I’ve slowly been adding to RSI’s database of mediation efficacy studies – those studies of court ADR that look at mediation outcomes, participant experience and the effect of mediation on cost and time. The database contains almost 100 studies and can be filtered by case type, variables examined, state and whether it compares mediated cases to those that weren’t mediated. The entire database can be downloaded as an Excel spreadsheet as well.
The following is a list of the latest studies I have added to the database.
In this study of criminal misdemeanor cases in Maryland, mediated cases in one county were compared to non-mediated cases in a similar county. The study of 206 cases examined the impact of mediation on later judicial actions in the case, as well as whether the parties returned to court within a 12-month period. The study also included interviews with the parties at the outset of mediation and three months after the case concluded in order to find out their perceptions on whether the issues involved in the case were resolved and to determine whether they experienced attitude changes regarding the conflict or the other party as a result of their experience with mediation or court.
The study found that mediation reduced later court activity in the case, as well as the probability that the parties would return to court. Parties who mediated were also more likely to believe that the issues were resolved and to be satisfied with the process. There was no difference in attitude changes.
For this study of the effect of mediation on party attitudes and post-disposition activity, small claims cases were randomly offered the option to mediate on the day of trial. Parties in both the mediation group and the traditional group were interviewed before and after their process, and then again 3-6 months later. The study found that those who went through mediation were more likely to feel they were able to express themselves and to feel the issues were resolved. In the long term, they were more likely to believe the outcome was working, to be satisfied with the outcome and to be satisfied with the judicial system. Those who reached agreement in mediation were less likely to return to court for an enforcement action in the 12 months after their case was closed than those who didn’t reach agreement in mediation (including those who reached agreement on their own and those who went to trial).
This study uses social impact return on investment (SROI) to determine the overall economic impact of a statewide network of community mediation centers in Hawaii during the 2016 fiscal year. The SROI analyzes the economic impact of the centers’ services on two factors: the short-term (within a one year period) direct economic impact based on the fair market value of services delivered along with any immediate cash awards or amounts avoided as a result of the mediation centers’ services, and the longer-term economic impacts in the areas of community health costs, social support costs, law enforcement costs, taxation revenues, property valuation effects, and other community cost changes. The analysis found that for every $1 spent to provide services, the community receives $8.76 in immediate and long-term financial benefits.
Saving Homes, Building Understanding: An Evaluation of the Eight Foreclosure Mediation Programs Funded by the Illinois Attorney General (Note: this evaluation was published by RSI.)
This final evaluation of eight foreclosure mediation programs with very different service delivery models follows up the initial evaluation published in 2015. The programs were assessed on participation rate, the percentage of eligible and participating homeowners who were able to retain their homes, completion rates, the amount of time cases spent in the program, and the experience of participating homeowners at each stage of the process. Each program was evaluated individually and all eight were compared on these measures.
The findings from this evaluation supported those from the first evaluation. It, too, found that participation is greater in programs in which the homeowners are told to appear for their initial session and given a date and time to do so, as well as in programs in which the homeowners learn one-on-one how the program can help them. Homeowners with attorneys are more likely to complete the program, but they do not have a greater probability of saving their home. Homeowners also benefit from a second opportunity to participate. Among other findings are that the programs are providing a just process and are viewed positively by most participants.
In 2011, an evaluation of Michigan’s court-connected case evaluation and mediation programs found that both case evaluation and mediation increased the probability of settlement, but that case evaluation significantly increased time to disposition. This follow-up study came to the same conclusion. The study looked at a random sample of 358 cases (221 torts cases, 137 other civil cases) from three jurisdictions to determine what ADR process was used, the means by which the cases were resolved, and the time to disposition for each case. It found that for tort cases, there was no statistically significant difference in the type of disposition among the different options: no ADR, case evaluation only, mediation only, or both case evaluation and mediation. For other civil cases, both case evaluation and mediation (and both together) had higher rates of settlement than those cases that did not use ADR. For both torts cases and other civil cases, time to disposition was considerably longer when case evaluation was used than when either mediation or no ADR was used.
This study examines child protection mediation (CPM) at five centers in Michigan (Gaylord, Jackson, Marquette, Petoskey, and Traverse City). The study focuses on descriptive statistics, participant and stakeholder perspectives, and time to permanency. For participants, data was collected through statewide surveys that asked participants going through the traditional process and those going through CPM how satisfied they were with their experience. Additionally, researchers also interviewed ten stakeholders for the report. Overall, the findings indicate that CPM participants had a positive experience in the process and also gave slightly higher satisfaction ratings in case resolution, staff courtesy and courtesy of the judge than participants going through the traditional process. Moreover, the information gathered by stakeholders indicated that stakeholders were largely supportive of the process. Finally, the study results also indicate that CPM reduces time to permanency.
In this study of child protection mediation in seven Nevada counties, the evaluators examined post-mediation surveys to determine not only the participants’ level of satisfaction, sense of fairness and experience of procedural justice, but also whether any variables were associated with more positive responses. They found that most participants had a positive experience. This was correlated with whether the parties reached agreement in the mediation. The evaluators also found that when participants believed others in the mediation had “really listened” to what they had to say, they were more likely to express satisfaction with the mediation regardless of whether an agreement was reached.
Improving an Effective Program: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Child Protection Mediation Program (Note: this evaluation was published by RSI.)
In Washington, D.C., child protection mediation is mandatory at the outset of a case. Natural parents, their attorneys, a government attorney, the children’s attorney and the social worker meet with the goals of making progress on the legal issues in the case, services for the parents and children, and visitation. This evaluation looks at outcomes of mediation, the larger impact of participating in mediation on the case, and the program process.
The results of the evaluation show that parents who participated in mediation in 2013-2014 were twice as likely to stipulate to the facts of the case before trial as those who did not mediate. Further, it is likely that they were more compliant with services, although limitations to the data make it impossible to state this with certainty. Limitations to the data also made it difficult to draw conclusions about mediation’s effect on time to permanency. The evidence, however, points to mediation not having an effect on the time it takes for a child to have a permanent home.
More than three-quarters of the parents were satisfied with the mediation and 83% believed it was helpful to them. Both parents and professionals believed they had an opportunity to talk about what was most important to them and that they were understood. Most parents believed the mediator and, more importantly, the professionals, treated them fairly and with respect. All professionals believed that the mediator treated them fairly and with respect.