Functional Family Therapy
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a short term prevention program for at-risk youth and their families. FFT aims to address risk and protective factors that impact the adaptive development of 11 to 18 year old youth who have been referred for behavioral or emotional problems. The program is organized in multiple phases and focuses on developing a positive relationship between therapist/program and family, increasing motivation for change, identifying specific needs of the family, supporting individual skill-building of youth and family, and generalizing changes to a broader context. Typically, therapists will meet weekly with families face-to-face for 60 to 90 minutes and by phone for up to 30 minutes, over an average of three to six months. They work as a part of a FFT-supervised unit and receive ongoing support from their local unit and FFT training organization.
FFT 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 2019
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: The California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the program or service developer’s website, the program or service manuals, and the studies reviewed.
Date Program/Service Description Last Updated: Sep 2022
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
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
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 |
- |
| Celinska, 2013 | |||||
| Strengths and Needs Assessment: Child Behavioral/Emotional Needs |
0.50
*
19 |
- | 72 | - | 0 |
| Celinska, 2018 | |||||
| Strengths and Needs Assessment: Child Behavioral/Emotional Needs |
0.07
2 |
- | 155 | - | 0 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
- |
| 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 |
- |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| Darnell, 2015 | |||||
| Any Out-of-home Placement |
0.07
2 |
- | 7618 | - | 33 |
| Out-of-home Placement (Survival Analysis) |
Favorable
*
not calculated |
- | 7618 | - | 0 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
- |
| 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 |
| 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 |
- |
| 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, 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.
Studies Rated High
Study 10011Slesnick, 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
Study 10008Humayun, 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
Studies Rated Moderate
Study 10004Celinska, 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.
Study 10077Celinska, 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
Study 10002Barnoski, 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
Study 10069Darnell, 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
Studies Rated Low
Study 10009Peterson, 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 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 (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).