Randomized controlled trial of Functional Family Therapy for offending and antisocial behavior in UK youth

Abstract

Background: Youth offending and antisocial behavior (ASB) are associated with low

The Effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy for Adolescent Behavioral and Substance Misuse Problems: A Meta‐Analysis

“…TAU consisted of services as usual at a shelter for runaway youth, supervised parole. In Humayun et al () TAU was particularly intensive. The comparison group received TAU from the services from which they were referred as well as direct contact with a caseworker, and participation in reparation and victim awareness programs.…”

The Implementation of Functional Family Therapy (FFT) as an Intervention for Youth Probationers in Singapore

“…Two studies in Ireland (Graham, Carr, Rooney, Sexton, & Wilson Satterfield, ; Hartnett, Carr, & Sexton, ) reported success in implementation, as well as significant, sustained reductions in youth behavioral problems. However, a recent RCT conducted in the United Kingdom did not find any differences in reoffending rates or self‐reported delinquency between youth who received FFT, relative to those in a comparison group (Humayun et al., ). More research may therefore be needed to conclusively establish the effectiveness of FFT outside the United States.…”

Effective Use of the Large Body of Research on the Effectiveness of Programs for Juvenile Offenders and the Failure of the Model Programs Approach

“…Nevertheless, there is little reason to suppose those programs are any more likely to retain their effectiveness in routine practice than programs in those other areas (Rhoades, Bumbarger, and Moore, 2012;Walker, Bumbarger, and Phillippi, 2015). FFT, one of the most widely used and well-documented programs for juvenile offenders, has failed to perform as expected in some studies of its effects when implemented in practice (Barnoski, 2002;Humayun et al, 2017;Sexton and Turner, 2010). And, a recent meta-analysis of MST (van der Stouwe, Asscher, Stams, Deković, and van der Laan, 2014), another widely used and well-documented program, found a modest mean effect size for the 11 studies that reported delinquency outcomes with juvenile offenders (0.16) and, overall, a dramatically smaller mean effect size for the 12 studies conducted by independent researchers than for the 8 studies conducted by researchers associated with the program developers (0.08 vs. 0.42).…”