Summary of comparison between FFT-CW ® and Usual Care sample from Administration for Children's Services

Abstract

This evaluation compared the efficiency and effectiveness of Functional Family Therapy-Child Welfare (FFT-CW®, n=1625) to Usual Care (UC: n=2250) in reducing child maltreatment. FFT-CW® is a continuum of care model based on the family’s risk status. In a child welfare setting, families received either UC or FFT-CW® in a quasi-experimental, stepped wedge design across all five boroughs of New York City. The families were matched using stratified propensity scoring on their pre-service risk status and followed for 16 months. The ethnically diverse sample included African American (36%), Asian (4%); Hispanic (49%), and Non-Hispanic White (6%) or Other (6%) participants. Referral reasons included abuse or neglect (57.4%), child service needs (56.9%) or child health and safety concerns (42.8%). Clinical process variables included staff fidelity, service duration, and number of contacts. Positive outcomes included whether all clinical goals were met and negative outcomes included transfers, outplacement, recurring allegations and service participation within 16 months of the case open date. Families receiving FFT-CW® completed treatment more quickly than UC and they were significantly more likely to meet all of the planned service goals. Higher treatment fidelity was associated with more favorable outcomes. Fewer FFT-CW® families were transferred to another program at closing, and they had fewer recurring allegations. FFT-CW® had fewer out-of-home placements in families with higher levels of risk factors. The FFT-CW® program was more efficient in completing service, and more effective than UC in meeting treatment goals while also avoiding adverse outcomes.

Adapting the Delivery of Functional Family Therapy Around the World During a Global Pandemic

“…Over the first 30 years of development (1970 to 2000), FFT was implemented and evaluated with youth and families from diverse settings (e.g., juvenile justice, school, mental health, child welfare) as both a preventive and treatment approach. Over the past two decades (2000 to 2020), FFT LLC has supported the implementation of the FFT model as well as promising variations, including FFT-Child Welfare (FFT-CW ® ; Turner et al, 2017 ), FFT-Gangs (FFT-G ® ; Gottfredson et al, 2018 ), and FFT-Probation Services (FFP ® ; Darnell & Schuler, 2015 ). Annually, FFT LLC supports over 3000 therapists, supervisors, and administrators/managers implementing FFT, FFT-CW ® , FFT-G ® , and FFP ® with more than 20,000 youth and families in 10 countries.…”

“…The strategies that FFT LLC uses have been informed by more than 20 years of implementation experience and the more extensive literature on implementation research and practice. For example, in a large-scale community implementation of FFT-CW ® (Turner et al, 2017 ), the implementation framework developed by Fixsen et al ( 2005 ) was incorporated into all levels of implementation by the local child welfare system.…”

Using systemic interventions to reduce intimate partner violence or child maltreatment: A systematic review of publications between 2010 and 2019

“…Treatment focuses on parent motivation for change, conflict reduction, and helping family members learn effective strategies to meet family system needs. A large‐scale RCT of FFT‐CW demonstrated a lower likelihood of recurring child maltreatment 18–24 months after baseline than SAU families (Turner et al, 2017).…”

GÜVENDE: Çocuğu Kötü Muamelenin Etkilerinden Korumak İçin Neler Yapılabilir?

“…Programın hem işlemsel hem de içeriksel yönlerine illişkin pek çok iyileştirici öneri ortaya konmuş, bu öneriler: kullanılan dil/ terminoloji, programa katılım koşulları ve işlemleri, programa katılımcıların dâhil olmasını sağlayacak teknikler ve programın etkiliğini değerlendirmenin yolları başlıkları /temaları altında toplanmıştır (Oppenheim-Weller ve Zeira, 2018). Kötü muameleye müdahale ve eğitim çalışmalarıyla ilgili alanyazın tarandığında, çoğunlukla bu hizmetlerin ebeveynlere yönelik olduğu (Cluver vd., 2016;Turner, Robbins, Rowlands ve Weaver, 2017;Shenderovich vd., 2020) ve ebeveyni ve çocuğu beraber ele alan az sayıda (Cluver vd., 2018) (Lee ve Chou, 2016).…”