Model Effectiveness

Results of Functional Family Probation/Parole (FFP®)

Washington State Institute for Public Policy and University of Washington Evidence-Based Practice Institute (2013). FFP® administered with high fidelity is named as an evidence-based practice. To meet this level, a program must have “multiple site randomized control studies or other valid research designs.” FFP® also demonstrates a positive economic benefit to cost ratio, saving WA state $10,168 per youth in the program.

FFT Program Benefits

Participant benefit $1,404
Taxpayer benefit $3,481
Taxpayer benefit $3,481
Other benefit $10,489
Other indirect ($780)
Total $14,593
Costs ($4,425)
Benefit minus cost $10,168

Rist, M. (2011).
Support for the effectiveness of FFP® in Yolo County, California juvenile probation has been demonstrated with respect to out of home care (see Figure 1 below). Moreover, FFP® was associated with a 38% reduction in caseload sizes as well as a 16% reduction in juvenile justice expenditures.

Figure 1. Out-of-Home Care (FFP® Implemented in Dec 2008)

FFP Figure 1

Effects of Functional Family Parole on Rearrests and Employment for Youth in Washington State, RDA Report, 2.34: Executive Summary (2011).
Arrests and employment for youth receiving FFP® were evaluated as compared to parole services where youth has not received FFP®. The study found:
  • Youth who are provided FFP® are 48% less likely to be arrested than youth without FFP®.
  • Youth who are provides FFP® youth have 43% employment rates, 33% higher than youth without FFP®.
FFP Figure 2

Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (2009).
FFP® has been implemented statewide as the case management model for juvenile parole counselors since 2004. In their December 2009 Report to the Washington State Legislature, the Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration identifies the following FFP® outcomes.
  • At 12 months post release from facilities, youth in the FFP® group had significantly fewer parole revocations as compared to traditional parole services. FFPS youth had 14.7% fewer parole revocations.
  • At 18 months following release from an institution there is a 15.31% reduction in recidivism rates for those youth who received highly adherent FFP® as compared to a matched control group.
  • At 12 months post parole, those youth with above average pre-crime severity index scores who received the FFP® intervention had significantly lower post-parole crime severity behavior indicating that the most difficult youth received more benefit from FFP®. Parents and youth who received FFPS report improvements in their overall functioning, youth behavior, parental supervision, family communication, as well as reductions in family conflict.
  • The most difficult youth received more benefit from FFP®. Overall, those youth with above average pre-crime severity index scores who received the FFP® intervention had significantly lower post-parole crime severity behaviors.
  • Parents and youth who received FFPS report improvements in their overall family functioning, youth behavior, parental supervision, family communication, as well as reductions in family conflict.


Literature Cited
Lucenko, B., Mancuso, D. & Felver, M. (2011). Effects of Functional Family Parole on Rearrests and Employment for Youth in Washington State, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, RDA Report, 2.34: Executive Summary, Olympia, 1-2.
Rist, M. (2011). Yolo County (California) Probation Department, Report to County Commissioners.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), Intensive Parole Model for High Risk Offenders, Report to the Legislature, Olympia, (2009). 12-14
Washington State Institute for Public Policy and the University of Washington Evidence-Based Practice Institute (2013), Inventory of Evidence-Based, Research-Based, and Promising Practices.