For this month’s Court ADR Connection (RSI’s monthly e-newsletter), I wrote about a study of 10 restorative justice conferences that demonstrated significant benefits to the community by reducing re-offense and to victims by enhancing their emotional well-being. New research from New Zealand provides more evidence of the benefits of RJCs. The study was large, examining re-offense rates of 2,323 individuals aged 17 or over who participated in RJCs and 6,718 matched individuals who went through a police diversion or court process. To be included in the study, the offenders had to plead guilty to a charge in district court. Those who participated in RJCs committed 23% fewer offenses over the next twelve months than the matched group. The proportion of those reoffending was 12% less for the RJC group. However, in the second and third years the difference in re-offense rates between the groups narrowed.
Author Archive
More Evidence of the Effectiveness of Restorative Justice
Jennifer Shack, April 10th, 2014Yes, It Can Be Done: Ten Program Models, One Online System
Jennifer Shack, March 12th, 2014When Resolution Systems Institute received a grant from the Illinois Attorney General to develop foreclosure mediation programs across the state, it was our opportunity to practice what we preach. From RSI’s inception, we’ve been telling courts that they need to monitor and evaluate their mediation programs to ensure that they’re providing quality services to those who come to them to resolve disputes. We’ve also been urging them to incorporate the development of a monitoring and evaluation system into their program design process. Too often, courts have decided against doing this, or have settled for a system that collects minimal data, such as number of mediations and number of settlements. The main problem has been lack of staff and money to develop and maintain such a system, as well as, perhaps, a lack of understanding of what it could provide. (more…)
What Works in Foreclosure Dispute Resolution?
Jennifer Shack, November 13th, 2013With foreclosure dispute resolution programs proliferating around the country, the natural question to ask is, “Do they work?” That’s what former RSI staff member Heather Scheiwe Kulp and I set out to determine. The answer, as discussed in our article, “Foreclosure Dispute Resolution Programs: Do They Work?” (Probate and Property, November/December 2013), is that some do and some don’t. Some are achieving what they set out to achieve, at least to some extent. Others aren’t. What the programs want to achieve varies, though with much overlap. Goals include keeping homeowners in their homes, helping homeowners and lenders come to mutually agreeable resolution, improving judicial efficiency, and so on. (more…)
Illinois Supreme Court Increases Reporting Requirements for Family Mediation
Jennifer Shack, September 24th, 2013Anyone who knows RSI knows that we’re all about data. We believe that courts need good data about their programs in order to make good decisions about them. That’s why we were thrilled when the Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Child Custody Issues asked for our help in developing a mediator report and participant survey that will be used statewide for family mediation. We’re even more thrilled that those forms have been adopted and will be required by the Supreme Court. This is part of the Court’s amendments to Rule 905, which went into effect September 1.
The rule, which governs child custody and visitation mediation, now requires that every judicial circuit file a quarterly report with the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts that includes “the number of custody, visitation and removal cases referred to mediation; the outcome of such a referral; number of cases referred on a pro bono basis; and the percentage of cases where the parties expressed satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the process.” The information will be used for what we love best at RSI – review of the mediation program statewide.
A more substantive change in the rule expands mandatory mediation to include a custodial parent’s request to remove a child to another state. It also requires the courts to make a “good faith” effort to provide an interpreter when a non-English speaking parent is involved in mediation and to provide a pro bono attorney when applicable.
