Small Claims

Multi-Option ADR Project Evaluation Report — July 1999-March 2000

Description
Study of type of disposition, settlement rate, session length, and satisfaction for a multi-door ADR project.

Method
A survey was sent to 600 ADR participants to determine case status and satisfaction with the selected disposition process.

Sample Size
208 questionnaires returned of 600 mailed for cases referred between July 1999 and March 2000

Program Variables
Program was begun in 1996. The options included a for-fee civil and probate mediation program, a for-fee family law mediation program, a free small claims mediation program, a free judicial arbitration program, and a free juvenile dependency mediation program. Roster mediators in for-fee options were paid by the parties. The program was voluntary; parties selected an ADR process and the neutral during the case management phase (which begins 120 days after filing).

Full Findings
Survey responses indicated that 64% of cases filed participated in some form of ADR. Of those, 65% settled or partly settled in the ADR session. The most utilized method of ADR was mediation; 88% of those who reported using ADR participated in mediation. Another 6% used private settlement, 3% used early neutral evaluation, and 2% used arbitration. Most cases participated in ADR after some discovery had been conducted. Of those who responded, 76% thought that ADR reduced court time. They also overwhelmingly thought the process was fair.

The family law program had just begun at the time of the evaluation; no data had yet been collected except resolution rate, which stood at 70%. Surveys of those involved in small claims mediation showed that 48% settled in mediation; nevertheless, 91% believed mediation was a positive experience.

Evaluation of the Iowa Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs

Description
Comparative study of a court mediation program in “Mountain County”, Georgia, undertaken with an interest in examining the manner in which ADR programs interact with the civil justice system.

Method
Examined court records and program files for data on referral rates and patterns, trial rates, and time from filing to case closure as well as referral to case closure.

Sample Size
1400 non-mediated cases, 627 mediated cases

Program Variables
Referrals were mainly from the superior court, and mainly for domestic relations cases. Some referrals from the state court (which covers civil cases not under the jurisdiction of superior court). Mediators were assigned by the ADR program director. Mediators were both attorneys and non-attorneys with 20 hours training (more if family mediators).

Full Findings
34% of mediated cases settled through mediation, 68% settled without judicial disposition. In non-mediated cases, 59% settled. The trial rate was higher, however, for mediated cases (11.2% v 5.4%). Time to disposition was not affected by mediation. As referral rates never exceeded 6%, there was negligible impact on the court’s workload.

An Evaluation of Selected Mediation Programs in the Massachusetts Trial Court

Description
Looked at the attitudes of parties toward mediation in 6 District Court programs and 3 Superior Court programs in Massachusetts.

Method
Used exit survey data from about 80% of all district court cases and 63% of Superior Court cases.

Sample Size
487 responses in District Court (at least one response from approximately 80% of all cases); 642 in Superior Court (at least one response from approximately 63% of all cases)

Program Variables
District Court programs were voluntary, mediated by volunteers, and free to participants. Superior Court programs were voluntary and mediated for a fee. The programs had been in existence several years at the time the study was conducted.

Full Findings
33% of District Court mediation participants believed mediation reduced their costs; 45% said it did not. In two of the Superior Court programs 47% of parties thought that mediation reduced their costs while 26% thought it did not. Only 20% of participants in the third program thought their costs were reduced by mediating their case; 49% thought they were not reduced. These results contrast with the responses of the lawyers, 40-67% of whom believed mediation reduced their clients' costs.

In District Court, 70-80% of parties were completely or mostly satisfied with the outcome; 92-100% were satisfied with the fairness of the process. However, only 40% thought mediation improved their relationship with the other party. In the Superior Court programs, 51-71% were satisfied with the outcome of their mediation, while 89-94% were satisfied with the fairness of the process. Fewer believed mediation improved their relationship with the other party, with only 23-43% believing so. There was a high correlation between satisfaction with the outcome and satisfaction with the fairness of the process.

The Metrocourt Project Final Report

Description
Looked at whether women and minorities achieved different results than males and non-minorities in both adjudicated and mediated small claims cases in Albuquerque, NM.

Method
Collected three data sets: a “civil” sample that was drawn from the Court’s Civil Division records for cases filed during the year of the study; a “random sample” that represented “randomly selected cases from which the mediated cases eventually emanated”; and a “study sample” made up of mediated and adjudicated cases from the main part of the study. The civil sample was used to determine the characteristics of civil cases. The random sample was used to compare characteristics of cases that went to mediation to those of cases that did not. The study sample was the sample for which the comparison of satisfaction and outcomes was conducted. For the study sample, telephone interviews of parties were conducted as soon as possible after mediation or trial. Follow up questionnaires were sent six months later. The true monetary outcome was derived from Vidmar’s formula: final award minus admitted liability divided by amount claimed minus admitted liability.

Sample Size
603 total cases from the “study sample”: 323 adjudicated and 280 mediated

Program Variables
Voluntary, free program mediated by volunteer co-mediators on-site.

Full Findings
Minority claimants paid more and minority respondents received less in mediation than non-minorities, but had the highest rates of satisfaction. White women paid less in mediation, but had the lowest rate of satisfaction. The disparity between minorities and non-minorities was eliminated when two minority mediators were involved. Over all, claimant satisfaction with the outcome and the process was the same for adjudication and mediation; respondent satisfaction was higher for mediation than for adjudication, and higher than that for claimants in mediation. Long-term satisfaction with the outcome was greater for mediation respondents than for adjudication respondents. The same percentage of claimants in both processes reported long-term satisfaction. Parties who reached agreement in mediation were far more likely to express satisfaction with mediation outcomes than those who did not reach agreement.

Small Claims Mediation in Three Urban Courts

Description
Comparative study looking at satisfaction and the impact of mediation on the court's time in small claims courts in Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; and Des Moines, Iowa.

Method
Examined court records, surveyed a small sample of litigants who mediated and those who did not.

Sample Size
167 litigants who mediated, 45 who did not

Program Variables
Mediation was mandatory in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon (unless witnesses were involved); mediation was voluntary in Des Moines. Mediators in Portland and Des Moines were volunteers; those in Washington were paid $30 per case. Mediators in Washington received 40 hours of training and were observed for 3-5 mediations. Those in Portland received 32 hours of training and were observed for 3 sessions. In Des Moines, the mediators were initially four retired businessmen who received no training. After 3 years, 20 hours of training was provided. Mediations average 60 minutes in Washington, 65-75 minutes in Portland. The session length was not provided for Des Moines.

Full Findings
Satisfaction with the outcome was higher for mediated cases in Washington and Portland; it was the same in Des Moines. Satisfaction with the process was higher for mediated cases in Washington, the same in Portland, and lower in Des Moines. The author estimated that each case settled saved 30-45 minutes of judge time. In both Washington and Des Moines more than 1000 cases were settled in mediation in 1990.

An Assessment of Mediation in a Small Claims Court

Description
Examined the reasons for compliance in small claims cases in an Ontario court - focusing on the extent of admitted liability by the defendant.

Method
Took random sample of mediated cases. Conducted interviews with parties prior to mediation, observed mediations and trials, conducted follow-up interviews with parties 6-12 weeks after the case was resolved (by mediation or adjudication). The sample consisted of 180 cases filed from September 1, 1981 to April 30, 1982.

Divided the cases in terms of amount of liability admitted by the defendant: none, partial, and full. Examined variables based upon these different groupings.

Sample Size
180 cases: 89 classified as no-liability cases, 73 as partial-liability cases, and 18 as full-liability cases

Program Variables
This was a voluntary service provided by staff "referees" without charge to the parties. The process was called a hearing, not mediation, and the referee was highly evaluative; however, the author found the process to be very similar to mediation.

Full Findings
The settlement rate for no liability cases was 43%. Partial liability cases settled 69% of the time and full liability cases 89% of the time. These results are statistically significant. There were also more all-or-nothing results for no liability cases than for partial or full liability cases. There was significantly greater compliance in partial liability cases than those in which the defendant admitted no liability. The sample was too small to statistically check compliance differences between mediation and adjudication. Mediation compliance was 93-100% (full or partial compliance). Admitted liability may complement the consensus hypothesis (see McEwen and Maiman, 1984) regarding reasons for greater compliance in mediation.

Satisfaction with the outcome was not correlated with whether the case was settled or later adjudicated, the form of liability admission (partial or none), or compliance. It was correlated with the perception that the hearing or trial was fair and with the percentage of the amount in dispute won by the plaintiff.

Small Claims Mediation in Maine: An Empirical Assessment

Description
Comparative study that looked at the impact of mediation in small claims cases on compliance and satisfaction.

Method
Compared 3 courts with programs with 3 corresponding courts without programs. Interviewed litigants from randomly sampled cases 4-8 weeks after the case was tried or mediated, observed mediation and court sessions, and analyzed court dockets and mediation reports.

Sample Size
Of 403 cases selected, 97% had at least one party participate in the interview and 75.6% had both parties participate. More than 70 mediation sessions and 30 small claims court sessions were observed. Information on more than 18,000 cases was gleaned from court dockets from all six courts over a five-year period.

Program Variables
Voluntary, free program mediated by volunteers at the courthouse. Often, voluntariness of the process was not clear, or the judge ordered the parties to mediation (13.9% of cases). In 32.6% of cases, mediation was not available at the time the case was called.

Full Findings
Satisfaction with mediation was 80% if the parties had continuing relationships, 65% if they did not – over all, 66.6% of parties were mostly or completely satisfied, as compared to 54% of those who adjudicated their cases. 67.1% of mediation participants thought the final settlement was fair, as opposed to 59% of those in adjudication. The correlation between percent the settlement was of the original claim and the parties' sense of fairness in mediation was weaker than in adjudication. Both parties thought the settlement was fair in 44% of mediation cases, and in 23.5% of adjudicated cases. Compliance was greater in mediated cases that settled – with 70.6% paid in full, as compared to 33.8% of adjudicated cases and 52.8% of mediated cases that did not settle.