Post on 05-Apr-2018
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
1/16
2011
PermanencyPlanningforChildren
Department
NationalCouncilofJuvenileandFamily
CourtJudges
7/6/2011
PPCDRESEARCHREPORTKINGCOUNTYMEDIATIONPROGRAMASSESSMENT
PHASEII
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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
caninfo@ncjfcj.org
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
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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;
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
12/16
12
Placement
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Parent Relative Foster
Care
Parent Relative Foster
Care
Parent Relative Foster
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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).
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.
7/31/2019 King County Mediation Program Assessment Phase II, WA, 2011
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.