Families First (Utah Youth Village Model)
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) is designed to help families with youth birth to age 17 build on family strengths and improve family functioning. Families First specialists help strengthen parents’ confidence in their parenting and communication skills using positive reinforcement, modeling, and role-playing. Specialists teach parents how to maintain discipline without anger or violence and how to promote positive social skills, effective communication, and healthy boundaries. Specialists link families to community resources.
The program has six phases. During Phase 1, the specialist meets with the family to build rapport, identify family strengths and goals, and create a treatment plan targeting specific skills that will help the family attain their goals. During Phases 2–5, the specialist teaches the targeted skills, provides opportunities to practice and refine those skills, and helps families generalize these skills to new situations. During Phase 6, the specialist helps the family transition to using these skills independently and formalize future plans.
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) is rated as a well-supported practice because at least two studies with non-overlapping samples carried out in usual care or practice settings achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated favorable effects in a target outcome domain. At least one of the studies demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 12 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Jun 2022
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information were informed by the following sources: the program or service manual, the program or service developer’s website, and the studies reviewed.
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the Review Process page or download the Handbook.
Target Population
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) is designed to serve families with youth birth to age 17 who have been referred for intensive in-home services from child welfare services, juvenile justice, or court systems. It also serves families that self-refer.
Dosage
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) is delivered by Families First specialists who spend approximately 48–52 face-to-face service hours with families. These service hours are typically delivered over the course of 8–12 weeks for 6–10 hours per week. Specialists spend more time per week with families in Phases 1–4 and less time per week in Phases 5 and 6. In addition to formal sessions, specialists are also expected to be available to meet with or promptly return calls from families as needed both within and outside of normal business hours. Families can choose to have follow-up visits with specialists for up to 1 year afterward.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) is delivered in participants’ homes.
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Home
Education, Certifications and Training
Families First specialists are required to have a bachelor’s degree in social work, psychology, or a related field. Specialists without a bachelor’s degree may work with certain families on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the implementing organization.
Specialists must complete at least 130 hours of training. This includes at least 50 in-class hours, at least 80 hours of job shadowing, and additional required reading. Ongoing monthly training and professional development are also required.
Program coordinators supervise teams of specialists. Coordinators must complete additional required trainings and observations and have received acceptable evaluation scores from the families they have served.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Utah Youth Village. (2021). Families First program manual.
Available languages
Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) materials are available in English.
Other supporting materials
Families First (Utah Youth Village) Brochure
For More Information
Website: https://youthvillage.org/our-programs/families-first/
Phone: (801) 272-9980
Contact form: https://youthvillage.org/contact/
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Families First (Utah Youth Village Model) |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 8 |
| Eligible for Review | 5 |
| Rated High | 0 |
| Rated Moderate | 3 |
| Rated Low | 2 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
0.32
12 |
1 (1) | 830 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
0.07
2 |
2 (9) | 3521 |
Favorable:
6 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
0.32
12 |
1 (1) | 830 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 13176 - Families First vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (West, 2021) | |||||
| Subsequent Referral or Allegation of Maltreatment Within One Year |
0.32
*
12 |
- | 830 | - | 12 |
| Child well-being: Delinquent behavior |
0.07
2 |
2 (9) | 3521 |
Favorable:
6 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 13171 - Families First vs. Treatment as Usual Comparison Group (Hess, 2012) | |||||
| Recidivism |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 3218 | - | 12 |
| Study 13175 - Families First vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group (Tanana, 2020) | |||||
| Misdemeanor or Felony Offense Charge in Past 6 Months (%) |
0.48
*
18 |
- | 303 | - | 3 |
| Misdemeanor or Felony Offense Charge in Past 12 Months (%) |
0.48
*
18 |
- | 303 | - | 9 |
| Misdemeanor or Felony Offense Charge in Past 6 Months (%) |
0.48
*
18 |
- | 303 | - | 6 |
| Misdemeanor or Felony Offense Charge in Past 12 Months (%) |
0.49
*
18 |
- | 303 | - | 12 |
| Status or Technical Offense Charge in Past 6 Months (%) |
0.31
12 |
- | 303 | - | 3 |
| Status or Technical Offense Charge in Past 12 Months (%) |
0.31
12 |
- | 303 | - | 9 |
| Status or Technical Offense Charge in Past 6 Months (%) |
0.37
14 |
- | 303 | - | 6 |
| Status or Technical Offense Charge in Past 12 Months (%) |
0.38
*
14 |
- | 303 | - | 12 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtassoc.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 13176 - Families First vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Salt Lake City, UT, USA | 2020 | Mean age: 8 years |
89% White 11% Hispanic 7% Black 4% Other |
52% Male 48% Female |
100% Children who had an in-home case with Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS) | -- |
| Study 13175 - Families First vs. Treatment As Usual Comparison Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Salt Lake City, UT, USA | 2007 | Average age: 16 years | 54% Minority | 82% Male | 100% Juvenile court-involved; Average prior status offenses: 1 Offense; Average prior misdemeanor offenses: 5 Offenses; Average prior felony offenses: 1 Offense | -- |
| Study 13171 - Families First vs. Treatment as Usual Comparison Group | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Salt Lake City, UT, USA | 2010 | Age range, 15-17 years: 83%; 12-14 years: 16%; 18 years: 1% |
48% Caucasian 36% Latino 4% Pacific Islander 4% African American 2% Asian 2% American Indian |
79% Male 21% Female |
100% Juvenile court youth | -- |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated Moderate
Study 13175Tanana, M. J., & Kuo, P. (2020). Families First outcome evaluation: Recidivism outcomes for youth in the Families First program, Version 1.4. Wind River Research. https://dcfs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Families-First-Utah-Youth-Village-Study-Wind-River-Research-2020.pdf
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 13171
Hess, J. Z., Arner, W., Sykes, E., Price, A. G., & Tanana, M. (2012). Helping juvenile offenders on their own “turf”: Tracking the recidivism outcomes of a home-based paraprofessional intervention. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 2(1), 12-24. https://s35598.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/3Hess_Study.pdf
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 13176
West, K., Shuppy, L., & Broadbent, M. (2021). The Families First program impact on child maltreatment: Final evaluation report. Social Research Institute, College of Social Work, University of Utah. https://dcfs.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Families-First-UYV-Evaluation-Report-SRI-Revised-4.26.22.pdf
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 13173Lewis, R. E. (2005). The effectiveness of Families First services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 499-509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.10.009
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Study 13172
Moskos, M. A., Halbern, S. R., Alder, S., Kim, H., & Gray, D. (2007). Utah youth suicide study: Evidence-based suicide prevention for juvenile offenders. University of Utah School of Medicine.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 13174
Tanana, M. J. (2020). Families First survey analysis: Internal survey analysis, Version 1.0. Wind River Research. https://s35598.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Families-First-Survey-Results-2020-1.pdf
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 13177
Barton, K., Baglio, C. S., & Braverman, M. T. (1994). Stress reduction in child-abusing families: Global and specific measures. Psychological Reports, 75(1), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1994.75.1.287
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 13178
Farmer, E. M. Z., Seifert, H., Wagner, H. R., Burns, B. J., & Murray, M. (2016). Does model matter? Examining change across time for youth in group homes. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25(2), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1063426616630520
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).