Program Profile: Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

This is a family-based prevention and intervention program for dysfunctional youth, ages 11 to 18, who are justice-involved or at risk for delinquency, violence, substance use, or other behavioral problems. The program is rated Effective. Program participants showed a statistically significant reduction in general recidivism and risky behavior, compared with control group participants. However, there were no differences between groups on felony recidivism or caregiver strengths and needs.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

An Effective rating implies that implementing the program is likely to result in the intended outcome(s).

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes at least one high-quality randomized controlled trial.

This program's rating is based on evidence that includes either 1) one study conducted in multiple sites; or 2) two or three studies, each conducted at a different site. Learn about how we make the multisite determination.

Program Goals

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a family-based prevention and intervention program for high-risk youth that addresses complex and multidimensional problems through clinical practice that is flexibly structured and culturally sensitive. The FFT clinical model concentrates on decreasing risk factors and on increasing protective factors that directly affect adolescents, with a particular emphasis on familial factors.

Target Population

The program is for at-risk youths ages 11 to 18 and has been applied in a variety of multiethnic, multicultural contexts to treat a range of youths and their families. Targeted youths generally are justice-involved or at risk for delinquency, violence, substance use, or other behavioral problems such as Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

Program Components

FFT consists of 8 to 12 one-hour sessions for mild cases and incorporates up to 30 sessions of direct service for families in more difficult situations. Sessions are generally spread over a 3-month period and can be conducted in clinical settings as an outpatient therapy and as a home-based model.

FFT integrates several elements (clinical theory, empirically supported principles, and clinical experience) into a comprehensive clinical model. The model has five specific phases: engagement, motivation, relational assessment, behavior change, and generalization.

In the engagement phase, therapists concentrate on establishing and maintaining a strengths-based relationship with clients. The goals of this phase are to enhance the perception that the FFT therapeutic process will be responsive and credible, and demonstrate to clients that therapists will listen to, help, and respect them.

During the motivational phase, therapists concentrate on the relationship process between adolescents and their family. One goal of this phase is to create a motivational context, so that adolescents and their families will want to continue therapy and not drop out. In addition, therapists concentrate on decreasing the negativity often characteristic of high-risk youths and families, such as hopelessness and low self-efficacy. During this phase, the idea is emphasized and reiterated that a positive experience in therapy can lead to a lasting change.

The relational assessment involves analyzing the relational processes of the family, in addition to creating treatment places for the behavior change and generalization phases. The emphasis shifts during this phase from an individual problem to a relational perspective. Therapists work on intrafamily and extrafamily capabilities, such as values, interaction patterns, sources of resistance, and resources.

The behavior change phase aims to reduce and eliminate the problem behaviors and accompanying family relational patterns through individualized behavior change interventions (skill training in family communication, parenting, problem-solving, and conflict management). Therapists work to develop change in behavior, while remaining aware of family members’ abilities and interpersonal needs.

The goal of the generalization phase is to increase the family’s capacity to adequately use multisystemic community resources and to engage in relapse prevention. The emphases are on relationships between family members and multiple community systems.

Key Personnel

FFT can be delivered by a wide range of professionals, including licensed therapists, trained probation officers, and other specialists with a mental health degree and background (e.g., MSW, Ph.D., M.D., R.N., MFT, and LCP).

Study

Gordon and colleagues (1988) used a quasi-experimental design to evaluate Functional Family Therapy (FFT) with lower socioeconomic status juveniles, most of whom had multiple offenses. All 54 participants were white, court-referred juveniles from a rural Southeastern Ohio county who were adjudicated delinquents (guilty of misdemeanors or felonies) or status offenders. Youths who had two offenses before treatment (some of whom were placed outside the home) were assigned to the treatment group. The treatment group (n = 27) consisted of 15 males and 12 females who were court-ordered to a university counseling service as a condition of probation. The comparison group (n = 27) consisted of 23 male and 4 female juveniles who were randomly selected from the group of delinquents who were in court during the same period as the treatment group but were not referred for family therapy. These assignment procedures probably resulted in favor of the comparison group.

The participants were all white and were living in an economically depressed community with high rates of unemployment and single-parent households. Status offenses—habitual truancy, unruliness, and running away—accounted for 57 percent of all offenses committed. Misdemeanors accounted for 30 percent of offenses committed and consisted of petty theft, vandalism, criminal trespass, and menacing. Felonies, which accounted for 13 percent of offenses committed, included breaking and entering, grand theft, and rape. Participants in both groups continued to meet with their probation officer one or two times each month. Participants in the treatment group attended a median number of 16 family sessions (range: 7 to 38), lasting an average of 1½ hours each and extending over a mean of 5½ months.

The outcome—recidivism rate—was calculated for each group as the percentage of juveniles convicted of one offense or more. The mean follow-up period for measuring recidivism rates was 27.8 months for the treatment group and 31.5 for the comparison group. Since these periods differed slightly, the recidivism rate was annualized to reveal the rate for any 12-month period.

Adult recidivism at 5 to 6 years after placement on probation—when participants, generally, were 20 to 22 years of age—was reported by Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot (1995).

Study

The Sexton and Turner (2010) evaluation included a comparison of FFT with probation services. This community-based evaluation was conducted within a statewide juvenile justice system of a large western state. Data collection and group assignments were conducted by an independent state evaluation center. A total of 917 families in 14 counties in both rural and urban settings participated.

The participating adjudicated juveniles had been remanded for probation services and were stratified at the county level and randomly assigned to either FFT or a control group receiving usual probation services. Intervention youths received an average of 12 FFT family-based sessions in their homes over a 3- to 6-month period. FFT was provided by a community-based therapist. Control youth received traditional probation services in their local county with no additional treatment services. Each group included more than 400 adolescents. All participants were followed for 18 months when 1-year posttreatment assessments were collected.

Participants’ ages were evenly distributed from 13 to 17 years. Seventy-nine percent were male, and 21 percent were female. Seventy-eight percent of participants were white, 10 percent African American, 5 percent Asian, 3 percent Native American, and 4 percent were not identified. Most of the participants had committed felony crimes (56.2 percent), and many had committed misdemeanors (41.5 percent).

Measures included family-focused risk and protective factors sections of the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment completed by a probation officer. Other measures included a treatment adherence measure and a measure of the youth’s adjudicated felony criminal behavior in the 12-month period following randomization to treatment.

The primary outcome measure was the youth’s adjudicated posttreatment felony criminal behavior in the 12-month period following randomization to treatment.

A four-step statistical analysis was used. First, preliminary multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) and analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses were conducted to assess potential outside variables that might influence the hypothesis testing. Second, hierarchical linear modeling and logistic regression analyses were used to test the main hypothesis that the FFT condition was associated with a lower level of adjudicated felony recidivism compared with the control group. Third, a secondary hypothesis concerning effects of therapist model adherence (low versus high) was analyzed using logistic regression. Fourth, analyses examined possible interaction effects between pretreatment family and peer risk factors (low family risk, high family risk, and high peer risk) and therapist adherence as predictors of felony recidivism.

Study

Celinska and colleagues (2013) used a quasi-experimental design to compare youths receiving FFT with youths who received individual therapy or mentoring. Data on at-risk youth was collected between 2005 and 2007 in the state of New Jersey. The treatment group included youths referred by New Jersey Probation, Family Crisis Intervention Unit, Family Court, and Divisions of Youth and Family Services. Youths in the control group received services through the Youth Case Management program. They were identified to participate in the study by case managers. Eligibility criteria for participation in the study included the following: being between the ages of 11–17; living with a parent or guardian; and having a history of aggressive behavior, destruction of property, or chronic truancy. Youths with alcohol and other drug use or mental health issues were not eligible

The sample consisted of 72 youths, of which 36 received FFT and 36 were in the control group. Of the entire study sample, the majority of youths were male (69 percent) and slightly older than15 years. The treatment group receiving FFT was 36 percent African American, 26 percent Latino, 19 percent white, and 8 percent other race/ethnicity. The majority of the treatment group was male (69 percent) and the average age was 15.5 years. The comparison group had similar percentages for race/ethnicity (44 percent African American, 33 percent Latino, 14 percent white, and 8 percent other). The majority of the comparison group was also male (61 percent) and the average age was 15.1 years. There were no significant differences between the groups on demographic characteristics.

Data was collected using the Strengths and Needs Assessment (SNA), which provided a standardized way to collect information on youth functioning across life domains. Primary outcome measures included the following scales: 1) Life Domain Scale, which measured dimensions of family, school, and vocational functioning; 2) Child Strengths Scale, which included family life, personal achievements, and community involvement; 3) Acculturation Scale, which included items related to language and culture; 4) Caregiver Strengths Scale, which was based on caregivers’ involvement with their child and the level of stability provided in the home; 5) Caregiver Needs Scale, which referred to the mental and physical health needs of caregivers; 6) Child Behavior and Emotional Needs Scale, which assessed impulsivity, depression, anxiety, anger control, and substance abuse; and 7) Child Risk Behavior, which included suicide risk, self-harm, dangerous behavior toward others, sexual aggression, running away, and fire setting.

The goal of the study was to measure effects of FFT relative to services received in the comparison group. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to test for differences in the duration of treatment and the seven life domain areas the scales represent. The sample size was not large enough to employ other methods.

There is a three-phase process involved in the training and certification of new sites that wish to implement Functional Family Therapy (FFT). Services are provided by FFT Inc.

During phase 1 (Clinical Training), the goal is to evaluate the local context of the site, to create a lasting infrastructure of the FFT program. Local clinicians receive training and consultation so they can demonstrate strong adherence and competence in delivering the FFT model. Phase 1 is expected to last 1 year, but not longer than 18 months. During phase 2 (Supervision Training), clinicians continue to receive assistance, to create greater self-sufficiency in FFT and to develop competent onsite FFT supervision. This includes attending supervisor trainings and receiving onsite training as well. A Client Services System (CSS) database is also set up to ensure that sites are maintaining and adhering to the FFT model. This phase is expected to be a yearlong process. Finally, in phase 3 (Maintenance Phase), the goal is to ensure that local sites continue ongoing model fidelity. FFT Inc. may review the CSS database to ensure adherence, service delivery trends, and client outcomes. One-day onsite training for continuing education in FFT is also available. This phase is renewed on annually. For additional information, please review the information on the Functional Family Therapy website: https://www.fftllc.com/.

Training and certification is also available from Functional Family Therapy Partners (FFT Partners): https://functionalfamilytherapy.com/.

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

These sources were used in the development of the program profile:

Alexander, James F. 2007. Functional Family Therapy Clinical Training Manual, Second Edition. Seattle, Wash.: FFT LLC.

Alexander, James F., Christie Pugh, and Bruce V. Parsons. 1998. “Functional Family Therapy.” In Delbert S. Elliott (ed.). Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Book 3). Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Alexander, James F., Christie Pugh, Bruce V. Parsons, and Thomas L. Sexton. 2000. “Functional Family Therapy.” In Delbert S. Elliott (ed.). Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Book 3), Second Edition. Boulder, Colo.: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Aos, Steve, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. 1998. Watching the Bottom Line: Cost-Effective Interventions for Reducing Crime in Washington. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Barnoski, Robert. 2009. “Providing Evidence-Based Programs With Fidelity in Washington State Juvenile Courts: Cost Analysis.” Document No. 09–12–1201. Retrieved from Washington State Institute for Public Policy Web site:

Barton, Cole, James F. Alexander, Holly Barrett Waldron, Charles W. Turner, and Janet Warburton. 1985. “Generalizing Treatment Effects of Functional Family Therapy: Three Replications.” American Journal of Family Therapy 13(3):16–26.

Gordon, Donald A., Karen Graves, and Jack Arbuthnot. 1995. “The Effect of Functional Family Therapy for Delinquents on Adult Criminal Behavior.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 22(1):60–73.

Parsons, Bruce V., and James F. Alexander. 1973. “Short-Term Family Intervention: A Therapy Outcome Study.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2:195–201.

Poirier, Jeffrey M. 2007. “Juvenile Crime and the Economic and Social Benefits of Implementing Effective Delinquency Programs: A Case Study of the District of Columbia.” Policy Perspectives: The George Washington Journal of Public Policy and Public Administration 14:11–41.

Sexton, Thomas L., and James F. Alexander. 2002. Functional Family Therapy: Principles of Clinical Intervention, Assessment, and Implementation. Seattle, Wash.: FFT LLC.

Slesnick, Natasha, and Jillian L. Prestopnik. 2009. “Comparison of Family Therapy Outcome With Alcohol-Abusing, Runaway Adolescents.” Journal of Marital & Family Therapy 35(3):255–77. (This study was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall program rating.)

Waldron, H.B. and C.W. Turner. 2008. “Evidence-based Psychosocial Treatments for Adolescent Substance Abuse: A Review and Meta-analysis.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 37(1):238-261.

Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:

Targeted Truancy Interventions

These interventions are designed to increase attendance for elementary and secondary school students with chronic attendance problems. The practice is rated Effective for improving attendance.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Education - Attendance/truancy

Family-based Treatment for Adolescent Delinquency and Problem Behaviors

In general family-based treatment practices consist of a wide range of interventions that are designed to change dysfunctional family patterns that contribute to the onset and maintenance of adolescent delinquency and other problem behaviors. This practice is rated Effective for reducing recidivism, and Promising for reducing antisocial behavior and substance use, and improving psychological functioning and school performance.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

	Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Externalizing behavior
	Drugs & Substance Abuse - Multiple substances
	Mental Health & Behavioral Health - Psychological functioning
	Education - Academic achievement/school performance

Psychosocial Interventions for Antisocial Behavior of Juveniles

This practice involves the use of psychosocial interventions to reduce antisocial behavior in juveniles. Psychosocial interventions consist of both preventive and therapeutic interventions but share the common goal of improving psychosocial functioning. The practice is rated Effective for the reduction of antisocial behavior.

Evidence Ratings for Outcomes

Juvenile Problem & At-Risk Behaviors - Antisocial behaviors

Why might a practice's outcome ratings differ from the ratings of specific programs encompassed by that practice?