Research Foundations

Throughout its development, FFT has required step-by-step descriptions of the clinical change process and rigorous evaluation of outcomes. FFT also has insisted on integrating science (as it applies to evaluation and research), clinical and cultural sensitivity, sound clinical judgment and experience, and comprehensive theoretical principles. From 1973 to the present, published data have reflected the positive outcomes of FFT. Data show, for instance, that when compared with standard juvenile probation services, residential treatment, and alternative therapeutic approaches, FFT is highly successful. Both randomized trials and nonrandomized comparison group studies (Alexander et al., 2000) show that FFT significantly reduces recidivism for a wide range of juvenile offense patterns. In addition, studies have found that FFT dramatically reduces the cost of treatment. A recent Washington State study, for example, shows savings of up to $14,000 per family (Aos, Barnoski, and Lieb, 1998). FFT also significantly reduces potential new offending for siblings of treated adolescents (Klein, Alexander, and Parsons, 1977). Figures 1 (randomized clinical trials) and 2 (comparison studies) summarize the outcome findings of FFT studies conducted during the past 30 years. These studies show that when compared with no treatment, other family therapy interventions, and traditional juvenile court services (e.g., probation), FFT can reduce adolescent rearrests by 20–60 percent.

Source: Alexander and Parsons, 1973; Klein, Alexander, and Parsons, 1977; Hansson, 1998.

* The three 1985 comparison studies (1985a, b, and c) appear in Barton et al., 1985.      Source: Barton et al., 1985; Gordon et al., 1988; Gordon, Graves, and Arbuthnot, 1995.

Functional Family Therapy	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • December 2000