evaluation of the distance family mediation progect: report on phase iii of the technology-assisted...

8/12/2019 Evaluation of the Distance Family Mediation Progect: Report on Phase III of the Technology-Assisted Family Mediat

1/102

EVALUATION OF THE DISTANCE FAMILY

MEDIATION PROJECT

Report on Phase I I I of the Technology-Assisted

Famil y Mediation Project

March, 2013

Prepared for :

Mediate BC Society

Prepared by:

Catherine Tait

Catherine Tait Consulting

Victoria, British Columbia


2/102


3/102

iii

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and extend thanks to the Distance Family Mediation Project team members

who participated in the evaluation. Their contribution of time and insights were essential for this report.

Participants included the Project Mediators, the Mediation Advisor, the Family Justice Services Liaison

(FJSD) Liaison, and the Project Coordinator:

Mediators: Christine Bahr

Peter Baines

Jane Henderson, Q.C.

Carole McKnight

Ayne Meiklem

Andrea Perreaux

Eugene Raponi, Q.C.

Ronald Smith, Q.C.

Mediation Advisor: Nancy Baker

FJSD Liaison: Colleen Shaw

Project Coordinator: Susanna Jani

Thanks, too, to the Project clients who took the time to complete the client survey and provide

important insights into the experience of distance mediation from the point of view of the families

involved.

I would also like extend my thanks to the author of the Phase II evaluation report, Colleen Getz. The

Phase II report was the very useful starting point for this research. I drew on many of the results

presented in that report as a basis for comparison to results for Phase III, and based many of the

interview and client survey questions used in this evaluation on those developed for Phase II.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge and thank the Law Foundation of British Columbia for funding the

Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project and this evaluation, and Mediate BC Society and Family

Justice Services Division, Ministry of Justice for their guidance and support throughout the evaluation.


4/102

iv

Evaluation Highlights

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Projectreferred to also as the Distance Family Mediation

Projectwas an ambitious, multi-phase project which spanned the course of six years, from 2007-2012.

While driven by a number of objectives, its primary vision was to demonstrate the potential of using

technology to bring quality mediation services to families throughout British Columbia. This report

presents the evaluation results for the third and final phase of the Project.

Phase III provided mediation services to families undergoing separation or divorce, throughout British

Columbia, using information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as the telephone and web-based conferencing platforms. The Project was operated by the Mediate BC Society in 2011 and 2012.

British Columbias Ministry of Justice, Family Justice Services Division (FJSD), was a key collaboration

agency. Services were provided by a mix of private practice and public sector family mediators.

In most cases mediation parties were separated from each other and the mediator by some degree of

physical distance, leading to the term distance mediation. Interest in distance mediation arose

originally in part because a shortage of family mediation services outside the more populated areas of

the province prevented access to services for many families.

The Project had two prior Phases. Phase I investigated and confirmed the feasibility of using ICTs to

conduct appropriate, safe and effective family mediations. Phase II field tested the use of ICTs to deliver

actual mediations to families residing in remote and rural areas of BC. In almost all cases mediation was

conducted using the telephone. All mediation services in Phase II were offered free of charge. Mediate

BC embarked on Phase III by again offering distance mediation services to families, but changing some

key elements for this Phase:

Distance mediation services were made available to families throughout the province, includingthose living in populated and urban areas,

Fees were charged for services provided by private practice mediators participating in theProject, and

The use of a wider range of ICTs, including a web conferencing platform selected for the Project,was encouraged.

The overall objective of this Phase of the Project was:

to enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of family mediation in British Columbia by

further developing the distance mediation approach.


5/102

v

Questions related to four specific objectives were investigated for the evaluation of Phase III.

Information for the evaluation was gathered from the following sources:

A review of program documents and practice guidelines developed during the pilot Project; Records regarding inquiries and actual mediation cases maintained by Project team members; A written and on-line survey of clients who participated in Phase III mediations; Telephone and in-person interviews conducted with Project team members, and External data regarding the demographic profile of British Columbians.

PHASE III EVALUATION FINDINGS

Objective One: To further increase knowledge about distance mediation through its application to a

wider range of family mediation cases. This objective was fully achieved.

Phase III of the Project received 153 inquiries which resulted in 46 completed mediation cases.Many potential cases did not proceed because the parties were not interested in mediation,

declined the service, pursued other means to resolve their issues or failed to attend

appointments.

Landline telephones, cell phones, web conferencing and email were used in Phase III cases. Because web conferencing provides real-time visual contact between distant parties it had a

marked impact on the qualitative experience of distance mediation, especially when compared

to the audio-only experience of telephone.

Mediators found assessing safety issues at a distance to be effective for all of the technologiesused, though expressed a preference for video-enabled technologies.

Mediators suggested that cases more suited to distance mediation include those where theparties are comfortable with technology, low conflict cases and, conversely, high conflict cases,

as there is less emotional charge if the parties are not together in the same room. The client

survey also lends support to the particular usefulness of distance mediation in high conflict

cases.

Most of the advantages of distance mediation identified in Phase IIimproved access to service,efficiency and conveniencewere confirmed in Phase III. Additional advantages focussed on

the face-to-face simulation of web conferencing and the ease of use and the creation of a

business-like tone with the telephone. Clients, more than mediators, noted the advantage of

being physically separate from the other party.

Fewer disadvantages were cited in Phase III, particularly because the use of web conferencingovercame some of the limitations of an audio-only ICT.

However, while web conferencing has some advantages over the telephone for conductingmediations, it also introduces some new disadvantages, notably the potential for technical

glitches or difficulties.


6/102

vi

Project mediators felt that distance mediation compares favourably to traditional face-to-facemediations, a view shared by close to 80% of the client survey respondents who had had

previous experience with mediation.

FJSD mediators were unanimous that joint meetings conducted at a distance with ICTs arebetter, more effective and less time consuming than shuttle mediation.

Full or partial settlement of issues was achieved in 85% of Phase III cases. This compares wellwith settlement rates for other family mediations where ICTs are typically not used.

Just over half of the Project mediators felt that the difficulty of achieving an agreement wasabout the same for distance mediation as for in-person mediation. Some others felt that

parties commitment could be a bit less in distance mediation.

Between 60% and 70% of the client survey respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with themediation process, outcomes and their ability to speak freely and openly during mediation.

They also gave positive ratings to the reliability, effectiveness and ease of use of the ICTs used in

their mediations. Mediators also gave positive reviews to the ICTs; they were particularly

positive about the effectiveness of web conferencing.

Mediators gave positive reviews to Project training and tools, and expressed the view thatdistance mediation should only be conducted by experienced family mediators.

Objective Two: To improve the effectiveness and accessibility of mediation for all British Columbian

families by making distance mediation available province-wide and offering a support structure and

services through the Society [Mediate BC]. This objective was fully achieved.

About a third of client survey respondents would not have been able to use an alternativeservice to resolve their issues if the distance mediation service had not been available. This

supports the conclusion that offering technology-assisted distance mediation improved access

to mediation services in BC.

Clients were more likely to come from small and mid-sized communities, live outside theSouthwest region, be younger and better educated, and have mid-range incomes, than the

British Columbian adult population as a whole.

Parties to mediation cases (versus parties to cases that did not proceed) were more likely tohave access to nearly every form of ICT used in the Project. However, a high proportion of

parties who did not participate also had access to ICTs.

The most common reason that clients chose distance mediation is that they and the other partylived in different communities. Other reasons included a desire to avoid travel or in-person

mediation, the flexibility to access distance mediation outside working hours, reduced fees forthe Project mediations, environmental reasons and a preference for communicating using

technology.

Particular ICTs were often selected for individual cases because the technology was available toboth parties and the mediator and/or the parties were familiar with the ICT. About 75% of

client survey respondents had access to a computer, 70% had high speed internet and 63% had


7/102

vii

a webcam. Nearly everyone had experience with email, and two thirds had experience with a

web based meeting platform.

Telephone was used more frequently than web conferencing only for distance mediation among40-49 year olds. Those with lower incomes made use of web conferencing and telephone/cell

phones in nearly the same proportion, while the telephone was used much less frequently

among those of higher incomes.

Most clients who used web conferencing for their distance mediation had both prior experiencewith web conferencing and the necessary equipment, but some lacked one or both of these and

still proceeded with distance mediation using web conferencing. This suggests that some clients

find ways to access equipment that they lack, and are willing to try new technologies.

The Project Coordinator played a key role in implementing the Project, in promoting its servicesand supporting the mediators who participated. The Mediation Advisor role also supported

clients and mediators.

Mediators suggested that a private practice distance mediation service model could include adistance mediation practice group and/or special roster, technical support, inquiry support and

an adjunct, independent distance legal advice servicefor clients.

Objective Three: To work collaboratively with stakeholders in the family justice system to make

distance mediation available to British Columbians and to integrate it with available legal services. This

objective was mostly achieved.

The Project and Mediate BC generally, promoted awareness of the Distance Family Mediationservice widely with the public, family service agencies and the legal and dispute resolution

communities. Project activities such as the blog and Twitter feed proved popular and gained

recognition for the Project.

Just over half of those who contacted the Project had first heard about Project services througha Family Justice Counsellor and about 10% first heard of the service through a friend or family

member. Other sources included the Project pamphlet or advertisements, Legal Aid, other

Family Justice Services Division staff, a lawyer or the Court. This result, combined with the

intensive promotion and information sharing activities of the Project supports the conclusion

that the Project achieved its goals to collaborate with family justice stakeholders.

Most clients who participated in the Project were not represented by counsel. Projectmediators confirmed that they recommended obtaining independent legal advice to every

unrepresented client they served. Nearly two thirds of unrepresented client survey respondents

recalled receiving such a recommendation. While about two thirds of clients responding to the survey had, or intended to, obtain legal

advice, several did not intend to engage a lawyersome because they could not afford to do so.

A recommendation to incorporate a distance legal advice component was made by some

mediators and clients; this could be one means to further the objective of enhancing linkages to

legal advice services.


8/102

viii

Mediators found that team meetings were highly useful for information exchange within theteam.

Mediators participation in the other activities such as the Project blog and Twitter feed served to sustain their already keen interest in distance mediation and the Project.

Objective Four: To develop and test a financially sustainable, province-wide distance mediation service

delivery model which includes a user-pay feature. This objective was partially achieved.

A discounted Project fee rate applied to the seven mediations conducted by private practicemediators in Phase III. Because a very limited number of paid mediation cases were completed,

Phase III was not a strong test of a financially sustainable distance mediation model.

The discounted fee rate represented 25% to 100% of the m ediators usual fees, dependingonthe mediator. Two out of four private mediators in the Project would be willing to offer

distance mediation services at Project rates in the future and a third may be willing to do so.

Most clients surveyed indicated that they saved time and money by participating in distancemediation, and most who had paid a fee for service felt it was reasonable.

A question remains regarding how features of a private practice distance mediation model(including technical support, inquiry support and legal advice for clients) could be financially

sustained on an ongoing basis.

In conclusion, the Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project was an ambitious and successful

project that clearly demonstrated the benefits of using technology to bring mediation services to

families. Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Project is its contribution to the body of knowledge

regarding thepracticeof distance mediation. It achieved this through the real life test of technology

assisted mediations, and the subsequent dissemination of knowledge gained through the publication of

the Projects Practice Guidelines1and the dedicated information sharing with the wider legal and

dispute resolution communities.

The future for the practice of distance mediation is positiveand the results of this and the Phase II

evaluation confirm that mediation can be provided safely, effectively and competently at a distance.

1Mediating from a Distance: Suggested Practice Guidelines for Family Mediators, Second Edition, Mediate BC

Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, November 2012, which can be accessed at:http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-

14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspx
http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Guidelines_Mediating-from-a-Distance-%28Second-editi.aspx


9/102

ix

Contents

Evaluation Highlights .................................................................................................................. iv

Introduction and Background ................................................................................................................... ivPhase III Evaluation Findings ...................................................................................................................... v

Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Evaluation Scope and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 3

Methodology and Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 4

Chapter Two: About the Project ................................................................................................. 8

Process Flow .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Project Requirments and Scope................................................................................................................. 9

Project Team ............................................................................................................................................ 10

Features of the Project Service Model .................................................................................................... 11

Use of ICTs ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Deliverables and Outcomes ..................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter Three: Increased Knowledge About Distance Mediation ....................................... 14

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 14

1. Are technology-assisted mediations completed over the course of the Project? ............................ 15

2. How effective is assessment for violence and mediation capacity when ICTs are used in family

mediation? ......................................................................................................................................... 19

3. Which ICTs appear to be best suited to distance mediation generally? Which are better suited to

different parts of the mediation process? ......................................................................................... 25

4. Are particular types of family cases more suited to technology-assisted mediation than others? .. 27

5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using ICTs? ............................................................ 29

6. How does technology-assisted mediation compare with other approaches when distance is a

factor? ................................................................................................................................................ 33


10/102

x

7. How does technologyassisted mediation compare with existing dispute resolution approaches? 34

8. Can the broader benefits of mediation be realized when ICTs are used to conduct mediations? ... 37

9. Are the parties generally satisfied with their experience in mediation with ICTs? ........................... 39

10. Are Project mediators generally satisfied with their experience with ICTs in mediation? ............... 44

11. Do project tools support competent, safe and appropriate methods of technology-assisted family

mediation? ......................................................................................................................................... 47

12. What added skills or training should mediators acquire? ................................................................. 49

13. What are the primary lessons learned regarding the use of ICTs in family mediation? ................... 51

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 53

Chapter Four: Improved Effectiveness and Access to Mediation .......................................... 56

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 56

14. What is the demographic profile of the Projects clientele?............................................................. 57

15. What factors appear to encourage, or barriers prevent, parties use of technology-assisted

mediation services? ........................................................................................................................... 61

16. What influences the selection of particular ICTs? ............................................................................. 66

17. In what ways does the Mediation Advisor role support the provision of distance mediation? ....... 71

18. In what ways does the Project Coordinator role support the provision of distance mediation? ..... 72

19. Do mediators or clients identify other supports that would be helpful in a distance mediation

service model? ................................................................................................................................... 73

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 75

Chapter Five: Collaboration with Stakeholders and Integration with Legal Services ........ 77

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 77

20. Do stakeholders in the family justice system direct clientele to the Project? .................................. 77

21. Do Project clients access independent legal advice? ........................................................................ 79

22. Do the opportunities for information exchange increase mediators interest in providing or making

referrals to distance mediation? ....................................................................................................... 82

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 83


11/102

xi

Chapter Six: Financially Sustainable Distance Family Mediation Service ........................... 84

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 84

23. To what extent do fees paid by clients cover the cost of mediator services? .................................. 85

24. To what extent are clients willing to pay for distance mediation services?...................................... 85

25. To what extent are mediators willing to provide distance mediation services at Project rates? ..... 86

Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 87

Chapter Seven: Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 88


12/102

1

Chapter One: Introduction

INTRODUCTION

The Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project2was an ambitious, multi-phase project which

spanned the course of six years, from 2007-2012. While driven by a number of objectives, its primary

vision was to demonstrate the potential of using technology to bring quality mediation services to

families throughout British Columbia. This report presents evaluation results for Phase III of the Project,

which was operated by the Mediate BC Society from May 2011 through June 2012.

During Phase III the Project provided mediation services to British Columbian families undergoing

separation or divorce through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) such as the

telephone and web-based conferencing platforms. British Columbias Ministry of Justice, Family JusticeServices Division (FJSD), was a key collaboration agency in the Project. In most cases mediation parties

were separated from each other and the mediator by some degree of physical distance, leading to the

term distance mediation. The overall objective of this Phase of the Project was:

to enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of family mediation in British Columbia by

further developing the distance mediation approach.3

Interest in distance mediation arose in part because a shortage of family mediation services outside the

more populated areas of the province prevented access, in practical terms, to mediation services for

many families. This problem led Mediate BC4to embark on the Technology-Assisted Family Mediation

Project to explore avenues for bringing dispute resolution services to those who could not normally

access them.

The Project has had two prior Phases. Phase l, completed in 2007, investigated and confirmed the

feasibility of using ICTs to conduct appropriate, safe and effective family mediations in BC5. Phase II,

which ran from May 2009 to February 2010, field tested the use of ICTs to deliver actual family

mediations. Services were provided by a mix of private and public sector family mediators to families

living in remote and rural areas of British Columbia; all mediation services were provided free of charge.

A total of 23 cases were completed and the ICT used to conduct mediations was the telephone in nearly

2Referred to also as the Distance Family Mediation Project.

3Mediate BC Society, Project Application: Phase 3: Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project, submitted to

the Law Foundation of British Columbia, May 20, 2010, unpublished.4Known as the BC Mediator Roster Society when the Project began.

5The results of this research are contained in: Colleen Getz, Closing the Distance with Technology: Report of Phase

1 of the Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project. Victoria: British Columbia Mediator Roster Society,

December 2007, which can be accessed at: http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-

Services/Closing_Distance.aspx
http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Closing_Distance.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Closing_Distance.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Closing_Distance.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Closing_Distance.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Closing_Distance.aspx


13/102

2

all cases. The evaluation of Phase II6concluded that the Project had demonstrated that it is possible to

provide family mediations that are safe, appropriate and effective using ICTs, and that there is a demand

for these services among families living in remote and rural areas of BC.

One surprising outcome of Phase II was the suggestion that distance mediation may offer advantages

over traditional mediations where parties have difficulty being in the same room together. Distancemediation also allows parties to participate in mediation sessions from the comfort and privacy of their

homes, and the lack of face-to-face interaction helps to bring the emotional tone of mediation down to

a business-like level. These findings, along with the generally positive results of Phase II, raised the

possibility that distance mediation may have appeal for families in all parts of British Columbia, not just

those who cannot access mediation services where they live.

Phase II also left some questions unanswered, or only partially answered, due in part to the small

number of mediation cases completed, the limited client group targeted and the reliance on one form of

ICT in that Phase. Questions of interest that remained at the end of Phase II included7:

What potential is there for the use of ICTs that were not used in Phase II? Do demographicdifferences effect how families choose and use ICTs?

What techniques and practices would provide parties involved in distance mediation with accessto legal advice as needed before, during and after the distance mediation process?

How do settlement rates in distance mediation compare to those for traditional mediation? What skills are required of mediators when conducting distance mediations? Are some kinds of disputes better suited, or not suited, for distance mediations? What level of demand exists throughout British Columbia for distance mediation? What support and services could Mediate BC offer to support the growth of distance mediation?

Mediate BC embarked on Phase III of the Project to examine these and related questions by once again

offering distance mediation services to families, but changing some key elements of the Project for this

Phase:

Distance mediation services in Phase III would be made available to families throughout theprovince, including those living in populated and urban areas,

Fees were charged for services provided by private practice mediators participating in theProject, and

The use of a wider range of ICTs, including a web conferencing platform selected for the Project(Cisco WebEx Meeting Centre8), would be encouraged.

6Colleen Getz, Evaluation of the Distance Mediation Project: Report of Phase II of the TechnologyAssisted Family

Mediation Project, Victoria: British Columbia Mediator Roster Society, May 2010, which can be accessed at:

http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project---Evaluation-Report.aspxand

http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project-Evaluation-Report---App.aspx.7Mediate BC Society, Project Application, p.10

8Seehttp://www.webex.com/for more information about WebEx. The name of the platform used in the Project

has since changed to WebEx Meetings.
http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project---Evaluation-Report.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project---Evaluation-Report.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project-Evaluation-Report---App.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project-Evaluation-Report---App.aspxhttp://www.webex.com/http://www.webex.com/http://www.webex.com/http://www.webex.com/http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project-Evaluation-Report---App.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-2-Mediation-Services/Distance-Mediation-Project---Evaluation-Report.aspx


14/102

3

A goal of 50 completed mediations9was set for the Phase with the hope that a larger sample of

mediations and clients would strengthen the reliability and validity of the pilots results. Accordingly,

work to prepare for Phase III began in September 2010, and the Project began offering distance

mediations in May 2011. Details of the Phase III project design are described more fully in Chapter Two.

EVALUATION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

As with Phase II, Phase III of the Technology-Assisted Family Mediation Project was a pilot, designed to

test innovative ways to deliver family mediation services using ICTs. The evaluation of this Phase,

therefore, is similar to that of Phase II: it takes more of a formative than a summative approach,

focussing on aspects of the Project design as well as outcomes, and in particular considers the

learnings of mediators, project administrators and clients. While considerable attention is given to the

effectiveness of mediating with ICTs, questions related to the model and tools provided to support thedelivery of distance mediation are also examined.

This evaluation has been guided by the Phase III evaluation framework, developed in consultation with

the Project Coordinator, FJSD, and Mediate BC. The framework addresses the four specific objectives of

Phase III, and identifies 25 evaluation questions which include a number that were also examined in the

Phase II evaluation. Like Phase II, the Phase III of the Project delivered mediation services to families

using ICTs provided by a mix of private and public sector mediators. However, Phase III differed from

the prior Phase because the scope of target clients was expanded, fees were charged for private

mediator services and the ICTs used included a web based meeting platform. Where possible, the

results of Phase III are compared to the Phase II results with a focus on these factors.

The specific objectives of Phase III examined in this evaluation are:

1. To further increase knowledge about distance mediation through its application to a widerrange of family mediation cases.

2. To improve the effectiveness and accessibility of mediation for all British Columbian families bymaking distance mediation available province-wide and offering a support structure and

services through the Society [Mediate BC].

3. To work collaboratively with stakeholders in the family justice system to make distancemediation available to British Columbians and to integrate it with available legal services.

9The Projects definition of a completed mediation is the same as that used in PhaseII, which is: a file in which

all the participants, including the mediator, signed an Agreement to Mediate and attended at least one mediation

session. Mediate BC Society, Distance Family Mediation Project, Phase 3: Project Map, March 28, 2011,

unpublished, p. 22.


15/102

4

4. To develop and test a financially sustainable, province-wide distance mediation service deliverymodel which includes a user-pay feature.

Chapters Three through Six of this report each address one objective and related evaluation questions.

METHODOLOGY AND DATA SOURCES

Information examined during the Phase III evaluation was collected and/or provided by Project team

members and the clients themselves. The Project Coordinator, Mediation Advisor and FJSD Liaison were

instrumental in recording information regarding the inquiries received by the Project; they also created

and supplied a number of Project documents, and participated in interviews with the evaluator.

Mediators tracked their distance mediation cases using Case Notes forms developed for the Project, and

provided their views and insights through interviews with the evaluator. Many clients responded to the

invitation to participate in a survey about their distance mediation experience, sent to them after theircases concluded. The following table outlines each type data source and the data collection method and

analysis approach taken for each. Further detail on each source is provided below Table 1-1.

Table 1-1

Data Sources, Collection and Analysis

Data Source

Data Collection and Analysis

Approaches

Project documentation Content review to obtain qualitative

data

Project Inquiry Forms Completed by Mediation Advisor andFamily Justice Counsellors; analysed to

obtain quantitative and qualitative data

Mediator Case Notes forms Completed by mediators; analysed toobtain quantitative and qualitative data

Project Coordinator, Mediation Advisor

and FJSD Liaison

Interviews (telephone and in person) to

obtain qualitative data

Project Mediators Interviews (in person and telephone) toobtain qualitative data

Mediation clients On-line and mail survey to obtainqualitative and quantitative data

External data sources (Statistics Canada

and BC Stats)Accessed to obtain demographic data


16/102

5

A.Project DocumentsThe project documentation reviewed for this evaluation provided valuable information on: the Project

design, intended workflows and distance mediation model; Project objectives and activities; and tools

provided to the mediators to support them in their distance mediation cases. Review of this material

informed the development of the evaluation framework, and provided information needed to answerthe evaluation questions related to Objectives Three and Four above, regarding the support structure

and service delivery model tested in the Project.

Specific materials reviewed included: the Law Foundation of BC funding submission and Project Activity

Reports, Project Map, inquiry and referral pathway diagrams,Mediating from a Distance: Suggested

Practice Guidelines for Family Mediators10

, training materials, Think Tank notes, template letters and

forms, technology instructions, policy documents and social media materials (blog and discussion forum

entries). In particular the Evaluation of the Distance Mediation Project: Report on Phase II of the

Technology-Assisted Family Mediator Project, by Colleen Getz, was an important source of information.

Where feasible and appropriate, the current report compares the outcomes and experiences of Phase IIIto those of Phase II.

B.Project inquiry formsIn total the Project received 153 inquiries from individuals seeking information about, and potentially,

services through the Project. An inquiry form was completed by either the Mediation Advisor or the

FJSD mediators11 for each inquiry received. The form recorded information about both parties,

including their particular issues; the ICTs each party could access; whether the case met the criteria for

inclusion in the Project; referrals made to Project mediators, other services and independent legal

advice; and comments about client interest in or barriers to participation. Client demographic

information was also recorded for those cases that were accepted into the Project and proceeded to

mediation.

Inquiry data proved to be a rich source of information about both potential and actual Project clients,

and illuminated evaluation issues related to the characteristics of cases and clients who participated,

and those who did not participate, in the Project. It was an especially important source of information

regarding the reasons why many who inquired about distance mediation ultimately did not participate

in the Project.

C.Mediator Case Note FormsA total of 46 distance mediation cases were completed in Phase III. Mediators recorded information

about each case, including the technologies used during each stage of mediation, the results of violence

and capacity screening and of mediation itself, referrals for independent legal advice and the time per

10June 2010 and July 2012, accessed at:http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---

FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspx11

Family Justice Counsellors, see below.
http://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspxhttp://mediatebc.com/PDFs/1-14-Family-Mediation---FAQs/Mediating_From_a_Distance_2nd_Edition_Nov-2012.aspx


17/102

6

case, on Case Notes forms. These forms were submitted to the evaluator directly. Data from this source

was particularly important for answering questions about the effectiveness of screening using ICTs and

of the technologies themselves, in mediation cases. It also provided quantitative evidence regarding the

settlement rates achieved during the Project, and the qualitative information regarding mediators

views of the advantages, disadvantages, effectiveness and reliability of the particular technologies used.

D.Project Coordinator, Mediation Advisor and FJSD LiaisonThe Project Coordinator, Mediation Advisor and FJSD Liaison supported Project clients and mediators,

and undertook many other activities to develop and implement the Project in this Phase. Interviews

were conducted with each of them to gain their views on the project design features, and factors that

influenced the outcomes of the Project, such as client access to ICTs.

E.Project MediatorsIn-person or telephone interviews were conducted to obtain in-depth information from the mediators

about their experiences during Phase III. Questions delved into screening for violence using ICTs, the

effectiveness and reliability of particular technologies for various phases of mediation cases, comparison

of distance mediation to shuttle and in-person mediations, and the usefulness of various practice

supports and training provided throughout the Project. Private mediators were also asked about the

Project fees and the user-pay model. Seven of the Projectscompleted mediation cases were conducted

by private practice mediators, and 39 by Family Justice Counsellors. This report does not distinguish

information provided by Family Justice Counsellors and private practice mediators unless the distinction

is relevant to the question under discussion.

F.Client Survey

A client survey with 30 questions was developed to obtain the views of the clients themselves. The

Agreement to Mediate form signed by all clients included a section regarding the client survey, and

clients were encouraged to participate in the survey by the mediators. The survey was available on-line

or could be completed in hard copy. For clients with a known email address, an invitation to participate

in the online survey was initially sent, followed by up to three reminders. If the client had not

responded after the third reminder, they were sent a hard copy of the survey with a stamped return

envelope. For clients where an email address was not available, a hard copy of the survey was mailed to

their physical address, followed by up to three subsequent mail-outs. In total, 51 clients responded to

the survey which gave a response rate of 54%, the same response rate achieved in the Phase II

evaluation.

The survey consisted of a mix of closed-ended and open-ended questions, and provided information

about the clients themselves, why they had chosen to participate in distance mediations, their views of

the mediation process, outcomes and technologies used, and their use of independent legal advice.

They were also asked about the benefits of mediating at a distance, and for those who had worked with

private mediators, about the fees paid for the service received.


18/102

7

Although 54% is a very good response rate for a client survey, the numbers of clients involved (51) is still

small and the results must be viewed as indicative of the experience of this particular Project client

group. Inferences about a wider population of distance mediation clients should not be made based on

a sample of this size.

G.External Data SourcesInformation was drawn from Statistics Canada and BC Stats regarding the demographic profile (age,

education, income and residence by geographic area) of the adult population in British Columbia. This

data was used to assess the degree to which the Project had attracted clients from all areas of the

province, and to determine how similar the Project clients were to the adult population of BC as a

whole.

The next Chapter provides an overview of the Phase III Project design and processes. Chapters Three

through Six each address a specific objective of the Project, discussing related evaluation questions and

results.


19/102

8

Chapter Two: About the Project

This Chapter describes Phase III of the Distance Family Mediation Project. Important features of the

Project, as well as the general flow of cases through the intake and mediation processes, are outlined to

provide context to the subsequent chapters which provide the evaluation results.

PROCESS FLOW

This section describes the flow of clients through the Project, from initial contact through to mediation

itself.

A.Initial ContactClients may have come to the Project by any of a number of means: some were referred by their lawyer

or other legal professional; some read about the Project services on the internet or in a pamphlet,

poster or advertisement; others learned about the Project when they approached a Family Justice

Centre, Justice Access Centre or Mediate BC for assistance. Project promotional materials and Mediate

BC encouraged potential distance mediation clients to contact the Mediation Advisor. Clients who

sought service through FJSD were encouraged to consider distance mediation if their circumstances

warranted it

in these cases, clients were directed to Family Justice Counsellors working on the Projectby other Family Justice Counsellors throughout the Division. Cross referrals between the Mediation

Advisor and Project Family Justice Counsellors also occurred, matching clients with the type of

mediation that would best suit their case characteristics and financial circumstances12. For all inquiries,

the Mediation Advisor or Family Justice Counsellor explained the Project to the potential client and

discussed whether it might meet their needs. Recommendations to obtain independent legal advice

were also provided, and where appropriate, clients were referred to services outside the Project.

B.Assessment and Agreement to MediateOnce initial contact was established, and after confirming that a client was potentially interested in

pursuing distance mediation, clients were screened by the Mediation Advisor or Family Justice

Counsellor to ensure that their case was suitable for mediation and met the mandatory requirements

for the Project (see below). If their case met these criteria and the clients expressed interest in

12See sections below on the Project Team and the features of the service model for information regarding

differences between service provision by private practice mediators and Family Justice Counsellors.


20/102

9

continuing, the case was screened for family violence issues and capacity to mediate. ICT options, and

the suitability of the clients using them, were also discussed at this time. When this screening and

discussion confirmed the appropriateness of the case for the Project, the clients were either referred to

a mediator by the Mediation Advisor or, if the assessment had been conducted by a Project Family

Justice Counsellor, they continued working with them. The case was then given a Project case number.

The Mediation Advisor conducted only high level safety and capacity screening; accordingly, mediators

receiving these referrals conducted further, in-depth screening of both parties for family violence issues

and capacity to mediate, as well as discussing ICT use with them more thoroughly. Mediators were

required (by both the Project and their professional standards of conduct) to assess for the

appropriateness for mediation by screening for family violence and to assess parties for their capacity

and readiness to mediate. Screening for family violence issues was done by the mediator with each

party individually, in most cases with the use of some form of ICT. Based on the outcome of this

screening the mediator would determine whether the case was, in fact, suitable for mediation within

the Project. Once the mediator and both parties were satisfied that their case was appropriate, clients

were asked to sign an Agreement to Mediate to participate in Project mediation services. Cases did notproceed to mediation until the agreement was signed by both parties. Clients who were screened out,

or decided that distance mediation was not for them, would be referred elsewhere for other services.

C.Distance Mediation Sessions and OutcomesMediators worked with the clients to select ICTs to be used in their case and scheduled individual pre-

mediation sessions to review issues, the Agreement to Mediate, and ICTs to be used for mediation; joint

mediation sessions were then scheduled. One or more mediation sessions were conducted using ICTs

(different technologies could be used at different stages throughout this process). If the clients issues

were partially or fully resolved, mediators could document the areas of agreement for the parties in awritten agreement or Memorandum of Understanding (depending on the mediators qualifications),

again recommending that they obtain independent legal advice. Regardless of the outcome, mediators

recorded information about the case on Case Notes Form submitted to the evaluator, and provided

client contact information for the client survey.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND SCOPE

To be accepted into the Project, potential cases were required to meet all of the following criteria:

The issues requiring resolution are consistent with the Projects definition of familymediation;

The mediation meets the Projects definition of distance mediation; The clients have access to at least one type of ICT which is potentially appropriate for family

mediation;


21/102

10

The issues to be resolved are appropriate to mediate using ICTs; and The mediation concerns a matter that would come within the jurisdiction of British

Columbias courts. Generally, this requires one party and when a child is involved, the

childto be resident in the province:

o For non-child issues: one of the parties has to be ordinarily resident in BC for atleast one year before the proceeding began: and

o For child issues: the child must be habitually resident in BC13The Project applied the following definitions14when considering the case criteria:

Family mediation: Mediation of issues relating to the reorganization of the family afterseparation or divorce, and parenting, financial support and property matters connected to

separation or divorce;

ICT: Any range of a range of information and communication tools, including regular landlineand cell phones, teleconferencing, videoconferencing, email, text messaging, custom text-basedapplications and web conferencing;

Distance mediation: Any mediation using information and communication technologies, inwhich one or both parties are not present in the same room as the mediator.

The results regarding the number and type of cases meeting and not meeting the mandatory Project

requirements are examined in Chapter Three.

The Project broadened the scope of clients served in Phase III, with a goal to make dispute resolution

services available to families throughout the province regardless of where they resided, their socio-

economic status, cultural background or disability. The intent was for service to be provided to parties

located anywhere in the province by mediators who also were located anywhere in the province,

thereby increasing access to mediation services.

PROJECT TEAM

The Project team consisted of a number of individuals in a variety of roles. Eight experienced family

mediators participated: four private practice mediators from the Mediate BC Society roster of family

mediators, and four Family Justice Counsellors employed by the British Columbia Ministry of Justice,

FJSD. The mediators were located in the Lower Mainland, on Vancouver Island and in the interior of BC.

Five of the mediators had previously provided services in Phase II of the Project.

13Mediate BC Society, Project Map, p. 22



22/102

11

The private practice mediators accepted cases on a full range of family issues including child custody,

access and support, spousal support and property division. Family Justice Counsellors accepted cases

with children involved, and provided mediation on the same range of issues as private practice

mediators, except thatproperty division mediation was limited to property of $25,000 value or less.

Family Justice Counsellors provided dispute resolution services without charge, as is their usual practice,

whereas private practice mediators applied the Project fee schedule to their Project cases.

Support for the Project was provided by a Project Coordinator, Mediation Advisor and FJSD Liaison.

Their roles were as follows:

Project Coordinator: The Project Coordinator was responsible for overall implementation andmanagement of the Project. Activities included creating the design for the Project, promoting

the Project with the public and stakeholders, and supporting the mediators distance mediation

practice through training, facilitation of information exchange, and providing technical support

when needed.

Mediation Advisor: The Mediation Advisor works within the Vancouver Justice Access Centreand was Mediate BCs primary contact person for clients seeking services under the Project. She

provided potential clients with information about the mediation and the Project, helped to

determine if the case met the Project requirements, and provided clients with referrals to

mediators within the Project and other services, including independent legal advice, as

appropriate.

FJSD Liaison: The FJSD Liaison was a Senior Program Analyst within FJSD who coordinated thework of the Family Justice Counsellors within the Project, liaised with the Project Coordinator

and Mediation Advisor, collaborated on the development of Project policies and documents,and supported the Family Justice Counsellors by providing FJSD-specific policies and tools as well

as technical support.

The effectiveness of the support provided by these roles is examined in Chapter Four.

FEATURES OF THE PROJECT SERVICE MODEL

The Project service model is described in the Project Mapand the Project funding submission. Key

features of the service model that are particularly relevant to the evaluation were the emphasis on the

provision of effective screening for clients entering the Project, on making referrals for independent

legal advice, and on the use of a fee schedule to support a financially sustainable distance mediation

service.


23/102

12

Mediators were required to screen all Project clients for family

violence issues and capacity to mediate, in accordance with Mediate

BCs Standard of Conduct or, for Family Justice Counsellors, FJSDs

Manual of Operations and policies. Mediators assessed cases for the

appropriateness of mediation, to be satisfied that:

a) there is not now nor has there been any abuse;

b) if there has been abuse, a fair and safe mediation is still

possible;

c) if there has been abuse, any vulnerable participant can be

protected in the mediation process and all of the necessary safety measures to do this are put in

place for the mediation.15

The effectiveness of safety screening conducted in the Project is examined in Chapter Three.

The Mediation Advisor and mediators were also expected to recommend that parties not represented

by counsel obtain independent legal advice. These recommendations were to be made throughout the

mediation process, to make the participants aware of the value of consulting other professionals in

order to make fully informed decisions.16 The requirement to recommend independent legal advice to

clients is in keeping with Mediate BCs Standards of conduct and FJSDs policies. Chapter Five presents

results regarding the provision of such recommendations, and clients actions to obtain legal advice.

The Project also strove to work collaboratively with stakeholders in the family justice system, to make

services known and therefore accessible to potential clients, and to integrate services with available

legal advice. Stakeholders directly involved in the project were Mediate BC and FJSD. Other

stakeholders relevant to the Project included the legal community, private lawyers, Legal Services

Society and the Justice Institute of BC and other organizations serving families in BC. The Projects

collaboration with stakeholders is examined in Chapter Five.

The Project implemented a fee schedule for mediations conducted by private practice mediators to test

a user-pay contribution model that could sustain affordable distance mediation services. In Phase III of

the Project introduced a sliding-fee model based on parties net annual income and household size. The

Project rates applied to the first 10 hours of mediation. Part way through the Project timeframe, the

sliding scale was replaced by a single, discounted fee to be paid by both parties. This change was

implemented in part in response to mediator concerns about the complexity of applying the sliding scale

to individual cases. The use of fees, and mediator and client reactions to the Project rates, are examinedin Chapter Six.



Ensuring mediation takes

place in a safe

environment is as critical

when using ICTs as it is

when mediations take

place face-to-face.

- Project Map


24/102

13

USE OF ICTS

A particularly important feature of the Project was the use of ICTs to conduct mediation cases. As thedefinition above suggests, the Project accepted the use of a wide variety of ICTs. Also, a multi-media

approach was permitted, where more than one ICT could be used within the conduct of a single

mediation file. The Project encouraged the use of ICTs beyond the telephone, which had been heavily

used in Phase II, and selected a web conferencing platform as the favoured ICT for Phase III. Like

many web conferencing platforms, the platform allows participants to have both audio and video

connections, making distance mediation more akin to face-to-face mediation than is possible with

telephone or text alone. It also allows participants to share documents onscreen, a useful tool in the

context of mediation cases. While the web conferencing platform was identified as the Projects

favoured ICT, use of other ICTs was permitted as well, and mediators were responsible for assessing

clients needs, circumstances, skills and preferences when selecting ICTs to use in each case. It shouldbe noted that while the Project did use WebEx Meeting Centre17, this report provides no evaluation of

WebEx as a product and is not an endorsement of WebEx. The use, advantages and disadvantages of

ICTs, and client and mediator satisfaction with ICTs, are examined in Chapter Three; the factors related

to the use of particular ICTs, and the process to select ICTs for mediation cases, are examined in Chapter

Four.

DELIVERABLES AND OUTCOMES

As stated in the Project Map, Mediate BCs vision of success for the

project is that distance mediation is confirmed as a viable, accessible and

affordable dispute resolution option for British Columbian families.

In addition, the Project had three concrete deliverables to produce in

Phase III: a goal of 50 completed distance family mediations, a revision of

Phase IIs Suggested Practice Guidelines for Family Mediators18which

documented the teams learnings, and this evaluation report.

17Note that one Project mediation was conducted using a web conferencing platform other than WebEx.

18Mediate BC Society, Practice Guidelines, 2010.

A further indicator of

success will be the

confirmation that

technology can bring

the power of mediation

to families who need it

- Project Map


25/102

14

Chapter Three:

Increased Knowledge About Distance

Mediation

INTRODUCTION

The first objective of the Distance Family Mediation Project, Phase III, is:

To further increase knowledge about distance mediation through its application to a wider

range of family mediation cases.

The wider range of family mediation cases alludes to the greater geographic reach of the Project in

Phase III. In contrast to Phase II of the Project, Phase III did not require that one or both parties to a

dispute live in remote or rural communities; the services of the Project mediators in Phase III were

available to resolve any case as long as at least one party lived somewhere in British Columbia. It was

hoped that the greater catchment area would generate more mediation cases from which to learn

about the practice and effectiveness of distance mediation.

The furtherincrease knowledge about distance mediation refers simply to the continued process of

acquiring experience with, and therefore knowledge and insights into, conducting mediation at a

distance using ICTs. An important change with Phase III was the more widespread use of a web

conferencing platform which provides both visual as well as audio connection between the participants.

Nearly all of the cases in Phase II were conducted using telephone aloneso the increased

knowledge expected in Phase III also refers to the knowledge gained about distance mediation

conducted using a web-based platform.

There are 13 evaluation questions associated with this objective. Many of these questions entail a

comparison to the results of the same or similar questions from the Phase II evaluation. The questions

are:

1.

Are technology-assisted mediations completed over the course of the Project?

2. How effective is assessment for violence and mediation capacity when ICTs are used infamily mediation?

3. What advantages and disadvantages of using ICTs are observed during Phase III?


26/102

15

4. Of the ICTs used by the Project, which appear to be best suited for distance mediationgenerally and which are better suited to different parts of the mediation process?

5. Are there particular types of family cases that lend themselves more to the application oftechnology-assisted mediation methods than others?

6. How does technology-assisted mediation compare with existing dispute resolutionapproaches (e.g., shuttle mediation) when distance is a factor?

7. How does technology-assisted mediation compare with existing dispute resolutionapproaches?

8. Can some broader benefits of mediation be realized when ICTs are used to conductmediations?

9. Are the parties generally satisfied with their experience in mediation with ICTs?10.Are Project mediators generally satisfied with their experience with ICTs in mediation?11.Do the policy/procedural tools developed for the Project support and promote competent,

safe and appropriate methods of technology- assisted family mediation?

12.What additional skills or training should mediators acquire to use competent, safe andappropriate methods in technology-assisted family mediation?

13.What are the primary lessons learned regarding competent, safe and appropriate use of theICTs in family mediation?

The remainder of this Chapter examines the findings and results for each of these questions.

1. ARE TECHNOLOGY-ASSISTED MEDIATIONS COMPLETED OVER THECOURSE OF THE PROJECT?

In Phase III, the Project intended to offer technology-assisted family mediation services to any family in

British Columbia regardless of where they may reside, their socio-economic background status, cultural

background or disability19. This section reviews the inquiries received by the Project and the number of

cases that ultimately resulted. It also looks briefly at the ICTs used to conduct mediation cases to

confirm that cases were technology assisted.

19Mediate BC Society, Project Application, p.7


27/102

16

The Project had a goal of 50 completed mediations. To achieve completed mediations the Project

received inquiries that met the Projects mandatory requirements, which then translated into mediation

cases that were completed using one or more ICTs. Each of these aspects, or indicators, has been

assessed through a review of data contained in the Projects Inquiry spreadsheet and mediator Case

Notes forms.

A. Inquiries received, criteria met and cases completedIn Phase III, the Project received 153 inquiries, 89 of which met the Projects mandatory requirements.

These inquiries resulted in 55 cases which were assigned Project case numbers, and a total of 46

completed mediation cases. The Project received nearly 50% more inquires in Phase III than in Phase II,

and double the number of completed cases. A similar proportion of the inquiries met the mandatory

case requirements in both Phases. See Table 3-1.

Table 3-1

Inquiries Received, Requirements Met, and Cases Assigned and Completed

Phase II20

Phase III

Number

% of

Inquiries Number

% of

Inquiries

Inquiries received 103 153

Inquiries meeting

mandatory requirements

64 62% 89 58%

Case numbers assigned 31 30% 55 36%

Cases completed 23 22% 46 30%

Sources: Inquiry/Intake Spreadsheet, Case Notes

The increased number of inquiries in Phase III may be due to one or more factors including:

The relaxation of the remote or rural residence requirement in Phase III; this may haveencouraged a broader range of families to inquire about the Project services;

intensive promotional activities in Phase III; greater awareness of the Project in general; and / or a longer intake period (the intake period in Phase II was 9 monthsMay 2009 to

January 2010; in contrast, Phase IIIs intake period lasted 13 months, from May 2011 through

June 2012)21.

In both Phases roughly 60% of the inquiries met the mandatory requirements. The key difference

between the requirements for cases in Phase II and Phase III relates to the location of the parties. Phase

20Getz, p.16

21Phase II received an average of 11.4 inquiries per month while Phase III received an average of 11.7 per month.

The additional 4 months that Phase III ran likely resulted in about 45 - 50 additional inquiries in Phase III.


28/102

17

II required that at least one of the parties was in a remote, non-urban area22 and 15% of inquiries

failed to meet this criteria23. In Phase III only two inquiries actually failed to meet the mandatory

criteria. Thus it appears that relaxing the residence requirement in Phase III allowed some additional

cases to proceed.

Data regarding whether a potential case met mandatory requirements was not recorded for 62 cases inPhase III. Notes recorded on inquiry sheets shed some light on why many inquiries did not proceed to

the point where an assessment against the criteria was made. As seen in Table 3-2, a common reason is

that one or both parties were simply not interested in mediation; in other cases, parties were pursuing

other means to address their issues. Safety issues were disclosed in five cases.

Table 3-2

Themes where Mandatory Criteria Assessment was Not Recorded in Phase III

One or both parties not interested in

mediation 18Nothing noted 17

Inquiry only 7

Parties prefer in-person mediation 6

Safety issues disclosed 5

Taking case to court 4

Parties resolved issues themselves 3

Party not comfortable with technology 1

Pursuing another option 1

Total 62

Source: Inquiry/Intake Spreadsheet

Of the 91 inquiries where the assessment result was recorded, 89 met the

mandatory criteria and two did not. One failed to meet the requirement that

the case be within the jurisdiction of a British Columbian court and the child

reside in British Columbia. The other failed to meet the definition of a family

mediation case because the dispute, which involved reorganization of the

family, was not due to separation or divorce.

Of the 89 inquiries that met the mandatory requirements, 55 were assigned a

case number by the Project Coordinator and referred to a mediator. Thirty

four cases that had met the Project requirements did not proceed to this

stage. Again, notes recorded on the inquiry sheets shed some light regarding

22Getz, p. 7. In Phase II, another requirement was that neither party needed an interpreter to participate in

mediation; in Phase III this was not a requirement, though the Project Map (p. 23) indicates that a careful case-

by- case consideration would be undertaken for such inquiries. Phase III inquiry data indicates that interpreters

were not required in any of cases reviewed against the mandatory requirements.23

Getz, p. 16

Party 2 never responded

to any attempted contact -

letters, phone by Family

Justice Counsellor. Party 1

persevered for a year to no

avail.

- Mediator InquiryComment


29/102

18

why these cases did not proceed (see Table 3-3). In 10 cases, contact with the second party was not

established. Failure to attend a follow-up appointment or calls, or an outright decision not to pursue

distance mediation were other common reasons that cases did not proceed. Three cases were screened

out due to safety issues. Two cases did proceed to mediation, but after the cut-off date for the pilot

Project.

Table 3-3

Notes for Inquiries that met Project Requirements but were not Assigned to Mediator

No contact by/with second party 10

Party(ies) withdrew or failed to attend

appointments 6

Service was declined by second party 7

Safety issues identifiedscreened out 3

Parties did not want mediation 3

Case proceeded but too late for pilot 2

Need to resolve related issue first 1

Parties reconciled 1

Nothing noted 1

Total 35

Source: Inquiry/Intake Spreadsheet

Of the 55 cases that were assigned a Project case number, distance mediation was begun in 47 cases

and completed in 46 cases. Reasons, noted by mediators, that cases did not proceed to distance

mediation after case number assignment are listed in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4

Cases Accepted where Mediation Did Not Occur: Mediator Comments

Parties withdrew or failed to attend appointments 5

Pursued in-person mediation 2

Parties did not connect with mediator 1

Screened out for safety reasons 1

Total 9

Source: Mediator Case Notes

In summary, Phase III of the Project received 153 inquiries which resulted in 46 completed mediation

cases. Thus, for every three inquiries, slightly more than two did not proceed to distance mediation a

very similar result to that seen in Phase II. Many potential cases did not proceed because the parties

were not interested in mediation, declined the service or failed to attend appointments; in other cases,

parties pursued other means to resolve their dispute (court, in-person mediation, resolving issues


30/102

19

themselves). A few cases were not suitable because they involved safety issues. There was only one

instance where discomfort with technology was noted as a reason that the party did not want to

proceed; however, this may reflect some self-selection on part of people who make inquiries of a

technology-assisted mediation service to begin with.

B.ICTs UsedFour technologies were used in the distance mediation cases in Phase III: landline telephones, cell

phones, web conferencing and email. Many cases used more than one technologyin different stages

of the case, or simultaneously for particular sessions (for example, combined use of web conferencing

and telephone). The use of web conferencing sets this Phase of the pilot apart from Phase II, where

telephone and email were the technologies used in all but one case24. Because web conferencing

provides real-time visual contact between distant parties it has a marked impact on the qualitative

experience of distance mediation, especially when compared to the audio only experience of telephone.

The parties decisions to use particular technologies, and their effectiveness,are explored in more depth

later in this report.

2. HOW EFFECTIVE IS ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE AND MEDIATIONCAPACITY WHEN ICTS ARE USED IN FAMILY MEDIATION?

In Phase II, mediators conducted safety screening during pre-mediation meetings which occurred by

telephone or teleconference. The evaluation report for that Phase suggested that while the mediators

could conduct screening interviews competently using the telephone, the absence of visual cues made

the task more difficult for them, and they expressed a preference for in-person meetings for safety

screening25. Phase III allowed mediators to conduct safety screening with audio and video provided

through web conferencing. This section reviews the Phase III results for safety screening, the mediators

comments regarding screening with various technologies, and client survey data relevant to safety

issues.

A. Results of Safety ScreeningDuring Phase III, safety issues may have been disclosed during the initial inquiry, or in response to high

level screening questions posed by the Mediation Advisor26, or through the safety screening performed

by the mediators themselves. As noted above, safety issues were disclosed or identified in a total of

24One case in Phase II made use of Skype, WebEx, Windows Live Video, chat, telephone and email. Getz, p. 22

25Getz, p.29

26In February 2012, the intake model for private mediations changed so that the high level safety screening was no

longer performed by the Mediation Advisor. After that change, private mediators became fully responsible for

conducting safety screening once clients were referred to them (Source: Project Activity Report, March 31, 2012,

unpublished).


31/102

20

nine potential cases that were not ultimately assigned to mediators, and in one case that was referred

to a mediator where the mediator screened the case out of the Project due to safety concerns.

No safety issues were identified for 73% of the clients27. However, mediator records show that some

safety and capacity to mediate issues were identified during the screening process for some of the cases

that did proceed to distance mediation. Past safety issues were identified for 15% of the clients. Verbal

abuse, power imbalance and emotional safety concerns were noted for 4% of clients. In those cases the

mediators made accommodations to ensure continued safety during the mediation process, for

example, by using the telephone instead of web conferencing, and caucusing separately with clients to

review comfort levels and any concerns. Mediators also referred two parties to appropriate services to

address safety issues. Table 3-5 indicates the safety and capacity to mediate screening outcome for the

92 clients who participated in distance mediation cases:

Table 3-5

Results of Mediator Safety Screening

Parties

Screened

% of

Parties

No safety issues identified 67 73%

Past safety issues only 14 15%

Result of safety screen not recorded 5 5%

Some safety issuesreferred to appropriate agency 2 2%

Incidents of verbal abuse noted 2 2%

Power imbalance but no safety issues 1 1%

Emotional safety concerns so client prefers distance mediation 1 1%

Total 92 100%


These results indicate that screening did occur, and that some safety and capacity to mediate issues

were identified for approximately 20% of the clients, who eventually went on to participate in distance

mediation. While this is a small sample of clients with safety concerns, clearly the mediators in these

cases were aware of their clientsissues and felt that distance mediation remained an appropriate

service for these clients.

27Note that this is a higher percentage of clients without safety issues than reported in a longitudinal study of FJSD

clients who had received in-person mediation services; this difference might be something worthy of further

investigation. See Dispute Resolution Longitudinal Study Phase 3 Final Report, Focus Consultants, March 2008.


32/102

21

B.Safety Screening ApproachesDuring interviews conducted for the evaluation, mediators were asked to describe their approach to

safety screening, any challenges they encountered and how they dealt with them, and to comment on

the effectiveness of conducting safety screening at a distance using ICTs.

FJSD policy requires Family Justice Counsellors to conduct safety screening for all mediation clients. A

formal assessment tool is used that consists of 22 questions in total, 10 of which address family violence

and safety issues directly. For in-person mediation, clients are given the opportunity to complete the

assessment tool themselves prior to meeting with a Family Justice Counsellor for an intake interview,

and then review their responses in person with the Family Justice Counsellor. In the Distance Family

Mediation Project, Family Justice Counsellors sent the assessment tool to some clients in advance and

reviewed their responses with them using the telephone or web conferencing. Family Justice

Counsellors reported that they always used the assessment tool, sometimes supplemented by additional

questions, to conduct the safety screening.

The Mediation Advisor conducted some high level screening before responsibility for in-depth screening

was passed on to the mediators. She used a set of six standard questions and usually conducted the

screening by telephone. The private mediators reported that they used less formal approaches to

screening for safety issuesthat is, they do not use a formal assessment tool, but instead:

One uses many of FJSDsassessment tool questions, and works through them in aconversational way;

Another always does a pre-mediation meeting and asks questions to determine the degree ofthe clients comfort with the mediation process, whether there are any safety issues, and the

appropriateness of technology. This is the same screening as with face-to-face mediation;

Another uses an informal approach when building rapport with the client and gatheringinformation; this mediator asks questions about safety and if it appears that there are issues,

probes further; and

Another poses questions about the clients circumstances and watches for red flags.As mediation cases progressed from intake to actual mediation, all of the mediators continued to assess

parties for safety and capacity to mediate issues that may not have emerged during the screening.

Techniques that mediators used to assess safety and capacity issues during mediation included:

remaining alert to behaviours that indicated client discomfort or feelings of intimidation, (such as

withdrawal or backing off), observing clients tone of voice and (when using web conferencing) body

language, and watching for major shifts in position for no apparent reason. When these situations

arose, mediators reported that they would check in with the clients individually, to further assess the

situation.


33/102

22

C.Technologies UsedMediators made use of telephone, cell phone, web conferencing, email and in-person meetings to

conduct safety screening for clients in this Phase of the Project. (Email was used only to send the Family

Justice Counsellor assessment tool to clients). Different technologies were sometimes used to screen

the two parties in a case. Table 3-6 indicates the technologies used for safety screening, as a percentageof the total cases (n=46).

Table 3-6

Technologies used to Conduct Safety Screening

Safety screening

technologies used:

% of

cases

Telephone 72%

Web conferencing 54%

In person 11%

Email (document sharing

only) 11%

Cell phone 9%

Telephone + web

conferencing 6%


Percentages sum to more than 100% as more than one technology was used in several cases

D.Effectiveness of Safety Screening using ICTsMediators were asked to rate the effectiveness of the technologies they

used at different stages of their cases. Ratings for the technologies used

for safety screening were given using a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 = very poor

and 5 = excellent; average ratings by ICT used are shown in Table 3-7.

All technologies received an average rating of greater than 3, indicating

general overall satisfaction with the effectiveness of the technologies used.

Highest ratings were given to cell phones and the combination of

telephone and web conferencing, though these results should be viewed

with caution due to the limited number of ratings given for these

technologies.

The added layer of

technology between the

mediator and the client is a

hurdle to get by in order to get

information from the parties.

Its a