Scholarlink

Objective <p>Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting adolescent behavioral problems, typically within juvenile justice contexts. In Norway, FFT is implemented in child welfare services, where juvenile justice involvement is not a prerequisite. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of FFT compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in preventing subsequent criminal charges and out-of-home placement.</p> Method <p>This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of FFT in comparison to TAU in preventing criminal charges and out-of-home placements among 129 youths aged 11 to 18. Participants were randomly assigned to either FFT or TAU. Outcomes were measured using national registry data at 18- and 36-months post-intake.</p> Results <p>No significant differences were observed between the two groups on rates of criminal charges or out-of-home placements.</p> Conclusion <p>The findings contribute to the limited body of research on FFT in non-juvenile justice settings. These results underscore the necessity for further research to elucidate FFT’s effectiveness across diverse service contexts.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effects of functional family therapy for adolescents in child welfare services on subsequent criminal charges and out-of-home placements: a randomized effectiveness trial

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月10日

查看全文
  • Asgeir Røyrhus Olseth,
  • Andreas Høstmælingen,
  • Gunnar Bjørnebekk

摘要

Objective

Functional Family Therapy (FFT) is an evidence-based intervention targeting adolescent behavioral problems, typically within juvenile justice contexts. In Norway, FFT is implemented in child welfare services, where juvenile justice involvement is not a prerequisite. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of FFT compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in preventing subsequent criminal charges and out-of-home placement.

Method

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of FFT in comparison to TAU in preventing criminal charges and out-of-home placements among 129 youths aged 11 to 18. Participants were randomly assigned to either FFT or TAU. Outcomes were measured using national registry data at 18- and 36-months post-intake.

Results

No significant differences were observed between the two groups on rates of criminal charges or out-of-home placements.

Conclusion

The findings contribute to the limited body of research on FFT in non-juvenile justice settings. These results underscore the necessity for further research to elucidate FFT’s effectiveness across diverse service contexts.