Resolution Systems InstituteResolution Systems InstituteMenuDonate
  • Home
  • About
    • Overview
    • Mission
    • People
    • History
    • Awards
    • Careers
    • Support RSI
  • Services
    • Program Administration
    • Program Design
    • Research and Evaluation
  • Our Impact
    • Child Protection Mediation
    • Evaluation of a Child Protection Mediation Program
    • Eviction Mediation
    • Foreclosure Mediation
  • Resource Center
    • Overview
    • Court ADR Basics
    • Guide to Program Success
    • Mediation Efficacy Studies
    • Model Surveys
    • The OPEN Project: ODR Party Engagement
    • Peer Review Tools
    • Special Topics
  • Publications
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Donate
Combined ShapeBack to search results

An Evaluation of Mediation and Early Neutral Evaluation Under the Civil Justice Reform Act

Kakalik, James S.. Jan. 1, 1996
https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR803.html

Examines the implementation, costs, and effects of mediation and early neutral evaluation programs for civil cases in six federal district courts with CRJA pilot programs. The districts studied were: California (Southern), New York (Eastern), New York (Southern), Pennsylvania (Eastern), Oklahoma (Western), and Texas (Southern). Evaluated cases by time to disposition, cost of litigation, cost to the court for administering the ADR program, monetary outcomes, and by the views of providers, litigants and lawyers in terms of their satisfaction with case management and the fairness of case management. Concludes that there is no strong statistical evidence that the mediation or neutral evaluation programs, as implemented in the six district courts studied, significantly affected time to disposition, litigation costs, or attorney views of fairness or satisfaction with case management. ADR programs appear to increase the likelihood of a monetary settlement.

Description of Study: Evaluation of pilot mediation programs in the US District Courts of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York, the Western District of Oklahoma, and the Southern District of Texas.

Method: In each of the four districts, 150 mediated cases were compared to 150 non-mediated cases. Cases were randomly assigned in Pennsylvania and New York and matched in Oklahoma and Texas. Data sources were court records, reports of CJRA advisory groups, case dockets, attorney and ADR provider surveys, and interviews with judges, court staff, lawyers, and ADR providers.

Comparative: Yes

Comparison Groups: Mediated cases and non-mediated cases

Sample Size: 150 mediated cases and 150 non-mediated cases in each of the four districts

Variables Examined: Time to disposition, cost of litigation (hours and fees), monetary outcomes, cost to court, satisfaction of lawyers with the process

Program Variables: Two programs were mandatory (PA, NY), two programs voluntary (OK, TX). Mediations were conducted by volunteer mediators in PA and NY and by paid mediators in OK and TX. Attendance by the parties at the mediation was voluntary in NY. Total time in mediation averaged 6 hours in NY, 1-2 hours in PA, 5 hours in OK, and 8 hours in TX. The mediation style was primarily evaluative in NY and PA and facilitative in OK and TX. The programs were in place less than three years at the outset of the study.

Findings: There was no difference in time to disposition between mediation and non-mediation groups in PA, OK, and NY, and significantly slower in mediation in TX. No evidence was found showing that lawyer work hours or fees were affected by mediation. There was no difference in satisfaction as viewed by attorneys, but attorneys were satisfied over all.

11 E Adams Street, Suite 500, Chicago, IL 60603

  • 312.922.6475
  • info@aboutrsi.org
  • © 1998-2025 RSI
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn

To give you the best possible experience, this site uses cookies. If you continue browsing, you accept our use of cookies and agree to our Disclaimer, Privacy & Copyright policy.

Learn More