of the net assets acquired of approximately $11.3 million exceeded the purchase price of the business of approximately $8.6 million. Accordingly, the acquisition was accounted for as a bargain purchase and, as a result, we recognized a gain of approximately $2.7 million associated with the acquisition.

Interest income. Interest income for 2011 and 2012 was approximately $205,000 and $132,000, respectively, and resulted primarily from interest earned on interest bearing bank and money market accounts.

Provision for income taxes

Our effective tax rate from continuing operations for 2011 and 2012 was 37.0% and 49.2%, respectively. Our effective tax rate was higher than the United States federal statutory rate of 35.0% for 2011 and 2012 due primarily to state taxes as well as non-deductible stock option expense. Additionally, the tax rate for 2011 was favorably impacted by the gain on bargain purchase, recorded net of deferred taxes of approximately $1.4 million, which was not subject to income taxation. Further, the effective tax rate for 2012 was favorably impacted by the final determination of the tax benefits related to certain liabilities assumed as a result of a 2011 acquisition and unfavorably impacted by lower income before income taxes, which was partially due to the $2.5 million asset impairment charge recorded in the quarter ended September 30, 2012.

Adjusted EBITDA

After adjusting for the items noted in the table below, Adjusted EBITDA was $43.6 million for 2012 as compared to $50.3 million for 2011.

51

EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA are non-GAAP measurements. We utilize these non-GAAP measurements as a means to measure overall operating performance and to better compare current operating results with other companies within our industry. Details of the excluded items and a reconciliation of the non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable GAAP financial measure are presented in the table below (in thousands). The non-GAAP measures do not replace the presentation of our GAAP financial results. We have provided this supplemental non-GAAP information because we believe it provides meaningful comparisons of the results of our operations for the periods presented. The non-GAAP measures are not in accordance with, or an alternative for GAAP and may be different from pro forma measures used by some companies. The items excluded in the non-GAAP measures pertain to certain items that are considered to be material so that exclusion of the items would, in our belief, enhance a reader’s ability to compare the results of our business after excluding these items.

52

Year ended December 31, 2011 compared to year ended December 31, 2010

Revenues