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
  • Mediation Efficacy Studies
    • Overview
    • Adult Criminal
    • Appellate
    • Bankruptcy
    • Child Protection and Dependency
      • 2004 and prior
      • 2000 and prior
    • Community Mediation
    • Family
      • 1999 and prior
      • 1996 and prior
      • 1991 and prior
    • General Civil
      • 2000 and prior
      • 1995 and prior
    • Juvenile
    • Small Claims
    • Workers' Compensation

Adult Criminal

Show Sidebar

The Implementation of the Cobb County Magistrate Court Criminal Mediation Program and Its Effectiveness at Reducing the Number of Criminal Application Hearings Conducted

ANGIE T. DAVIS. INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT, MAY 1999.

Comparison

None

Variables

  • Case activity

Key Findings

  • Only 15% of cases were mediated
  • 81% of mediated cases were resolved at mediation
 

Description
Studied the impact of the mediation program on the number of warrant application hearings being conducted.

Method
Examination of court records to determine the number of warrant application hearings and mediations being conducted.

Sample Size
Not provided

Program Variables
Voluntary, free program in which parties were referred at the time the application hearing was scheduled.

Full Findings
Only 15% of all cases referred were mediated. Of those, 81% were resolved at mediation. The low number of mediations limited the impact on the number of warrant application hearings held.

Evaluation of the Adult Victim-Offender Mediation Program Saskatoon Community Mediation Services: Final Report

JOAN NUFFIELD. SASKATCHEWAN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, FEBRUARY 3, 1997.

Comparison

Those who had completed mediation, those who were referred to mediation and refused, and those who were not referred

Variables

  • Recidivism

Key Findings

  • Recidivism rate was not substantially different between those who did and did not complete mediation
 

Description
Comparison of recidivism rates of those who completed mediation and two groups that did not – those who were referred to mediation and refused, and those who were not referred.

Method
All cases referred in 1994 to mediation in Saskatoon area were selected for analysis. Interviews conducted with staff, mediation center board members, and volunteer mediators. Crown prosecutors, members of the defense bar, police officials, and government employees were also interviewed. Cases in Saskatoon were matched on age and gender (but not offense or prior conviction) to cases in Regina. Recidivism was examined two years after case disposition.

Sample Size
228 cases: 115 mediated, 113 not mediated (including 18 that went to mediation and did not reach agreement)

Program Variables
The program was voluntary. Adult offenders were referred if they acknowledged responsibility and had no substantial record, and would not be imprisoned if convicted. Mediators were paid staff and volunteers. The program had been in place 13 years at the time of the study.

Full Findings
The recidivism rate for those who completed mediation was not significantly different from the rate for those who did not.

Mediation of Criminal Conflict: An Assessment of Programs in Four Canadian Provinces

MARK S. UMBREIT ET AL. CENTER FOR RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND MEDIATION, SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. DECEMBER 21, 1995.

Comparison

Those who participated in mediation, those who were referred but did not participate, and those who were not referred

Variables

  • Agreement rate
  • Participant experience
  • Satisfaction

Key Findings

  • Both victims and offenders were more satisfied with the outcome in the mediation group compared to the control group
  • Victims and offenders in the mediation group were also more likely to see the justice system as fair
  • Those who participated in mediation overwhelmingly thought mediation was fair for both parties
  • Settlement rates were upwards of 90%
 

Description
Examination of mediation programs in British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario, in which offenses were most commonly assault and property crimes.

Method
Divided groups into those who mediated and those who were referred but did not mediate, with no significant demographic differences between the two samples. A total of 610 phone interviews were conducted 2 months after the mediation session or disposition of the case (comparison group). Some mediations were observed.

Sample Size
610 individuals: 323 complainants, 287 offenders

Program Variables
Voluntary mediation provided by volunteer mediators off site without charge to the parties. The programs were operating from 2 (Ontario) to 12 years (Manitoba) prior to the study.

Full Findings
In the mediation group, 78% of victims and 74% of offenders were satisfied with the outcome. In comparison, only 48% of victims and 53% of offenders in the control group were satisfied with their outcome.

The mediation group was also more likely to see the justice system as fair: 80% of victims and offenders in that group did so, while only 43% of the victims and 56% of the offenders in the control group did. Those who participated in mediation overwhelmingly viewed the agreement reached as fair to both themselves and the other party.

Settlement rates in the programs ranged from 90-99%.

Mediation of Interpersonal Disputes: An Evaluation of North Carolina's Programs

STEVENS H. CLARKE, ERNEST VALENTE JR., AND ROBYN R. MACE. INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, 1992.

Comparison

All cases eligible for mediation in program counties and all cases that would be eligible for mediation in matched non-program counties

Variables

  • Compliance
  • Court workload
  • Satisfaction
  • Time to resolution

Key Findings

  • Disposition time increased in two of the three programs, and trial rate decreased in one of the three programs
  • There was a high rate of satisfaction and a high level of compliance with both mediation and litigation
  • Complainant satisfaction was negatively related to commitment to solving the problem
  • Complainant satisfaction with the outcome was negatively related to money spent and positively related to agreement
 

Description
Evaluation of the mediation of misdemeanor cases in community mediation programs in Durham, Henderson, and Iredell Counties.

Method
Compared three counties with programs to three corresponding counties without programs. Examined all cases that were eligible for mediation in both program and non-program counties. Data was gathered from court records, mediation program records, and phone interviews of complainants (1 month and 6-10 months after court disposition).

Sample Size
237 of 810 complainants contacted from all six counties were interviewed. Data was collected from 1421 court cases and 544 cases selected for mediation.

Program Variables
Voluntary, free program mediated by volunteers.

Full Findings
Disposition time for all cases increased in two of three program counties and stayed the same in the third. The trial rate was not affected in two of three program counties and decreased in the third. There was a high rate of satisfaction over all with both mediation and litigation. There was also a high rate of compliance with both mediated and informal agreements.

Complainant satisfaction with the case was negatively related to his or her commitment to solving the problem. Complainant satisfaction with the outcome was negatively related to the amount of money he or she spent prosecuting the defendant and was positively related to reaching agreement.

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