U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

While a number of States and

communities are turning to punitive

approaches to addressing juvenile

crime, research indicates that such

approaches, despite their high cost,

are largely ineffective. Juvenile offenders removed from their families and

communities eventually return, and

unless their underlying behavioral

problems have been treated effectively,

these problems are likely to contribute

to further delinquency.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT)

draws on a multisystemic perspective

in its family-based prevention and

intervention efforts. The program applies a comprehensive model, proven

theory, empirically tested principles,

and a wealth of experience to the

treatment of at-risk and delinquent

youth.

This Bulletin chronicles FFT’s evolution over more than three decades;

sets forth the program’s core principles, goals, and techniques; and

reviews its research foundations.

Community implementation of FFT

is described, and an example of

effective replication is provided.

Thirty years of clinical research

indicate that FFT can prevent the

onset of delinquency and reduce

recidivism at a financial and human

cost well below that exacted by the

punitive approaches noted earlier.

I believe this Bulletin will help you

to consider the program’s merits

for your community.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

December 2000

ineffective and costly. By removing adolescents from their families and communities,

punitive programs inadvertently make adolescents’ problems more difficult to solve

in the long run. Regardless of how adolescents’ problems manifest themselves, they

are complex behavioral problems embedded in adolescents’ psychosocial systems

(primarily family and community). Thus,

family-based interventions that adopt a

multisystemic perspective are well suited

to treating the broad range of problems

found in juveniles who engage in delinquent and criminal behavior.

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is a

family-based prevention and intervention

program that has been applied successfully

in a variety of contexts to treat a range of

these high-risk youth and their families. As

such, FFT is a good example of the current

generation of family-based treatments for

adolescent behavior problems (Mendel,

2000; Sexton and Alexander, 1999). It combines and integrates the following elements

into a clear and comprehensive clinical

model: established clinical theory, empirically supported principles, and extensive

clinical experience. The FFT model allows

for successful intervention in complex and

multidimensional problems through clinical

practice that is flexibly structured and culturally sensitive—and also accountable to

youth, their families, and the community.

Functional

Family Therapy

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is dedicated to

preventing and reversing trends of increased

delinquency and violence among adolescents. These trends have alarmed the public

during the past decade and challenged the

juvenile justice system. It is widely accepted

that increases in delinquency and violence

over the past decade are rooted in a number of interrelated social problems—child

abuse and neglect, alcohol and drug abuse,

youth conflict and aggression, and early

sexual involvement—that may originate

within the family structure. The focus of

OJJDP’s Family Strengthening Series is to

provide assistance to ongoing efforts across

the country to strengthen the family unit by

discussing the effectiveness of family intervention programs and providing resources

to families and communities.

Problems arising from juvenile crime are a

serious concern for many local communities. Expressions of adolescent behavior

problems range from minor offenses (e.g.,

curfew violations and trespassing) to serious crimes (e.g., drug abuse, theft, and

violence) and result in staggering personal,

economic, and social costs. Until recently,

most communities were left on their own

to determine how to address juvenile

crime, and many communities turned to

exclusively punitive approaches such as

incarceration. Mounting evidence, however, indicates that such approaches are

Family Strengthening Series

Thomas L. Sexton and James F. Alexander
2

Although commonly used as an intervention program, FFT is also an effective prevention program for at-risk adolescents

and their families. Whether implemented

as an intervention or a prevention program, FFT may include diversion, probation, alternatives to incarceration, and/or

reentry programs for youth returning to

the community following release from a

high-security, severely restrictive institutional setting.

Based on the results of extensive independent reviews, FFT has been designated

variously as a “blueprint program” (Alexander et al., 2000), an “exemplary model”

program (Alexander, Robbins, and Sexton,

1999), and a “family based empirically

supported treatment” (Alexander, Sexton,

and Robbins, 2000). These designations

reflect FFT’s 30 years of clinical and

research experience and its use at a wide

range of intervention sites in the United

States and other countries.

FFT targets youth between the ages of 11

and 18 from a variety of ethnic and cultural groups. It also provides treatment

to the younger siblings of referred adolescents. FFT is a short-term intervention—

including, on average, 8 to 12 sessions for

mild cases and up to 30 hours of direct

service (e.g., clinical sessions, telephone

calls, and meetings involving community

resources) for more difficult cases. In

most cases, sessions are spread over a

3-month period. Regardless of the target

population, FFT emphasizes the importance of respecting all family members on

their own terms (i.e., as they experience

the intervention process).

Data from numerous studies of FFT outcomes suggest that when applied as intended, FFT reduces recidivism and/or

the onset of offending between 25 and

60 percent more effectively than other

programs (Alexander et al., 2000). Other

studies indicate that FFT reduces treatment costs to levels well below those of

traditional services and other interventions (Alexander et al., 2000). As FFT has

evolved, it has adopted a set of guiding

principles, goals, and techniques that

can be used even when resources are

limited—for example, in managed care

and similar contexts that restrict

open-ended and non-outcome-based

resource funding.

The Evolution of

Functional Family

Therapy

More than 30 years ago, it became apparent to FFT progenitors that although the

rate and severity of juvenile delinquency,

violence, and drug abuse were growing at

a frightening pace, intervention programs

remained seriously underdeveloped

(Alexander and Parsons, 1973). In 1969,

researchers at the University of Utah’s

Psychology Department Family Clinic developed FFT to serve diverse populations

of underserved and at-risk adolescents

and their families. These populations

lacked resources, were difficult to treat,

and often were perceived by helping professionals as not motivated to change.

Although these underserved populations

were diverse in terms of family organization, relational dynamics, presenting

problems, and cultures, they often shared

a common factor: They had entered the

school counseling, mental health, or juvenile justice systems angry, hopeless, and/

or resistant to treatment.

The developers of FFT recognized that

successful treatment of these populations

required service providers who were sensitive to the needs of these diverse families and competent to work with them,

and who understood why the families had

traditionally resisted treatment. Over the

past 30 years, FFT providers have learned

that they must do more than simply stop

bad behaviors; they must motivate families to change by uncovering family members’ unique strengths, helping families

build on these strengths in ways that enhance self-respect, and offering families

specific ways to improve.

Since its development, FFT has been a

dynamic clinical system. It has retained

its core principles while adding clinical

features that improve successful outcomes in the diverse communities in

which it has been implemented. More

than two decades ago, FFT began focusing

on therapist characteristics and in-session

processes from an integrated perspective

that combines research and practice. This

perspective, in turn, has contributed to

the training of therapists for subsequent

interventions by identifying specific stepby-step interventions and their impact on

youth and other family members.

In the late 1990’s, FFT further articulated

its clinical change model by refining the

phases of intervention (Sexton and

Alexander, 1999; see table), developing

a systematic approach to training and

program implementation, and adding a

comprehensive system of client, process,

and outcome assessment. The system

is implemented through a computerbased client tracking and monitoring

system known as the Functional Family

Therapy–Clinical Services System (FFT–

CSS). This most recent iteration of FFT

helps clinicians identify and implement

goals for therapeutic change in a way that

promotes accountability through process

and outcome evaluation. As a result, FFT

has matured into a clinical intervention

model that includes systematic training,

supervision, process, and outcome assessment components—all directed at

improving the delivery of FFT in local

communities.

Core Principles, Goals,

and Techniques

Functional Family Therapy is so named to

identify the primary focus of intervention

(the family) and reflect an understanding

that positive and negative behaviors both

influence and are influenced by multiple

relational systems (i.e., are functional).

FFT is a multisystemic prevention program, meaning that it focuses on the multiple domains and systems within which

adolescents and their families live. FFT is

also multisystemic and multilevel as an

intervention in that it focuses on the

treatment system, family and individual

functioning, and the therapist as major

components. Within this context, FFT

works first to develop family members’

inner strengths and sense of being able to

improve their situations—even if modestly at first. These characteristics provide the family with a platform for change

and future functioning that extends beyond the direct support of the therapist

and other social systems. In the long run,

the FFT philosophy leads to greater selfsufficiency, fewer total treatment needs,

and considerably lower costs.

At the level of clinical practice, FFT includes a systematic and multiphase

intervention map—Phase Task Analysis—

that forms the basis for responsive clinical decisions. This map gives FFT a flexible structure by identifying treatment

strategies with a high probability of success and facilitating therapists’ clinical

options. FFT’s flexibility extends to all

family members and thereby results in

effective moment-by-moment decisions in
3

Functional Family Therapy Clinical Model: Intervention Phases Across Time

Engagement and Motivation Behavior Change Generalization

Early Middle Late

Source: Sexton and Alexander, 1999.

Develop alliances.

Reduce negativity, resistance.

Improve communication.

Minimize hopelessness.

Reduce dropout potential.

Develop family focus.

Increase motivation for

change.

Negativity and blaming (risk).

Hopelessness (risk).

Lack of motivation (risk).

Credibility (protective).

Alliance (protective).

Treatment availability

(protective).

Behavior (e.g., presenting

problem and risk and protective factors).

Relational problems sequence

(e.g., needs/functions).

Context (risk and protective

factors).

Interpersonal skills (validation,

positive interpretation,

reattribution, reframing, and

sequencing).

High availability to provide

services.

Phase goals Develop and implement

individualized change plans.

Change presenting

delinquency behavior.

Build relational skills (e.g.,

communication and

parenting).

Poor parenting skills (risk).

Negativity and blaming (risk).

Poor communication (risk).

Positive parenting skills

(protective).

Supportive communication

(protective).

Interpersonal needs (depends

on context).

Parental pathology (depends

on context).

Developmental level (depends

on context).

Quality of relational skills

(communication, parenting).

Compliance with behavior

change plan.

Relational problem sequence.

Structure (session focusing).

Change plan implementation.

Modeling/focusing/directing/

training.

Maintain/generalize change.

Prevent relapses.

Provide community resources

necessary to support change.

Poor relationships with school/

community (risk).

Low level of social support

(risk).

Positive relationships

with school/community

(protective).

Identification of community

resources needed.

Maintenance of change.

Family case manager.

Resource help.

Relapse prevention

interventions.

Risk and

protective

factors

addressed

Assessment

focus

Therapist/

Interventionist

skills

Assessment

Intervention
4

the intervention setting. Thus, FFT practice is both systematic and individualized.

The following sections describe the intervention phases and the model of FFT

clinical assessment. As the clinical map

presented in the table on page 3 reflects,

FFT is a multiphase, goal-directed, and

systematic program.

Intervention Phases

FFT’s three specific intervention phases—

engagement and motivation, behavior

change, and generalization—are interdependent and sequentially linked. Each

has distinct goals and assessment objectives, each addresses different risk and

protective factors, and each calls for particular skills from the interventionist or

therapist providing treatment. The interventions in each phase are organized coherently, which allows clinicians to maintain focus in contexts that often involve

considerable family and individual disruption. The three intervention phases are

described in the sections that follow.

Phase 1: Engagement and Motivation.

This phase places primary emphasis on

maximizing factors that enhance intervention credibility (i.e., the perception

that positive change might occur) and

minimizing factors likely to decrease that

perception (e.g., poor program image,

difficult location, insensitive referrals,

personal and/or cultural insensitivity,

and inadequate resources). In particular,

therapists apply reattribution (e.g., reframing, developing positive themes) and

related techniques to address maladaptive perceptions, beliefs, and emotions.

Use of such techniques establishes a

family-focused perception of the presenting problem that serves to increase families’ hope and expectation of change, decrease resistance, improve alliance and

trust between family and therapist, reduce oppressive negativity within families

and between families and the community,

and help build respect for individual differences and values.

Phase 2: Behavior Change. During this

phase, FFT clinicians develop and

implement intermediate and, ultimately,

long-term behavior change plans that are

culturally appropriate, context sensitive,

and tailored to the unique characteristics

of each family member. The assessment

focus in this phase includes cognitive (e.g.,

attributional processes and coping strategies), interactive (e.g., reciprocity of positive rather than negative behaviors,

competent parenting, and understanding

of behavior sequences involved in delinquency), and emotional components (e.g.,

blaming and negativity). Clinicians provide

concrete behavioral intervention to guide

and model specific behavior changes (e.g.,

parenting, communication, and conflict

management). Particular emphasis is

placed on using individualized and developmentally appropriate techniques that

fit the family relational system.

Phase 3: Generalization. This FFT phase

is guided by the need to apply (i.e., generalize) positive family change to other

problem areas and/or situations. FFT clinicians help families maintain change and

prevent relapses. To ensure long-term

support of changes, FFT links families

with available community resources. The

primary goal of the generalization phase

is to improve a family’s ability to affect

the multiple systems in which it is embedded (e.g., school, juvenile justice system,

community), thereby allowing the family

to mobilize community support systems

and modify deteriorated family-system

relationships. If necessary, FFT clinicians

intervene directly with the systems in

which a family is embedded until the family develops the ability to do so itself.

Assessment

Assessment is an ongoing, multifaceted

process that is part of each phase of the

FFT clinical model. In FFT, assessment

focuses on understanding the ways in

which behavioral problems function

within family relationship systems. The

focus of assessment depends on the

phase of treatment (see table, page 3).

In general, assessment in FFT is based on

the following principles:

◆ FFT assessment should focus on the

ways that family relational systems

are related to the presenting behavior

problems—in both adaptive and maladaptive ways.

◆ FFT should identify risk and protective

factors through clinical and formal assessment. In doing so, FFT helps identify family, individual, and contextual

issues that might become the targets

of treatment.

◆ Assessment should be multilevel,

multidimensional, and multimethod.

Individual factors include the

adolescent’s cognitive and developmental level and any psychological

conditions that he or she may have

(e.g., depression/anxiety, thought

disorders). Assessment should also

consider the adolescent’s family because the family is the psychosocial

context in which the adolescent lives.

Family factors considered in an FFT

assessment include what goes on during daily family life (e.g., parenting,

teaching, supporting, providing, and

relating). Behavioral and contextual

factors include external and social factors that influence the adolescent (e.g.,

the presence or absence of risk and

protective factors and the availability

of community resources).

◆ Assessment of family functioning—

rather than completion of a diagnostic

assessment—is the most helpful way

to identify appropriate treatment

options and approaches. The goal of

assessment is to plan the most

appropriate treatment.

◆ Clinical, outcome, and adherence assessment are critical to successful

implementation of the FFT model.

FFT has identified formal and clinical

tools for model, adherence, and outcome

assessment. These tools are incorporated

into the Functional Family Assessment

Protocol—a systematic approach to understanding families—and the Clinical

Services System (CSS)—an implementation tool that allows therapists to track

the activities (i.e., session process goals,

comprehensive client assessments, and

clinical outcomes) essential to successful

implementation.

CSS seeks to improve therapists’ competence and skill by keeping them focused

on the goals, skills, and interventions

needed for each phase of FFT. CSS’s

computer-based format gives therapists

easy access to a variety of process and

assessment information which, in turn,

allows them to make good clinical decisions and provides them with the complete outcome information needed to

evaluate case success.

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
5

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.

Community

Implementation of

Functional Family

Therapy

Successful FFT programs, whether home

based, clinic based, or school based, include programs grounded in diversion,

probation, alternatives to incarceration,

and reentry from high-security, severely

restrictive institutional settings.

FFT currently has 50 active certified service sites in 15 States. These sites serve

thousands of adolescents and their families each year. The ability to replicate FFT

with fidelity has been achieved through a

specific training model and a sophisticated client assessment, tracking, and

monitoring system (FFT–CCS) that provides for clinical assessment, outcome

accountability, and supervision. In addition, the FFT Practice Research Network

(FFT–PRN) allows clinical sites to develop

and disseminate information on the FFT

model. Clinicians who have successfully

implemented FFT include trained professionals with master’s degrees and, on

occasion, staff with bachelor’s degrees

from fields such as public health nursing,

social work, marriage and family therapy,

clinical psychology, licensed mental

health counseling, probation services,

criminology, psychiatry, and recreation

therapy.

Figure 2: Outcome Findings for Recidivism in Comparison Studies,

1985–1995

* 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.

Figure 1: Outcome Findings for Recidivism in Randomized Clinical

Trials, 1973–1998

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

1973

1977

1998

Recidivism Rates (%)

Clinical Trials

Juvenile court program

Alternative treatment No treatment

Functional Family Therapy

Recidivism Rates (%)

Juvenile court program

Alternative treatment Base rate 

Functional Family Therapy

0 20 40 60 80 100

1985c

1988

1995

Studies*

1985a

1985b
6

referred to the Family Project by probation officers. Because the Family Project

was the only counseling service used by

the juvenile court during that period, this

group represented the entire population

of adolescents referred for counseling services. Of the group, 80 percent completed

FFT treatment services, a high rate of

completion compared with the rate for

standard juvenile justice-based interventions. Thus, even though its services were

delivered in a university training center to

which clients had to travel for each session, the Family Project successfully engaged and retained a high percentage of a

diverse population of at-risk adolescents,

all of whom were on probation. This

success was a function of both the FFT

clinical model and the clinic’s extensive

outreach procedures.1

Figure 3 shows 1-year recidivism rates for

those who completed the Family Project’s

program and those who were part of a

treatment-as-usual comparison group (a

group that received probation services as

usual). The figure also provides the

districtwide 3-year recidivism rate and

the 3-year recidivism rate for those who

received other available court services.

Of those who completed the program,

only 19.8 percent committed an offense

during the year following completion,

compared with 36 percent of the

treatment-as-usual comparison group.

These data suggest that FFT reduced

recidivism by roughly 50 percent, a figure

consistent with previous FFT randomized

clinical trials and replication studies.

Another measure of outcome is a program’s cost effectiveness. Figure 4 shows

the costs of various services within the

Clark County DFYS system during the

2-year study period. On average, FFT

treatment costs during this time were between $700 and $1,000 per family. By contrast, the average cost of detention was at

least $6,000 per adolescent and the average cost of the county residential program

was at least $13,500 per adolescent. Considering that the county’s residential

program has a 3-year recidivism rate of

more than 90 percent (i.e., 90 percent of

those who complete the program commit a

subsequent offense within 3 years), FFT is

highly cost effective—resulting in a much

lower rate of recidivism (19.8 percent for 1

year) at a much lower cost.

Conclusion

FFT is one of the current generation of

family-based treatments for adolescent

behavior problems. As both a prevention

and an intervention program, FFT has

been implemented in various treatment

contexts and with culturally diverse client

populations. The success of FFT is due to

Communities have implemented FFT with

success because its training program is

multisystemic, meaning that it focuses on

the therapist, community, and clinical

delivery system. At any given site (e.g.,

agency, intervention team, contracting

intervention program), FFT’s four major

goals are to:

◆ Replicate the program as it has been

used in previous sites (to increase the

probability that the site will have the

same success), yet tailor the program

to the unique needs of the community.

◆ Develop a self-sufficient site (i.e., one

that will be able to provide FFT over

time in a way that remains true to the

therapy’s core principles).

◆ Develop competent therapists and supportive clinical and administrative

structures.

◆ Initiate and use the FFT clinical system to promote adherence to the FFT

model.

Implementation of FFT focuses, in particular, on developing therapist competence

rather than simply teaching skills. A competent therapist is able to:

◆ Implement a treatment model’s core

elements.

◆ Treat each family member with clinical

and cultural sensitivity.

◆ Enhance the treatment’s effectiveness

by making treatment decisions based

on core principles of the model.

The Family Project:

A Recent FFT

Replication

The Family Project is a unique partnership between a university (the University

of Nevada, Las Vegas) and a community

service provider (the Clark County Department of Family and Youth Services

(DFYS)). The Family Project is currently

the largest FFT research and practice site

in the Nation. Through this partnership,

located in one of the Nation’s fastest

growing and most multiculturally and ethnically diverse urban areas, FFT services

are provided to at-risk youth and their

families referred by juvenile probation. As

the data below reflect, the effectiveness

of this true community project results

from its use of marriage and family therapists in an established community clinic.

During a 2-year period, clinic-based therapists successfully contacted 231 families

1 Initial sessions were accompanied by many phone

contacts to enhance treatment participation.

Figure 3: Recidivism Rates—Functional Family Therapy Versus Other

Available Court Services

* 1-year recidivism totals.

**3-year recidivism totals.

Source: Sexton, in press.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Treatment-as-usual

comparison group

Recidivism Rates (%)

Districtwide

population**

Supervised

probation cases**

Residential

treatment cases**

FFT program

completers*
7

Figure 4: Cost Effectiveness—Functional Family Therapy Versus

Other Available Court Services

Alexander, J.F., Sexton, T.L., and Robbins,

M.S. 2000. The developmental status of

family therapy in family psychology intervention science. In Family Psychology Intervention Science, edited by H. Liddle,

D. Santisteban, R. Leavant, and J. Bray.

Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Aos, S., Barnoski, R., and Lieb, R. 1998.

Watching the Bottom Line: Cost-Effective

Interventions for Reducing Crime in Washington. Olympia, WA: Washington State

Institute for Public Policy.

Barton, C., Alexander, J.F., Waldron, H.,

Turner, C.W., and Warburton, J. 1985. Generalizing treatment effects of Functional

Family Therapy: Three replications.

American Journal of Family Therapy 13:

16–26.

Gordon, D.A., Arbuthnot, J., Gustafson,

K.E., and McGreen, P. 1988. Home-based

behavioral-systems family therapy with

disadvantaged juvenile delinquents. The

American Journal of Family Therapy

16(3):243–255.

Gordon, D.A., Graves, K., and Arbuthnot,

J. 1995. The effect of Functional Family

Therapy for delinquents on adult criminal

behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior

22:60–73.

Hansson, K. 1998. Functional family

therapy replication in Sweden: Treatment

outcome with juvenile delinquents. Paper

presented to the Eighth Conference on

Treating Addictive Behaviors, Santa Fe,

NM.

Klein, N.C., Alexander, J.F., and Parsons,

B.V. 1977. Impact of family systems intervention on recidivism and sibling delinquency: A model of primary prevention

and program evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45(3):469–474.

Mendel, R.A. 2000. Less Hype, More Help:

Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works—

and What Doesn’t. Washington, DC:

American Youth Policy Forum.

Sexton, T.L. In press. Functional Family

Therapy. Las Vegas, NV: The Family

Project.

Sexton, T.L., and Alexander, J.F. 1999.

Functional Family Therapy: Principles

of Clinical Intervention, Assessment,

and Implementation. Henderson, NV:

RCH Enterprises.

its integration of a clear, comprehensive,

and multisystemic clinical model with ongoing research on clinical process and

outcomes. FFT also includes a systematic

training and community implementation

program. The results of more than 30

years of clinical research suggest that by

following these principles, FFT can reduce

recidivism and/or prevent the onset of

delinquency. These results can be accomplished with treatment costs well below

those of traditional services and other

interventions.

Unique to FFT is its systematic yet individualized family-focused approach to

juvenile crime, violence, drug abuse, and

other related problems. The phases of

FFT provide therapists with specific goals

for each family interaction. Although systematic, each phase is guided by core

principles that help the therapist adjust

and adapt the goals of the phase to the

unique characteristics of the family. In

this way, FFT ensures treatment fidelity

while remaining respectful of individual

families and cultures and unique community needs.

For Further Information

Thomas L. Sexton, Ph.D.

Indiana University

Department of Counseling and

Educational Psychology

201 North Rose Avenue

Bloomington, IN 47405–1006

812–856–8350

E-mail: thsexton@indiana.edu

James F. Alexander, Ph.D.

University of Utah

Department of Psychology

380 South 1530 East, Room 502

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

801–581–6538

E-mail: JFAFFT@psych.utah.edu

Kathie Shafer, Communication

Coordinator

University of Utah

Department of Psychology

380 South 1530 East, Room 502

Salt Lake City, UT 84112

702–499–9693, 801–585–1807

E-mail: shafer@psych.utah.edu

References

Alexander, J.F., and Parsons, B.V. 1973.

Short-term family intervention: A therapy

outcome study. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology 2:195–201.

Alexander, J.F., Pugh, C., Parsons, B.V.,

and Sexton, T.L. 2000. Functional family

therapy. In Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Book 3), 2d ed., edited by D.S. Elliott.

Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado.

Alexander, J.F., Robbins, M.S., and Sexton,

T.L. 1999. Family therapy with older, indicated youth: From promise to proof to

practice. In Center for Substance Abuse

Prevention Science Symposium: Bridging

the Gap Between Research and Practice,

edited by K. Kumpfer. Washington, DC:

Center for Substance Abuse and

Prevention.

Source: Sexton, in press.

0 $3,000 $6,000 $9,000 $12,000 $15,000

Detention

(30 days)

Residential

treatment (90 days)

In-home FFT

(12 sessions)

Clinic-based FFT

(12 sessions)

Cost

Intervention

(average intervention time)
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 184743

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do

not necessarily represent the official position

or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department

of Justice.

Acknowledgments

Thomas L. Sexton, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Counseling

and Educational Psychology at

Indiana University in Bloomington. In

that role, Dr. Sexton directs the

Clinical Training Center and the

Center for Adolescent and Family

Studies and teaches in the university’s

nationally accredited Counseling

Psychology Program. James F.

Alexander, Ph.D., is a Professor in the

Department of Psychology at the

University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Dr. Alexander is a Principal Investigator

for the Center for Treatment Research

on Adolescent Drug Abuse, which

conducts psychosocial treatment

research on adolescent drug abuse.

Drs. Sexton and Alexander have each

authored numerous publications on

family therapy and the treatment of

adolescents with alcohol, drug abuse,

and mental health problems.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org