Describe how effective Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is as an intervention for juveniles. What effect has FFT had on juvenile recidivism rates? Must practitioners adhere to the treatment model in order for it to be effective? (Juvenile Corrections)

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers may vary.The effectiveness of FFT depends on adherence to the model, however. Researchers compared the effectiveness of FFT to that of probation services in a community juvenile justice setting 12 months after treatment. FFT was effective in reducing youth behavioral problems-but only when the therapists adhered to the treatment model. High-adherent therapists delivering FFT had a statistically significant reduction of felony reoffending (35%) and violent reoffending (30%) when compared to the control condition. The low-adherent therapists, however, had significantly higher recidivism rates than either the FFT high-adherent or the control groups.There is some evidence that FFT is effective in reducing the risk of substance abuse (which itself is a risk factor for criminal offending). Runaway adolescents with alcohol problems receiving FFT showed decreased alcohol use when compared with others provided treatment as usual. Other adolescents with substance abuse problems receiving either FFT or a combination of FFT and cognitive behavior therapy showed favorable outcomes for reduced marijuana use three months after treatment. While neither of these studies included criminal offending as an outcome, the evidence that they improved problems with substance abuse is encouraging with respect to their potential to reduce reoffense risk by addressing drug and alcohol problems.These and other studies indicate that FFT is associated with a significant reduction in recidivism when compared with "treatment as usual" and no treatment. The same Washington State Institute for Public Policy report noted earlier, which described the cost and savings associated with MST and OTFC, indicated that FFT had an average cost of $2,161 per participant, saved an average of $14,149 in costs for intervention compared with standard treatment in the juvenile justice system, and saved another $45,000 in victim costs per participant.