Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:24 am
Time: 1:24 am
Results for family mediation
3 results foundAuthor: Kaspiew, Rae Title: Evaluation of a Pilot of Legally Assisted and Supported Family Dispute Resolution in Family Violence Cases. Final report Summary: Evidence of the prevalence of a history of past and/or current family violence among separated parents, and the presence of ongoing safety concerns for themselves and their children as a result of ongoing contact with the other parent, has created an impetus for the family law system to find more effective ways of dealing with families affected by family violence. In July 2009, the Federal Government announced funding for a pilot program to provide assistance, including family dispute resolution (FDR), to such families. Subsequently, Women’s Legal Service Brisbane (and other consultants) were funded by the Attorney- General’s Department (AGD) to develop a model for coordinated family dispute resolution (CFDR). CFDR is a service for separated families who need assistance to resolve parenting disputes where there has been a history of past and/or current family violence. It is being implemented in five sites/lead agencies across Australia: Perth (Legal Aid Western Australia), Brisbane (Telephone Dispute Resolution Service [TDRS], run by Relationships Australia Queensland), Newcastle (Interrelate), Western Sydney (Unifam) and Hobart (Relationships Australia Tasmania). TDRS made adaptions to the model to accommodate its telephone-based service. The pilot commenced operation at most sites in the final quarter of 2010. Implementation in one location (Brisbane) was delayed until mid-2011 to allow time to finalise the composition of the partnership. CFDR is a process where parents are assisted with post-separation parenting arrangements where family violence has occurred in the relationship. The process involves a case manager/family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP), a specialist family violence professional (SFVP) for the person assessed to be the “predominant victim” in the language of the model, a men’s support professional (MSP) for the person assessed to be the “predominant aggressor” (when they are male),a a legal advisor for each party and a second FDRP. Child consultants are part of the professional team and may be called upon to feed into case management decisions. Child-inclusive practice may be applied in particular cases, but only one location applied it frequently and a second infrequently. Specialised risk assessment and management takes place throughout the process, which unfolds over several steps involving screening, intake and assessment, preparation for mediation, mediation (up to four or more sessions) and post-mediation follow-up. The process is applied in a multi-agency, multidisciplinary setting and it aims to provide a safe, non-adversarial and child-sensitive means for parents to sort out their postseparation parenting disputes. The level of support provided to parents is intensive, and this is a key means by which the process attempts to keep children and parties safe and ensure that power imbalances resulting from family violence do not impede parents’ ability to participate effectively. This report sets out the findings of an evaluation of the CFDR process that has been funded by the Attorney-General’s Department. The evaluation was based on a mixed-method approach involving several different data collections. These were: a study based on case file data from the entire cohort of CFDR files up to 30 June 2012 (n = 126), and a sample of comparison group files (n = 247) drawn from services run by each of the lead partners where CFDR services were not offered; a qualitative study based on interviews with professionals working in the pilot (n = 37) in the early stages of implementation, and a second study comprising interviews with professionals (n = 33) near the end of the evaluation data collection period (April–June 2012); mixed-profession focus groups (participants: n = 37), conducted between August and November 2011; an online survey of professionals, conducted in June–July 2012 (n = 88, with a response rate of 68%); interviews with parents who received the CFDR services and progressed to mediation, conducted as eligible parents became available (n = 29). An online survey was also available to parents; however, the smaller-than-expected number of pilot cases meant very small numbers of people were eligible to complete the survey. Therefore, the evaluation team focused on conducting interviews with as many parents as possible and incorporated data from the seven completed online surveys in the analysis of the qualitative data; and requests for information (conducted via discussions with location coordinators) that examined how the model was adapted and implemented in each location. Details: Barton, ACT: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyLawSystem/Documents/CFDR%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20December%202012.PDF Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyLawSystem/Documents/CFDR%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20December%202012.PDF Shelf Number: 128180 Keywords: Dispute SettlementDivorceFamily InterventionsFamily MediationFamily Violence (Australia)Intimate Partner Violence |
Author: Flower, Shawn M. Title: Community Mediation Maryland: Reentry Mediation Recidivism Analysis Summary: The CMM Reentry Mediation model responds to a need identified through research and through the experiences of staff and volunteers who have worked in prisons and with people returning from prison, or have family members incarcerated and experience the reentry process first-hand. Reentry Mediation supports inmates and their families or other support people to discuss their past experiences, to build understanding, and to jointly plan for reentry into the family structure and community before the inmate is released. The Abell Foundation in Baltimore City Maryland funded this analysis of the effect of prisoner reentry mediation on recidivism. This study examines 123 individuals who received mediation (the treatment group) to 497 that requested and were eligible to participate, but did not receive mediation (the comparison group) between February 2009 and June 2012. These groups are compared to discover whether there were significant differences between the groups. The method of analysis used to assess post-release outcomes is logistic regression, which provides a predicted probability of the outcomes (measured by arrest, conviction and incarceration) and is calculated based on all of the factors in the regression model. Cox Regression survival analysis was also used to compare the treatment and comparison groups in their time to failure (defined here as a post-release arrest or conviction). The survival analysis seeks to determine whether those who did not mediate "failed" (e.g., were rearrested) sooner than those who did mediate. Key findings of this study are as follows: - Demographic and criminal history differences between the treatment group and comparison group are few; those who participated in mediation are generally of the same age and gender, have similar criminal backgrounds based on both self-reported data at intake (e.g., age at first involvement in crime) and State of Maryland Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) data; while this does not obviate concerns surrounding selection bias, the similarities between the treatment and comparison group build a strong case of comparability between the two groups; - There were differences among the treatment and comparison groups on several questions concerning quality of the relationship with the person the inmate participant wishes to mediate with (referred to as the "outside participant"). Those who mediated were more likely to view the outside participant as playing a more positive role in their life, expressed a higher degree of happiness with this person, and said they confided in each other more often than those who did not mediate. However, these factors were not significant on any measures of recidivism; - One question was predictive of both participating in mediation and arrest post-release was "I feel I have no control over this relationship".Participants are asked their level of agreement with this statement on a scale of 1 to 5 (set up so that higher values indicating a more positive response) or a greater level of empowerment in their relationship with the other participant. Inside participants who felt they had greater control in the relationship were significantly more likely to go to mediation and were also more likely to be arrested post-release. Comparisons by race and gender on this measure indicate non-whites reporting higher degree of control compared to white subjects; there were no differences by gender. While we theorize this question measures positive feelings of empowerment in a relationship, perhaps this measures some another attribute (e.g., overconfidence) that may operate differentially for those who mediate versus those who do not. - Participation in reentry mediation has a significant impact on the likelihood that an individual will be arrested post-release. After controlling for key factors that may otherwise explain this finding (e.g., length of criminal career, gender, age, race, days since release), the predicted probability1 of arrest for those who participate in mediation is 21% vs. 31% for those who do not participate in mediation; - The number of sessions is also a significant factor - with each additional mediation session, the probability of arrest is reduced by 6%; - There was no impact of mediation on post-release conviction or incarceration once crucial factors were controlled in the model, which may be related to the small sample size and the low rates of conviction overall during the time period examined; and - The Cox Regression survival analysis reveals that mediation reduces the hazard (or risk of arrest) by 37% compared to those who do not mediate. Each additional mediation session reduces the risk of arrest by 23% compared to those who did not mediate. The key to understanding the saliency of these findings is that the greatest limitation of mediation may also be its greatest strength - it is a short-term "intervention". In fact, the majority of the 123 mediation participants had but one 2 hour session. The impact of mediation is believed to be indirect and akin to a critical course correction to turn an individual away from a criminal trajectory through the improved relationship with family and support persons and adherence to agreements and plans negotiated during mediation. Details: Greenbelt: MD: Choice Research Associates, 2013. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2014 at: http://re-entrymediation.org/PDFS/CMM_Recidvism_Final_04_18_2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://re-entrymediation.org/PDFS/CMM_Recidvism_Final_04_18_2013.pdf Shelf Number: 132254 Keywords: Community MediationFamilies of InmatesFamily InterventionsFamily MediationPrisoner ReentryRecidivism |
Author: Summerfield, Amy Title: Public Experiences of and Attitudes towards the Family Justice System Summary: The Ministry of Justice is responsible for achieving the Government's vision of a supportive and effective family justice system. This analytical summary presents findings from the 2012/13 Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) examining public attitudes and experiences of the family justice system, including mediation. The CSEW is a nationally representative household survey. In the 2012/13 survey, around 35,000 adults were interviewed. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Analytical Summary: Accessed June 17, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319365/public-experience-family-justice-system.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319365/public-experience-family-justice-system.pdf Shelf Number: 132483 Keywords: Family CourtFamily MediationPublic AttitudesPublic Opinion |