Functional Family Therapy

Target Population

FFT is intended for 11 to 18 year old youth who have been referred for behavioral or emotional problems by juvenile justice, mental health, school, or child welfare systems. Family discord is also a target factor for this program.

Dosage

Typically, therapists will meet weekly with families face-to-face for 60 to 90 minutes and by phone for up to 30 minutes. Most families complete the FFT program in an average of 8 to 14 sessions over the span of three to six months.

Location/Delivery Setting

Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings

Typically, FFT is conducted in clinic and home settings. It can also be delivered in schools, child welfare facilities, probation and parole offices, aftercare systems, and mental health facilities.

Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research

• Mental Health Center, Treatment Center, Therapist Office
• Community-based settings

Education, Certifications and Training

FFT therapists complete required training and typically have a Master’s degree. Training for FFT is offered by FFT LLC and FFT Partners.

FFT LLC’s training includes three phases: clinical, supervision, and maintenance. In the clinical training phase, local clinicians are trained on the FFT model through weekly consultations and activities (typically over the span of 12 to 18 months). In the supervision phase, a local site staff are trained to serve as FFT supervisors through a one-day onsite training, two two-day trainings, and monthly consultations. During the maintenance phase, FFT LLC staff continue to review the delivery trends and client outcomes and provide an annual one-day onsite training.

FFT Partners’ training is organized in four phases: 1) implementation and planning, 2) applying the FFT model, 3) development of on-site clinical supervision and quality assurance systems, and 4) on-going support (continuing education, technical assistance, and quality improvement). After teams have successfully completed the first 3 training phases, they are certified as FFT Practice Centers.

Program or Service Documentation

Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review

There are two manuals that can be used to implement this version of FFT:

Alexander, J. F., Waldron, H. B., Robbins, M. S., & Neeb, A. A. (2013). Functional Family Therapy for adolescent behavioral problems. American Psychological Association.

Sexton, T. L. (2010).  Functional Family Therapy in clinical practice: An evidence based treatment model for at risk adolescents. Routledge.

Available languages

Materials are available in languages other than English, including Dutch, Spanish, Swedish.

Other supporting materials

FFT LLC Phases of Implementation/Certification

FFT Partners Training

FFT LLC Clinical Model

FFT Partners Clinical Model

For More Information

Functional Family Therapy, Inc.

Website: https://www.fftllc.com/

Functional Family Therapy Partners

Website: https://www.functionalfamilytherapy.com/

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 Functional Family Therapy
Identified in Search	22
Eligible for Review	9
Rated High	2
Rated Moderate	4
Rated Low	3
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 well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.15 6	4 (26)	390	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 23 Unfavorable: 1
Child well-being: Substance use	0.49 18	1 (18)	52	Favorable: 10 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior	0.05 2	5 (20)	8636	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 16 Unfavorable: 2
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.11 4	2 (9)	163	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.30 11	1 (15)	52	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 13 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 well-being: Behavioral and emotional functioning	0.15 6	4 (26)	390	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 23 Unfavorable: 1	-
Study 10004 - FFT vs. Individual Therapy or Mentoring (Celinska, 2013)
Strengths and Needs Assessment: Child Behavioral/Emotional Needs	0.50 * 19	-	72	-	0
Study 10077 - FFT vs. Youth Case Management (Celinska, 2018)
Strengths and Needs Assessment: Child Behavioral/Emotional Needs	0.07 2	-	155	-	0
Study 10008 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) plus Management as Usual vs. Management As Usual (Humayun, 2017)
Conduct disorder symptoms	0.30 11	-	111	-	0
Conduct disorder symptoms	0.12 4	-	111	-	12
Oppositional defiant disorder symptoms	0.06 2	-	111	-	0
Oppositional defiant disorder symptoms	0.23 8	-	111	-	12
Conduct disorder diagnosis	-0.66 -24	-	111	-	0
Conduct disorder diagnosis	-0.65 -24	-	111	-	12
Oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis	0.00 0	-	111	-	0
Oppositional defiant disorder diagnosis	-0.43 -16	-	111	-	12
Observed positive child behavior	-0.35 -13	-	111	-	0
Observed positive child behavior	-0.58 * -21	-	111	-	12
Observed negative child behavior	0.12 4	-	111	-	0
Observed negative child behavior	0.42 16	-	111	-	12
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual (Slesnick, 2009)
Youth Self-Report: Internalizing Problems	-0.30 -11	-	52	-	1
Youth Self-Report: Internalizing Problems	0.06 2	-	52	-	7
Youth Self-Report: Internalizing Problems	0.05 1	-	52	-	13
Youth Self-Report: Externalizing Problems	-0.17 -6	-	52	-	1
Youth Self-Report: Externalizing Problems	0.32 12	-	52	-	7
Youth Self-Report: Externalizing Problems	0.56 21	-	52	-	13
Beck Depression Inventory: Depression	0.25 9	-	52	-	1
Beck Depression Inventory: Depression	0.76 * 27	-	52	-	7
Beck Depression Inventory: Depression	0.33 12	-	52	-	13
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Psychiatric Diagnoses	0.43 16	-	52	-	1
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Psychiatric Diagnoses	0.33 12	-	52	-	7
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Psychiatric Diagnoses	0.00 0	-	52	-	13
Child well-being: Substance use	0.49 18	1 (18)	52	Favorable: 10 No Effect: 8 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual (Slesnick, 2009)
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol or drug use	0.60 * 22	-	52	-	1
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol or drug use	0.60 * 22	-	52	-	7
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol or drug use	0.80 * 28	-	52	-	13
Form 90: Percent days of only drug use	0.42 16	-	52	-	1
Form 90: Percent days of only drug use	0.49 18	-	52	-	7
Form 90: Percent days of only drug use	0.79 * 28	-	52	-	13
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol use	0.66 * 24	-	52	-	1
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol use	0.65 * 24	-	52	-	7
Form 90: Percent days of alcohol use	0.70 * 25	-	52	-	13
Form 90: Average Number of Standard Drinks	0.98 * 33	-	52	-	1
Form 90: Average Number of Standard Drinks	0.49 18	-	52	-	7
Form 90: Average Number of Standard Drinks	0.84 * 30	-	52	-	13
Adolescent Drinking Index	0.39 15	-	52	-	1
Adolescent Drinking Index	0.16 6	-	52	-	7
Adolescent Drinking Index	0.25 9	-	52	-	13
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Substance Use Diagnoses	0.57 * 21	-	52	-	1
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Substance Use Diagnoses	-0.34 -13	-	52	-	7
Computerized Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children: Number of Substance Use Diagnoses	-0.32 -12	-	52	-	13
Child well-being: Delinquent behavior	0.05 2	5 (20)	8636	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 16 Unfavorable: 2	-
Study 10002 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) vs. Treatment As Usual Probation Services (Barnoski, 2004)
Any Misdemeanor or Felony Conviction	0.00 0	-	700	-	15
Any Felony Conviction	0.09 3	-	700	-	15
Any Violent Felony Conviction	-0.06 -2	-	700	-	15
Any Felony Conviction	-0.08 -3	-	700	-	3
Any Felony Conviction	0.02 0	-	700	-	9
Study 10077 - FFT vs. Youth Case Management (Celinska, 2018)
Reconvictions for Property Offenses	1.60 * 44	-	155	-	12
Re-institutionalizations	0.49 18	-	155	-	12
Total Reconvictions	0.42 16	-	155	-	12
Study 10069 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) vs. Probation Services As Usual (Darnell, 2015)
Any Out-of-home Placement	0.07 2	-	7618	-	33
Out-of-home Placement (Survival Analysis)	Favorable * not calculated	-	7618	-	0
Study 10008 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) plus Management as Usual vs. Management As Usual (Humayun, 2017)
Self-Reported Delinquency	0.10 3	-	111	-	0
Self-Reported Delinquency	0.10 3	-	111	-	12
Offended in previous 6 months	-0.31 -12	-	111	-	0
Offended in previous 6 months	0.08 3	-	111	-	12
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual (Slesnick, 2009)
National Youth Survey Delinquency Scale: Delinquent Behaviors	-0.01 0	-	52	-	1
National Youth Survey Delinquency Scale: Delinquent Behaviors	-0.87 * -30	-	52	-	7
National Youth Survey Delinquency Scale: Delinquent Behaviors	-0.48 -18	-	52	-	13
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Number of Problem Consequences	-0.58 * -21	-	52	-	1
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Number of Problem Consequences	-0.22 -8	-	52	-	7
Problem Oriented Screening Instrument for Teenagers: Number of Problem Consequences	0.06 2	-	52	-	13
Adult well-being: Positive parenting practices	0.11 4	2 (9)	163	Favorable: 0 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10008 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) plus Management as Usual vs. Management As Usual (Humayun, 2017)
Poor parental supervision	0.05 2	-	111	-	0
Poor parental supervision	0.20 8	-	111	-	12
Observed positive parent behavior	-0.35 -13	-	111	-	0
Observed positive parent behavior	-0.18 -7	-	111	-	12
Observed negative parent behavior	0.19 7	-	111	-	0
Observed negative parent behavior	0.17 6	-	111	-	12
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual (Slesnick, 2009)
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Care	0.32 12	-	52	-	1
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Care	0.34 13	-	52	-	7
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Care	0.27 10	-	52	-	13
Adult well-being: Family functioning	0.30 11	1 (15)	52	Favorable: 2 No Effect: 13 Unfavorable: 0	-
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual (Slesnick, 2009)
Family Environment Scale: Family Conflict	0.39 15	-	52	-	1
Family Environment Scale: Family Conflict	0.57 * 21	-	52	-	7
Family Environment Scale: Family Conflict	0.48 18	-	52	-	13
Family Environment Scale: Family Cohesion	-0.15 -6	-	52	-	1
Family Environment Scale: Family Cohesion	0.10 4	-	52	-	7
Family Environment Scale: Family Cohesion	0.14 5	-	52	-	13
Conflict Tactics Scale: Verbal Aggression	0.54 20	-	52	-	1
Conflict Tactics Scale: Verbal Aggression	0.44 16	-	52	-	7
Conflict Tactics Scale: Verbal Aggression	0.75 * 27	-	52	-	13
Conflict Tactics Scale: Family Violence	0.14 5	-	52	-	1
Conflict Tactics Scale: Family Violence	0.33 12	-	52	-	7
Conflict Tactics Scale: Family Violence	0.27 10	-	52	-	13
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Overprotectiveness	0.38 14	-	52	-	1
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Overprotectiveness	-0.04 -1	-	52	-	7
Parental Bonding Instrument: Parental Overprotectiveness	0.18 7	-	52	-	13

*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, Version 1.0, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. The Prevention Services Clearinghouse uses information reported in study documents and, when necessary, information provided by authors in response to author queries to assign study ratings and calculate effect sizes and statistical significance (see Section 7.3.2 in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0). As a result, the effect sizes and statistical significance reported in the table may not align with the estimates as they are reported in study documents. 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@abtglobal.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 10004 - FFT vs. Individual Therapy or Mentoring
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Middlesex County, NJ, USA	2005	Average age: 15 years	40% African American 35% Latino 17% White 8% Other	65% Male 35% Female	81% Youth in the treatment group were mandated to participate in FFT; 42% Referred by probation, 25% Referred by family crisis intervention unit, 14% Referred by family court, 8% Referred by Divisions of Youth and Family Services	--
Study 10077 - FFT vs. Youth Case Management
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Middlesex County, NJ, USA	2006	Average age: 16 years	57% White 28% Hispanic 28% Black 11% Other 4% Asian	56% Male 44% Female	48% Youth under mental health treatment; 26% Youth exposed to trauma resulting from sexual, physical, or emotional abuse, medical crisis, natural disaster, or witnessing of family violence, community violence, or criminal activities; Average total prior convictions: 2.10; Average drug offences: 0.27; Average violent offences: 0.34; Average property offences: 0.12; Average technical violations: 0.29; Average institutionalizations: 0.28	--
Study 10011 - FFT vs. Service as Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Albuquerque, NM, USA	--	Average age: 15 years	39% Hispanic 35% Anglo 13% Other 9% Native American 4% African American	48% Male	100% of study participants were engaged into the project through one of two runaway shelters; 89% Youth met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence; Diagnoses were as follows: 56% Alcohol dependence, 34% Alcohol abuse, 29% Marijuana abuse, 37% Marijuana dependence, 5% Other substance abuse, 17% Other substance dependence; 42% Self-reported sexual abuse; 40% Self-reported Physical Abuse	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
Albuquerque, NM, USA	--	--	--	--	--	$25,609 Family income
Study 10008 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) plus Management as Usual vs. Management As Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
United Kingdom	2008	Average age: 15 years; Age range: 10-18 years	90% White British 9% Non-White British	70% Male	54% Youth had offended in previous 6 months; 53% Oppositional Defiant Disorder diagnosis; 44% Conduct Disorder diagnosis	--
Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers
United Kingdom	2008	--	--	--	85% Youth's biological mother; 55% Parent single	57% Employed carers
Study 10002 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) vs. Treatment As Usual Probation Services
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
Washington, USA	1999	Age range: 13-17 years; 11% Age 13, 17% Age 14, 23% Age 15, 24% Age 16, 25% Age 17	78% White 10% African American 5% Asian 4% Not Identified 3% Native American	79% Male 21% Female	100% Adolescents entered this study because they had been adjudicated for a crime and sentenced to probation; 85% Adolescents were drug involved; 80% Reported alcohol use/abuse; 27% Reported other mental health & behavioral problems; 14% Adolescents had a history of running away from home	--
Study 10069 - Functional Family Therapy (FFT) vs. Probation Services As Usual
Characteristics of the Children and Youth
United States of America	2007	--	65% Latino 24% African American 7% White 3% Other race/ethnicity	78% Male	100% Youth recently released from a court ordered out of home placement	--

“--” 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.

Sometimes study results are reported in more than one document, or a single document reports results from multiple studies. Studies are identified below by their Prevention Services Clearinghouse study identification numbers. To receive a rating of supported or well-supported, the favorable evidence for a program or service must have been obtained from research conducted in a usual care or practice setting.

Studies Rated High

Study 10011

Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J. L. (2004). Office versus home-based family therapy for runaway, alcohol abusing adolescents: Examination of factors associated with treatment attendance. Alcohol Treatment Quarterly, 22(2), 3-19. doi:10.1300/J020v22n02_02

Slesnick, N., & Prestopnik, J. L. (2009). Comparison of family therapy outcome with alcohol-abusing, runaway adolescents. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(3), 255-277. doi:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00121.x

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10008

Humayun, S., Herlitz, L., Chesnokov, M., Doolan, M., Landau, S., & Scott, S. (2017). Randomized controlled trial of Functional Family Therapy for offending and antisocial behavior in UK youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(9), 1023-1032. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12743

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Moderate

Study 10004

Celinska, K., Furrer, S., & Cheng, C.-C. (2013). An outcome-based evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for youth with behavioral problems. OJJDP Journal of Juvenile Justice, 2(2), 23-36.

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10077

Celinska, K., Sung, H. E., Kim, C., & Valdimarsdottir, M. (2018). An outcome evaluation of Functional Family Therapy for court‐involved youth. Journal of Family Therapy. (Online Advance) doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.12224

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10002

Barnoski, R. (2004). Outcome Evaluation of Washington State's Research-Based Programs for Juvenile Offenders. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Barnoski, R. (2002). Washington State's Implementation of Functional Family Therapy for Juvenile Offenders: Preliminary Findings. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Sexton, T., & Turner, C. W. (2010). The effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for youth with behavioral problems in a community practice setting. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 339-348. doi:10.1037/a0019406

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)
Study 10069

Darnell, A. J., & Schuler, M. S. (2015). Quasi-experimental study of functional family therapy effectiveness for juvenile justice aftercare in a racially and ethnically diverse community sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 50, 75-82. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.01.013

This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 6.2.2)

Studies Rated Low

Study 10009

Peterson, A. (2017). Functional Family Therapy in a Probation Setting: Outcomes for Youths Starting Treatment January 2010 - September 2012. Olympia, WA: Center for Court Research, Administrative Office of Courts.

This study received a low rating because none of the target outcomes met measurement standards.
Study 10070

Datchi, C. C., & Sexton, T. L. (2013). Can family therapy have an effect on adult criminal conduct? Initial evaluation of Functional Family Therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 2(4), 278-293. doi:10.1037/a0034166

This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.
Study 10003

Waldron, H. B., Slesnick, N., Brody, J. L., Peterson, T. R., & Turner, C. W. (2001). Treatment outcomes for adolescent substance abuse at 4- and 7-month assessments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(5), 802-813.

French, M. T., Zavala, S. K., McCollister, K. E., Waldron, H. B., Turner, C. W., & Ozechowski, T. J. (2008). Cost-effectiveness analysis of four interventions for adolescents with a substance use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 34(3), 272-281. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2007.04.008

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 10005

Flicker, S. M., Turner, C. W., Waldron, H. B., Brody, J. L., & Ozechowski, T. J. (2008). Ethnic background, therapeutic alliance, and treatment retention in Functional Family Therapy with adolescents who abuse substances. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 167-170. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.167

Flicker, S. M., Waldron, H. B., Turner, C. W., Brody, J. L., & Hops, H. (2008). Ethnic matching and treatment outcome with Hispanic and Anglo substance-abusing adolescents in family therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 439-447. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.439

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10007

Gordon, D. A., Arbuthnot, J., Gustafson, K. E., & McGreen, P. (1988). Home-based behavioral-systems family therapy with disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. American Journal of Family Therapy, 16(3), 243-255.

Gordon, D. A., Graves, K., & Arbuthnot, J. (1995). The effect of Functional Family Therapy for delinquents on adult criminal behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22(1), 60-73.

This study is ineligible for review because the publication date is prior to 1990 (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.1).

Study 10071

Gottfredson, D. C., Kearley, B., Thornberry, T. P., Slothower, M., Devlin, D., & Fader, J. J. (2018). Scaling-up evidence-based programs using a public funding stream: A randomized trial of Functional Family Therapy for court-involved youth. Prevention Science, 19(7), 939-953. doi:10.1007/s11121-018-0936-z

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10072

Hartnett, D., Carr, A., & Sexton, T. (2016). The effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy in reducing adolescent mental health risk and family adjustment difficulties in an Irish context. Family Process, 55(2), 287-304. doi:10.1111/famp.12195

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10075

Eeren, H. V., Goossens, L. M. A., Scholte, R. H. J., Busschbach, J. J. V., & Van der Rijken, R. E. A. (2018). Multisystemic Therapy and Functional Family Therapy compared on their effectiveness using the propensity score method. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 46(5), 1037-1050. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12064

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10076

Rohde, P., Turner, C. W., Waldron, H. B., Brody, J. L., & Jorgensen, J. (2018). Depression change profiles in adolescents treated for comorbid depression/substance abuse and profile membership predictors. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 47(4), 595-607. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2015.111869

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10078

Turner, C. W., Robbins, M. S., Rowlands, S., & Weaver, L. R. (2017). Summary of comparison between FFT-CW and usual care sample from Administration for Children's Services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 69, 85-95. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.04.005

This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.6).

Study 10079

Rohde, P., Waldron, H. B., Turner, C. W., Brody, J., & Jorgensen, J. (2014). Sequenced versus coordinated treatment for adolescents with comorbid depressive and substance use disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82(2), 342-348. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035808

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10080

van der Put, C. E., Asscher, J. J., Stams, G. J. J. M., van der Laan, P. H., Breuk, R., Jongman, E., & Doreleijers, T. (2013). Recidivism after treatment in a forensic youth-psychiatric setting: The effect of treatment characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(9), 1120-1139.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10081

White, S. F., Frick, P. J., Lawing, K., & Bauer, D. (2013). Callous–unemotional traits and response to Functional Family Therapy in adolescent offenders. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 31(2), 271-285. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2041

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10083

Zazzali, J. L., Sherbourne, C., Hoagwood, K. E., Greene, D., Bigley, M. F., & Sexton, T. L. (2008). The adoption and implementation of an evidence based practice in child and family mental health services organizations: A pilot study of Functional Family Therapy in New York State. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 1-2, 38-49.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10084

Gustle, L., Hansson, K., Sundell, K., Lundh, L., & Löfholm, C. A. (2007). Blueprints in Sweden. Symptom load in Swedish adolescents in studies of Functional Family Therapy (FFT), Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC). Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 61(6), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480701773196

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).

Study 10085

Greenwood, P. W. (2004). Cost-effective violence prevention through targeted family interventions. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences, 1036, 201-214.

This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Handbook Version 1.0, Section 4.1.4).