Mediation in Child Protection Cases: An Evaluation of the Washington, D.C. Family Court Child Protection Mediation Program

Gatowski, Sophia I. et al. Apr. 1, 2005

Description of Study: Comparative study of an early case child protection mediation program in the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division, Superior Court of the District of Columbia from January 1, 2002 to September 30, 2002. Looked at disposition time and satisfaction.

Method: Cases were tracked for 24 months through review of case files, the court information management system, and mediation program files; further data gathered through mediation program exit surveys, stakeholder interviews, and observations of traditional hearing process and mediations.

Comparative: Yes

Comparison Groups: Cases randomly assigned to mediation and those that were randomly assigned to the traditional hearing process

Sample Size: 200 cases in each group

Variables Examined: Impact of mediation on case planning, case processing timeframes, timeliness of achieving permanency, participant satisfaction (this last variable was not studied comparatively)

Program Variables: The child protection program was in place four years before initiation of the study; however, the use of mediation early in the case was in pilot phase at the time of the study. Mediation for this pilot was mandatory for purposes of the study.

Case types: Child Protection and Dependency

Findings: Average time from petition or removal was 39 days for out-of-home cases, 41 days for in-home cases. 93% of cases were settled in some manner. Mediated cases reached adjudication, disposition, and case closure significantly more quickly than non-mediated cases: 49 days v 86 days to adjudication, 69 days from first hearing to disposition v 132 days, 7.0 months from initial hearing to case closure v 8.6 months. 46% of mediated cases had closed as result of reunification, while 42% of non-mediated cases did so. 7% of mediated cases returned to court after case closure (measured through 24 months from petition), while 21% of non-mediated cases did so. Case planning was more detailed for mediated cases – with 4.4 services ordered post-mediation, compared with 2.9 for non-mediated cases.