King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011

7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011

1/16

2011

PermanencyPlanningforChildren

Department

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamily

CourtJudges

7/6/2011

PPCDRESEARCHREPORTKINGCOUNTYMEDIATIONPROGRAMASSESSMENT

PHASEII


2/16

2

TheNationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges(NCJFCJ)headquarteredontheUniversityof

NevadacampusinRenosince1969,providescuttingedgetraining,widerangingtechnicalassistance,

andresearchtohelpthenation'scourts,judges,andstaffintheirimportantwork.Sinceitsfoundingin

1937byagroupofjudgesdedicatedtoimprovingtheeffectivenessofthenation'sjuvenilecourts,the

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges(NCJFCJ)haspursuedamissiontoimprovecourts

andsystemspracticeandraiseawarenessofthecoreissuesthattouchthelivesofmanyofournation's

childrenandfamilies.

FormoreinformationabouttheNCJFCJorthisreport,pleasecontact:

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment

UniversityofNevada

P.O.Box8970

Reno,Nevada89507

(775)3275300

www.ncjfcj.org

[email protected]

2011,NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

MariKayBickett,J.D.,ExecutiveDirector,NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

NancyB.Miller,Director,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,NationalCouncilofJuvenile

andFamilyCourtJudges

ReportContributorsAliciaSummers,Ph.D.,ResearchAssociate,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,National

CouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

JoshPadilla,M.A.,ResearchAssociate,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,NationalCouncil

ofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

SteveWood,M.S.,ResearchAssociate,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,NationalCouncil

ofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

JenniferMcClellan,AdministrativeAssistant,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,National

CouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges

JesseRussell,Ph.D.,ResearchProgramManager,PermanencyPlanningforChildrenDepartment,

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges


3/16

3

EXECUTIVESUMMARYKingCountyMediationProgram

TheKingCountyJuvenileCourtimplementedaMediationPilotProgramforjuveniledependencycases

in2009inanefforttoimproveefficiencyofcaseprocessing.TheMediationPilotProgramoffersmediationpriortoadjudicationtofamiliescomingintothedependencycourtsysteminordertohelp

resolveissuesrelatedtochildabuseandneglect.Thegoalistoallowpartiestoreachagreement

regardingallegations,recommendedservices,placement,visitationandgeneralcaseplanninginanon

confrontationalandsupportiveenvironment.TheMediationPilotProgrambeganin2009withcase

referralsfromoneDepartmentofChildrenandFamilyServicesofficetotheKingCountyJuvenileCourt

inSeattle,WA,andexpandedneartheendof2009toincludecasesreferredfromtheDepartmentof

ChildrenandFamilyServicesofficetoMalengRegionalJusticeCenterinKent,WA.Inearly2010,apreliminaryassessmentofthepilotprojectwascompleted.ThePhaseIassessmentincludeddata

collectiononasampleof50cases(22mediatedand28nonmediatedcases)thathadprogressed

throughadjudication. PhaseIfound:

MediationimprovestimelinessofadjudicationMediationreducesjudicialworkloadbecausemediatedcasestendtohavefewerhearings

MediatedcasesresultinmoreservicesofferedtomothersbutnottofathersMediationdoesnotappeartoinfluencecasecompliancebythetimethefirstreviewisheld

ExpandingtoPhaseIITheresultsofPhaseIofthemediationpilotprogramstudydemonstratedthatmediationisausefultool

forimprovingtheefficiencyofcaseprocessing.However,PhaseIwaslimitedinscope.Theassessment

onlyconsistentlyincludedcaseinformationthroughcompletionoftheadjudicationhearingandonly

comparedasmallnumberofcases.PhaseIIofthestudyexpandsuponPhaseIfindingsbyaddingadditionalcasestothesampleandfollowingcasesthroughthepermanencyhearingandcaseclosure

(whenapplicable)inorderexaminethelongtermeffects.

Thisassessmentreportsstatisticalsignificancewhereappropriate.1Itisimportanttonotedifferencesin

mediatedcasesandnonmediatedcasesmayverywellreflectimportanttrendseveniftheyarenot

significant.PhaseIIfound:

MediationincreasestimelinessofearlycaseprocessingMediationreducesworkloadearlyinthecase

MediatedcasesaremorelikelytoreachagreementChildreninmediatedcasesaremorelikelytobeplacedwitharelativeasopposedtoplacedinfoster

careatthereviewandpermanencyhearings

1Researcherstypicallyconsiderfindingsstatisticallysignificantifthedifferencesbetweenthemediatedandnonmediated

groupswereunlikelytohaveoccurredduetochancealone.Forthisassessment,resultsareconsideredsignificantwhenp .10.


4/16

4

MediationStudiesMediationisapracticeofalternativedisputeresolutioninvolvinganeutralthirdpartywho

facilitatesdiscussionamongparties,workswithpartiestowardresolvingcontestedcaseissues,and

helpsexpeditecaseprocessing(Stack,2003).Thejobofmediatorsisnottomakedecisions;rather,their

jobistohelptheinvolvedpartiesworktogethertoreachanamicablecaseresolution(Coleman&

Ruppel,2007).Whenfirstintroducedinthejuveniledependencycourtsystem,somejudicial

stakeholderswereapprehensive(Edwards,2009).However,publicationoftheRESOURCEGUIDELINES:

ImprovingCourtPracticeinChildAbuseandNeglectCases(NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourt

Judges[NCJFCJ],1995)drewnationalattentiontotheuseofmediation,identifyingalternativedispute

resolutionasabestpracticeinchildabuseandneglectcaseprocessing.Judgesthenbegan

communicatingwithoneanotheraboutthebenefitsofmediationandimplementingitintheirown

jurisdictions(Edwards).TheuseofmediationhasalsobeenencouragedbytheDepartmentofHealth

andHumanServicesasanacceptedalternativetoadversarialcourthearings(Duquette,Hardin,&Dean,

1999).

Mediationprovidesaneffectiveandefficientwaytoaddresscorechildprotectioncaseissues

(Dobbin,Gatowski,&Litchfield,2001;Thoennes,1997).Thisimprovedefficiencycanbeseenacross

severalfacetsofthedependencyprocess.First,mediationcandecreasethetimebetweenkeycourt

events,suchashearingsandreviews.Researchfindingsonmediationandtimeliness,however,are

mixed.Insomeinstances,mediatedcasesreachadjudicationanddispositionfasterthannonmediated

cases,butdidnotreachpermanencymorequickly(Gatowski,Dobbin,Litchfield,&Oetjen,2005).

Conversely,inanotherstudy,mediatedcasestooklongertoreachdisposition,buttookshortertimesto

reachpermanencythannonmediatedcases(CenterforPolicyResearch,1999).Otherstudiesof

timelinessfoundthatmediatedcasesresolveearlierascomparedtononmediatedcases(Institutefor

FamiliesinSociety,2003;OfficeoftheExecutiveSecretaryoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia,2002).As

theliteratureonchildprotectionmediationisstilldeveloping,thesedifferencesaretobeexpectedand

maybeexplainedbyavarietyofreasons:timingandreasonsformediation,differingsamples,location

specificpractices,ordifferencesinanalyticmethodology,forexample.

Mediationmayimprovecaseprocessefficiencybyreducingthenumberofcasehearingsand

therebyreducingjudicialworkload.Mediationmayserveasameansofresolvingcontestedcaseissues

withoutalengthyhearingortrial.Statisticsindicate,onaverage,between60to80percentofmediated

casesreachfullagreementand90%orhigherreachsomeformofagreement(Kathol,2009;Kelly,2004;


5/16

5

OfficeoftheExecutiveSecretaryoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia,2002;ResolutionSystemsInstitute,

2010;Thoennes,2001;Trosch,Sanders,&Kugelmass,2002).Somesettlementsoccurwithinoneortwo

mediationsessions,reducingtheneedforprotractedlegalproceedings(Kathol,2009;Officeofthe

ExecutiveSecretaryoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia;Thoennes,2000).Inonestudy,mediatedcases

werelesslikelytorequireacontestedsixmonthreviewhearing(Thoennes,1997).

Mediatedcasesmayalsoreducethenumberofhearingsbyreducingthenumberof

continuances.Mostcasessetfortrialwillexperienceatleastonecasecontinuance(Thoennes,2000),

but,mediatedcasesmaybeabletoreduceoreliminatethisnumberbyeliminatingtheneedfor

contestedhearings.Thisassertionisspeculative

though,asempiricalresearchoncontinuancesin

mediatedcasesislimited.

Mediationmayalsoincreaseefficiencyby

betterengagingparentsintheprocess.Theuseofmediationasanalternativedisputeresolution

techniqueprovidesameansofresolvingcaseissuesinarespectfulandopenforumasopposedtothe

adversarialatmosphereoftenfoundincontestedhearings.Assuch,mediationoffersmanyadvantages

tothefamiliesinvolvedinthecourtprocess.Mediationmayincreaseparentalengagementinthe

juveniledependencyprocess.Insurveys,parentshaveindicatedthattheyhadmoretimetotalkabout

importantissuesandsaidthattheyfeltthatotherslistenedandunderstoodwhattheysaid(Coleman&

Ruppel,2007;Thoennes,2001).Parentswhofeelliketheyaremoreengagedintheprocessmaybe

morelikelytocomplywithservicesbecausetheyfeelliketheyhaveavoiceintreatmentdecisions

(Airey,1999).Therefore,mediationmayalsoimproveparentcompliancewithcourtorderedservices.In

aSantaClaraCountymediationstudy,45%ofmediatedcaseshadfindingsoffullparentalcompliance

and44%hadfindingsofpartialcompliance(Thoennes,2001).Incomparison,nonmediatedcaseshad

findingsoffullcomplianceinonly16%andpartialcomplianceinonly28%ofthecases(Thoennes).Ina

Coloradostudycomparing146mediatedcasesto48comparablecases,62%ofparentswhoparticipated

inmediationwerefoundtobeincompliancewiththecaseplancomparedto41%ofparentswhodid

notparticipate(CenterforPolicyResearch,1999).

Finally,mediationmayimprovecostefficiencyforthecourt.Givencurrentbudgetconstraints,

somecourtsareseekingalternativetechniquestohelpreduceadministrativecosts.Mediationisone

suchtechniquethatcanfacilitateresolutionsthataremoreeconomical.InCalifornia,estimatesofthe

financialbenefitofmediationcomparedtonormalcaseprocessingindicatedthatmediationcouldsave

Sixtytwopercent(62%)ofparents

whoparticipatedinmediationwere

foundtobeincompliancewiththe

caseplan

compared

to

41%

of

parentswhodidnotparticipate.


6/16

6

thestatemillionsofdollars(Stack,2003).Thoennes(1998)foundthatsendingonecasetomediation

everydaywouldcreateanannualsavingsof$545,225forSanFranciscowhenconsideringtheadded

costofsubsequentcontestedreviewhearings.Otherresearchers

suggestthatmediationcansavestatesupwardsof39%percase

(Thoennes,1999,2002).Stakeholdersperceiveincreasedsavingsdue

tothereducedamountoftimeandmoneybeingspentpreparingforcontestedhearings(Edwards&

SantaClaraModelCourtTeamMembers,2002;ResolutionSystemsInstitute,2002;Thoennes,2001).In

sum,researchindicatesthatmediationisavaluabletoolforengagingparentsandcanimprovecourt

efficiency.

KingCountyMediationProgram

The

King

County

Superior

Court

implemented

a

Mediation

Pilot

Program

for

juvenile

dependencycasesin2009inanefforttoimproveefficiencyofcaseprocessing.TheMediationPilot

Programoffersmediationtofamiliescomingintothedependencycourtsystempriortoadjudicationin

ordertohelpresolveissuesrelatedtochildabuseandneglect.Thegoalistoallowpartiestoreach

agreementregardingallegations,recommendedservices,placement,visitationandgeneralcase

planninginanonconfrontationalandsupportiveenvironment.TheMediationPilotProgrambeganin

2009withcasereferralsfromoneDepartmentofChildrenandFamilyServicesofficetotheKingCounty

JuvenileCourtinSeattle,WA,andexpandedneartheendof2009toincludecasesfromtehsameDCFS

officethatwereheardattheMalengRegionalJusticeCenterinKent,WA.StudyOverview

Inearly2010,apreliminaryassessmentofthemediationpilotprojectwascompleted.ThePhase

Iassessmentincludeddatacollectiononasampleof50cases(22mediatedand28nonmediatedcases)

thathadprogressedthroughadjudication.TheresultsofPhaseIofthemediationpilotprogramstudy

demonstratedthatmediationisausefultoolforimprovingtheefficiencyofcaseprocessing.However,

PhaseIwaslimitedinscope.Theassessmentonlyconsistentlyincludedcaseinformationthrough

completionoftheadjudicationhearingandonlycomparedasmallnumberofcases.PhaseIIofthe

studyexpandsuponPhaseIfindingsbyaddingadditionalcasestothesampleandfollowingcases

throughthepermanencyandcaseclosure(whenapplicable)inorderexaminethelongtermeffects.The

assessmentofthemediationprogramwasdesignedtodeterminetheeffectsofmediationon

timeliness,workload,parentalengagement,andcaseoutcomes.Inaddition,researchersrecordedrace

Mediationcansavestates

upwardsof39%percase.


7/16

7

ofthechildinordertodetermineiftheeffectofmediationvariedbyrace.Specificresearchquestions

arepostulatedbelow.

Timeliness.Doesmediationpositivelyinfluencetimeliness?

Doesmediationdecreasetimefrompetitiontocaseresolution? Doesmediationdecreasetimefromresolution(i.e.,adjudication)topermanencyhearing? Doesmediationdecreasetimefrompetitionfilingtocaseclosure?

Workload.Doesmediationpositivelyinfluenceworkload?

Doesmediationresultinfewercontinuances Doesmediationresultinfewerhearings Doesmediationresultinmoreagreement?

Engagement.Doesmediation

result

in

better

engagement

of

parties?

Doesmediationaffectthenumberofservicesorderedforparents? Doesmediationincreaseparentscompliancewithcourtorderedservices? Doesmediationincreaseparentsparticipationincourthearings?

Outcomes.Doesmediationresultinbetteroutcomesforchildren?

Doesmediationresultinbetterpermanencyoutcomesforchildren? Doesmediationaffectplacementofthechild?

Race.Arethereanyracedifferencesintheeffectivenessofmediation?Method

ForPhaseIIoftheMediationevaluation,researchersbeganwiththe50casesthatwere

identifiedinPhaseIandusedastandardizedcasefilereviewformtofollowthecasestoclosure(when

applicable).Researchersalsoselectedanadditional25mediatedcasesand25nonmediatedcases

openedin2010.Themediatedcaseswereidentifiedfromalistofmediatedcases.Researchersselected

thefirst25new(i.e.,thatwerenotincludedinthePhaseIassessment)mediatedcases.Forthenon

mediatedcases,researchersreceivedalistofcaseswithapetitionfiledin2010andrandomlyselected

25cases.Allcaseswerecodedforvariablesrelatedtoworkload,timeliness,engagement,and

outcomes.TheDepartmentprovidedinformationontheraceofthechildforallofthecases.


8/16

8

Thisassessmentreportsstatisticalsignificancewhereappropriate.2Itisimportanttonote

differencesinmediatedcasesandnonmediatedcasesmayverywellreflectimportanttrendsevenif

theyarenotsignificant.

Results

ComparabilityoftheTwoGroupsThemediatedandnonmediatedgroupsinthissampledidnotshowanynotabledifferencesin

casetypeswithsimilaritiesinallegations,initialplacements,andpresenceofpartiesattheinitial

hearing.Thesimilaritybetweenthetwogroupsindicatesthatoutcomecomparisonsaremorelikelyto

bevalid.

CaseDemographics

Thefinalsampleforthecurrentstudycompared58nonmediatedcases(56%)to45mediated

cases(44%).Ofthemediatedcases,63%reachedfullagreement,20%reachedpartialagreementand

17%didnotreachagreement.Acrossallcases,theaverageageofthechildonthecasewas6,withan

equalnumberofmaleandfemalechildren.ThemajorityofcasesinvolvedCaucasianchildren(53%),

followedbyAfricanAmerican(18%),Hispanic(14%),NativeAmerican(8%),andAsian(7%)children.The

mostcommonpresentingprobleminthecasewassubstanceabuse,whichoccurredin48%ofcases.

Therewasnodifferenceinthecasedemographicsbetweenmediatedandnonmediatedcases.

Race of Child

53%

18%

14%

8% 7%

Caucasian

African American

Hispanic

Native American

Asian

2Researcherstypicallyconsiderfindingsstatisticallysignificantifthedifferencesbetweenthemediatedandnonmediated

groupswereunlikelytohaveoccurredduetochancealone.Forthisassessment,resultsareconsideredsignificantwhenp .10.


9/16

9

Percentage of Cases that Reached Resolution Prior To/On Scheduled

Hearing Dates

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Scheduled 30Day Hear ing Scheduled PTC

Mediated

Non-Mediated

TimelinessMediationappearstohaveapositiveeffectonhearingtimeliness.Thestudycalculated

timelinessoutcomesbasedonthedatetheadjudicationhearingwasheldincomparisontothedate

scheduledatthefirsthearing(atthe72hoursheltercarehearing,thecaseisscheduledforits

subsequenthearingsupthroughadjudication).Onaverage,mediatedcasesreachedadjudication

approximately6daysbeforethescheduleddate,andnonmediatedcasesreachedadjudication9days

afterthescheduleddate.Thisfindingisstatisticallysignificant.

Researchersalsocalculatedtimelinessoutcomesfrompetitionfilingtoadjudication.

Washingtonstatuterequiresthatcasesreachadjudicationwithin75daysofthepetitionfiling

WashingtonRev.Code13.34.070).Ofthestudysample,84percentofmediatedcasesreached

adjudication

within

this

period,

compared

to

only

66

percent

of

non

mediated

cases.

Incontrast,mediationhadnoeffectontimetopermanencyhearing. However,themajorityof

bothmediated(95%)andnonmediated(100%)casesheldapermanencyhearingwithin12monthsof

outofhomecare,asstatutorilyrequired.Onaverage,mediatedcasesheldapermanencyhearingwithin

240daysofadjudication,nonmediatedcasesheldapermanencyhearingwithin219daysof

adjudication.

WorkloadMediationalsoappearedtoaffectworkloadinapositiveway.Mediatedcaseshadfewer

continuances,onaverage,acrossthelifeofthecase(1.1)comparedtononmediatedcases(1.8).

Mediationalsoseemedtoreducethenumberofhearings.Fourteenpercentofmediatedcaseshad

achievedcaseresolutionpriortooronthesamedayasthescheduled30dayhearing,whicheliminated

theneedforsomefuturehearings.Fornonmediatedcases,only6%reachedcaseresolutionbeforethe

scheduled30dayhearing.

Further,51%ofmediatedcases

reachedcaseresolution(i.e.,

achievedadjudicationorder)

priortooronthesamedayas

thescheduledpretrial

conference.Thisnumberwas


10/16

10

fivetimesgreaterthanthe10%ofnonmediatedthatachievedcaseresolutionpriortothescheduled

pretrailconference.

Agreement/StipulationTheevaluationalsoexaminedagreement/stipulationrates.Caseresolution3isachievedinone

oftwoways:(1)partiescometoastipulatedagreementwherebythechargedpartyagreestothe

allegations(allorpartdependingontheagreement),or(2)thecasemustbeheardatacontestedtrial

byajudgeafterwhichthejudgedecideswhethersomeoralloftheallegationsaretrueorwhetherto

dismissthecase.Casesthatresultinanagreementdonotrequireafactfindinghearingwhereall

partiesmustparticipate;instead,thejudgereviewsandsignstheagreedorders.PhaseIIresults

indicatedthatmediatedcasesweresignificantlymorelikelytohaveagreedordersforadjudication.

Specifically,

in

93

percent

of

the

mediated

cases,

parties

came

to

an

agreement

on

case

allegations

and

serviceplancomparedto67percentofthenonmediatedcases.Statedanotherway,only7%of

mediatedcaseswenttotrial,whereas,33%ofnonmediatedcasesresultedinacontestedtrial.

EngagementNumberofServicesOrdered.Thenumberofservicesorderedformotherstendedtodifferfor

mediatedandnonmediatedcases.Inthemediatedcases,theorderedserviceplanincludedanaverage

ofnearlyfourservicesforthemother.Inthenonmediatedcases,theorderedserviceplanincludedan

averageofjustunderthreeservicesforthemother.Giventhatcaseandallegationcharacteristicswere

similarformediatedandnonmediatedcases,itisappearsthatmediationalonecontributedtomore

servicesbeingorderedformothers.

Servicesforfathers,incontrast,werenotnoticeablydifferentbetweenthemediatedandnon

mediatedgroups.Inthemediatedcases,theorderedserviceplanincludedanaverageofoneservicefor

thefather,andsimilarlyfornonmediatedcasestheorderedserviceplanincludedanaverageofjust

overoneserviceforthefather.

ComplianceFindings. Compliancewasmeasuredbyexaminingajudicialfindingofno,partialor

fullcomplianceatthefirstreviewandpermanencyhearings.Themediatedandnonmediatedgroups

didnotshowanymajordifferencesincaseplancomplianceattherevieworpermanencyhearing.

3Forthisstudy,researchersonlyexaminedthefirstparenttoreachcaseresolutionandcodedthatparentsfactfindingfor

dateandagreement.


11/16

11

Researchersusedaregressionmodeltoestimatetheinfluenceofmediation,servicesordered,and

parentspresenceonafindingofcompliancewiththecourtorderedcaseplan.Astocompliance

findingsformothersandfathers,mediationdidnothaveastatisticallysignificanteffectonthelikelihood

ofacompliancefindingbythejudge.However,forthemothers,thenumberofservicesorderedwasa

strongnegativepredictorofacompliancefinding.Thatis,findingsofcompliancewerelesslikelyfor

motherswhowereorderedmoreservices.Inaddition,findingsofcomplianceweremorecommonfor

motherswithfewerservices.Thiswastrueforboththemediatedandnonmediatedgroups.Thisfinding

issignificantatthe0.05level.

ParticipationinHearings.Anothermeansofassessingeffectivenessofengagingpartiesisto

examinepresenceofthepartiesatkeycourthearings.Forthisassessment,presenceofthepartiesat

the72hoursheltercare,30Daysheltercare,adjudication(whennotagreedupon),firstreview,and

firstpermanencyhearingwerecoded.Apercentageoftimepresentvariablewascalculatedbasedon

thenumberoftimestheparentappearedatahearingdividedbythenumberofkeyhearingsthat

occurred.Percentagesrangedfrom0to100%.Overall,mothersappearedat67%ofthehearingsand

fathersappearedat41%ofthehearings.Motherspresencewasidenticalformediatedandnon

mediatedcases.Fatherspresencewasslightlyhigherformediatedcases(43%)ascomparedtonon

mediatedcases(38%).Thisdifferencewasstatisticallysignificant.

Outcomes

ChildrensPlacement.Mediationappearstohavesomeeffectonchildrensplacement,

particularlyintermsofrelativeplacementatthereviewandpermanencyhearingstageofthecase.

Childrenwithmediatedcasesweremorelikelytobeinrelativeplacements,andlesslikelytobeinnon

relativefostercarethanchildrenwithnonmediatedcases.Thesenumbersapproached(butdidnot

quiteachieve)statisticallysignificance,butdodemonstrateaconsistenttrend.


12/16

12

Placement

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Parent Relative Foster

Care


Care


Care

Adjudication Review Permanency

Mediated

Non-Mediated

CaseOutcomes.Only27(outof103)caseshadreachedcaseclosureatthetimeofthe

assessment.Oftheseclosedcases,mediatedcasesandnonmediatedcasesdidnotdiffersignificantlyin

caseoutcomes.Themajorityofbothcasetypesthathadreachedcaseclosure,closeddueto

reunificationwiththeparent.Anassessmentofsafety(measuredasanewpetitionfiledfollowingthe

originalpetition)foundnodifferenceinmediatedandnonmediatedcases.Becausethesamplesizeof

casesthathadachievedcaseclosurewassosmall,itisimpossibletoexamineanydifferences

statistically.

Race

Theracialmakeupofthemediatedandnonmediatedcaseswassimilar.Aracevariablewas

includedinalloftheanalysesthatcomparedWhite/Caucasianchildrentominoritychildren.4Results

fromtheanalysesrevealedthattherewerenoracialdifferencesintheeffectivenessofmediation.That

is,bothCaucasianandminorityfamilieshadsimilaroutcomesontheaboveanalyses.Onesmall(non

significant)differencedidappear. Caucasianfamilieswereslightlymorelikelytonotreachagreementin

mediation;whereas,minorityfamiliesweremorelikelytocometopartial(insteadoffull)agreementin

mediation.

4 Race could not be examined by each racial group separately because of the small number of cases.


13/16

13

TheKingCountyJuvenileMediationProgramoffersimprovedefficiency

ofcaseprocessingwithoutanydetrimenttoeffectiveness.

Racial Differences in Level of Mediation Agreement

Reached

0

10

20

30

40

50

6070

80

No Partial Full

Minority

Caucasian

ImplicationsTheKingCountyJuvenileCourtMediationPilotProgramfindingssuggestthatmediationhasa

positiveeffectontimelinessandjudicialworkload.Mediatedcasesreachedadjudicationfaster,and

tendedtoresultinfewerhearingsbecausetheyreachedstipulatedadjudicationpriortoscheduled30

day,pretrial,oradjudicationhearings.Ultimately,theresultwasthatthatjudgesheldfewerhearings.

Mediationalsoappearstopositivelyinfluenceplacement.Mediatedcaseshavemorerelative

placementsandfewerfostercareplacementsatreviewandpermanencythannonmediatedcases.This

maysuggestthatmediationresultsingreaterdiscussionofpotentialrelativeplacements,which

increasestheprobabilitythatachildcanbeplacedinamorefamiliarrelativeplacementasopposedto

strangerfostercareplacements.

Conclusion

Resultsofthisassessmentindicatethatmediationiseffectiveinincreasingtimelinessofcase


14/16

14

processingearlyinthecase,therebyreducingtheworkloadofjudgesandcommissionersinKingCounty.

Mediationdoesnotappeartohavelongtermeffectsonthehearingtimelinessinthecase,atleastnot

intermsoftimelinesstorevieworpermanencyhearings.Itdoesappearthatmediationaffects

placementatreviewandpermanencyhearings,resultinginmorerelativeplacementsandfewerfoster

careplacements.However,nodifferenceswerefoundintimelinesstopermanencyorcompliancewith

thecaseplan.Whilethisindicatesnodetrimenttotheeffectivenessofmediation,itisnotconsistent

withothermediationstudiesthatnoteamarkedimprovementincompliance.Webelievethismaybea

resultofindividualdifferencesinperceptionsofthemediationprocess.Thenextphaseinthisresearch

hasalreadybegun.PhaseIIIexaminesdifferencesinperceptionsofmediation.Parentsaresurveyedat

theconclusionofthemediationprocessandaskedquestionsconcerningtheirengagementinand

satisfactionofthemediationprocess.Otherstakeholdersarealsosurveyedtodeterminetheir

perception

of

the

mediation

process.

This

assessment

will

allow

researchers

a

more

in

depth

examinationofparentsengagementinthemediationprocessandwillalsoallowforfurtheranalysesto

determineifengagedparentshavedifferentoutcomesthanthosewhoarelessengaged(i.e.,better

caseoutcomes,increasedcaseplancompliance,reducedreentryintocare).


15/16

15

References

Airey,P.L.(1999).Itsanaturalfit:Expandingmediationtoalleviatecongestioninthetroubledjuvenile

courtsystem.TheAmericanAcademyofMatrimonialLawyers,16,275292.

CenterforPolicyResearch(1999).DependencymediationinColoradosFourthJudicialDistrict.Denver,

CO:CenterforPolicyResearch.

Coleman,R.,&Ruppel,J.(2007).Childpermanencymediationpilotproject:Mutlisiteprocessand

outcomeevaluationstudy.NewYork:NewYorkStateOfficeofChildrenandFamilyServices.

Dobbin,S.,Gatowski,S.,&Litchfield,M.(2001).TheEssexCountychildwelfaremediationprogram:

Evaluationresultsandrecommendations.Reno,NV:NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamily

Court

Judges.

Duquette,D.N.,Hardin,M.,&Dean,C.P.(1999).Adoption2002:Thepresidentsinitiativeonadoptionandfostercare.Guidelinesforpublicpolicyandstatelegislationgoverningpermanencyfor

children.Washington,D.C.:TheNationalClearinghouseonChildAbuseandNeglect.

Edwards,L.,&SantaClaraModelCourtTeamMembers(2002).Mediationinjuveniledependencycourt:

Multipleperspectives.JuvenileandFamilyCourtJournal,53(4),4965.

Edwards,L.(2009).Childprotectionmediation:A25yearperspective.FamilyCourtReview,47(1),69

80.

Gatowski,S.,Dobbin,S.,Litchfield,M.,&Oetjen,J.(2005).Mediationinchildprotectioncases:An

evaluationoftheWashington,D.C.familycourtchildprotectionmediationprogram.Reno,NV:

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges.

InstituteforFamiliesinSociety.(2003).FinalreporttotheMecklenburgCountyfamilycourtmediation

program.AvailablefromChildWelfareInformationGatewayWebsite,

http://www.childwelfare.gov.

Kathol,J.(2009).Trendsinchildprotectionmediation:Resultsofthethinktanksurveyandinterviews.

FamilyCourtReview,47(1),116128.

Kelly,J.B.(2004).Familymediationresearch:Isthereempiricalsupportforthefield?ConflictResolution

Quarterly,22(12),335.


16/16

16

NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourtJudges.(1995).RESOURCEGUIDELINES:Improvingcourt

practiceinchildabuse&neglectcases.Reno,NV:NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamilyCourt

Judges.

OfficeoftheExecutiveSecretaryoftheSupremeCourtofVirginia(2002).Child

dependency

mediation

report.Retrievedfrom

http://www.courts.state.va.us/courtadmin/aoc/djs/programs/drs/mediation/resources/child_d

ependency_mediation_report.pdf

ResolutionSystemsInstitute(2010).Childprotectionmediation:Anevaluationofservicesprovidedby

CookCountyjuvenilecourt.Chicago,IL:Author.

Stack,K.(2003).Informationpacket:Childwelfaremediation.NewYork:NationalResourceCenterfor

FosterCare&PermanencyPlanning.

Thoennes,N.(1997).AnevaluationofchildprotectionmediationinfiveCaliforniacourts. Familyand

ConciliationCourtsReview,35,184195.

Thoennes,N.(1998).Dependencymediation.ReporttotheSanFranciscoFoundation,March1998.

Denver,CO:CenterforPolicyResearch.

Thoennes,N.(2000).Dependencymediation:Helpforfamiliesandcourts.JuvenileandFamilyCourt

Journal,51(2),1322.

Thoennes,N.(2001).DependencymediationinOregonandtheNation. ReportpreparedfortheOregon

JudicialDepartmentJuvenileCourtProgramsDivision,March2001.Denver,CO:Centerfor

PolicyResearch.

Thoennes,N.(2002).HamiltonCountyjuvenilecourtpermanentcustodymediation.Denver,CO:Center

forPolicyResearch.

Trosch,L.A.,Sanders,L.T.,&Kugelmass,S.(2002).Childabuse,neglect,anddependencymediation

pilotproject.JuvenileandFamilyCourtJournal,53(4),6777.

King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011

Documents

Transcript of King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011