- Email: [email protected]
Qualitative analysis of private mediation: Benefits for families in public child welfare agencies
ChildrenandYouthServicesReview, Vol. 20, No. 7, pp. 605427, 1998 Copyright@ 1998 Elswier Science L&d F’rintedin theUSA. All rightsreserved 0190-7409198 $19.00 + .OO
PIISONO-7409(98)00028-O
Qualitative Analysis of Private Mediation: Benefits for Families in Public Child Welfare Agencies D. Terri Heath University of Oregon A pilot project of mediated adoptions was offered to parents in permanency planning units in seven branches of a state’s public protective child welfare agency. Three research questions guided the study: First, can mediated agreements provide an effective and efficient alternative to adversarial Termination of Parental Rights procedures within a public protective service agency caseload of highly abusive and neglectful parents? Second, can mediated agreements enable birth parents and caseworkers to reach a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and therefore less costly, than is true for the customary adversarial method? Third, of the parties involved (attorneys, birth parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, caseworkers, and agency supervisors) which find mediation to be beneficial? It was decided that three areas of program evaluation would be tested using three unique sources of data, collected independently to ensure the highest standard by which to evaluate this program. These three sources were: 1) interviews with caseworkers, 2) written questionnaires by parents and service providers, 3) empirical data on families who entered into cooperative agreements. Mediation was found to be effective by all three measurements, thereby providing first-time evidence that mediation can change parents’ views regarding adoption and provide them with an avenue for voluntary relinquishment. When abused and neglected children in the United States enter a Protective Service delivery system, many have been violated by the adults who This project was funded under U.S. Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families Grant # 9OCOO63l/01, 1992-1994. The study was presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR; November, 1995. Requests for reprints should be sent to D. Terri Heath, The Social Science Instructional Lab, 5246 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5246 [[email protected]
I. 605
606
Heath
are authorized to protect and defend them: their parents, stepparents, and guardians. Some of these children remain in their homes with varying levels of intervention from this delivery system. Some are removed and placed in the homes of relatives, friends, or foster parents. Others are placed in more restrictive environments, such as residential treatment centers and group homes. For the children who are removed from their homes, most begin a lengthy waiting period. They wait for their caseworkers to set up treatment plans with their parents. They wait for their parents to comply with the treatment plan. They wait for both sides to consult with attorneys, schedule court time, and follow through with treatment plans. They wait for adults to determine their future. While the children live in these other homes, parents are expected to improve their parenting by target deadlines and in accordance with guidelines set forward by protective service workers. Parents who fail to meet the expectations of the child protective service delivery system, who fail to demonstrate their abilities to provide adequate care and supervision for their children, may eventually face-off with protective service workers in Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) hearings. If the court finds in favor of the protective service system, the parents’ rights are permanently severed. In the current system this means the parents have no further contact with their children, are given no opportunities to plan for the future of their children, cannot give to or receive correspondence from their children, and cannot be given reports on the well-being of their children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether external, neutral, third-party mediators could broker a cooperative agreement between biological parents and public protective service workers which would speed up the process, benefit children with sound permanency plans, and save the state in expenditures on staff time, court costs, and foster care expenses. This report details the intervention, the methodology used to evaluate the program, the findings, and the implications.
Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project A northwestern state’s child protective services agency launched a federally funded pilot project to evaluate whether mediation could free foster care children for adoption sooner by employing private external
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
607
child welfare mediators. By offering parents the opportunity to work with caseworkers in mediation (rather than against them in court) it was hypothesized that children would experience fewer months in foster care, and have the opportunity to retain limited ties to their families of origin after adoption. Parents met with the external, private mediators to develop a permanent plan for their child, either to voluntarily relinquish the child for adoption or to return the child to their home under significantly improved conditions. Parents received private mediation services, which were funded under the federal grant. If during mediation, they participated in a signed cooperative agreement with the Permanency Planning caseworkers, they were given the opportunity to assist the staff in planning for their child’s future. (Parents whose rights are terminated via customary procedures are given no opportunity to participate in planning for their child’s future.) The parents did this by recommending specific qualities in the selected adoptive parents such as race, religion, particular child-rearing values and occupations of the parents. Additionally, many participating parents were given opportunities for limited contact with their child following the permanent adoption such as annual letters and pictures, or in rare situations, an annual supervised visit. If the Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project worked, caseworkers might find permanent resolution for children in foster care more quickly, and in a less costly, and more humane manner than in the customary adversarial and involuntary Termination of Parental Rights process. Rationale for the Intervention The public child welfare agency proposed to offer a slightly modified version of the same services provided by a statewide, private adoption agency. This private adoption agency specializes in mediated, open adop tions by using trained mediators to assist birth parents in their decisions to plan for their children’s futures. The clientele of the private agency, however, is vastly different than the clientele in the public agency. Private agency clients have already made the decision to relinquish what is typically their unborn child and place him/her for adoption with one of the many families on the agency’s waiting list. Most of these children are healthy newborns. Most of the families have been waiting for lengthy periods of time to adopt. There is typically no foster care home involved.
608
Heath
Public agency clients, however, have not made decisions to relinquish their typically older infants, toddlers, children and adolescents, and are often fighting hard against their adversary, the child protective services system either via overt, direct actions or through a covert, indirect luck of actions to block a system-initiated Termination of their Parental RightsSo the question at the heart of this study was whether the practices which work with a private agency clientele who want to relinquish their children could be effective with this a public agency clientele, who want to retain their children, using neutral, third-party adoption mediators and thereby lessening the emotional costs to children and families and the financial costs to the child welfare system. Financial Costs of Current System The waiting period is costly, both financially and emotionally (Ammerman & Hersen, 1990; Kadushin & Martin, 1988) The wait costs the state and county wages for caseworkers, foster parents, residential treatment care staff, attorneys and court staff. Many of these children’s cases transfer from intake and on-going units into Permanency Planning units, where discussion between parents, caseworkers and attorneys changes from planning for treatment and reunification with parents to a permanent solution, often outside of the child’s family of origin. In many of these families, children have been in foster care for years before planning begins to include a permanent solution. English (1994) compiled figures from a sample of seven “typical cases” identified by one state’s Protective Service Agency. ‘Ihe trial costs of the customary procedures varied from approximately $7,000 to $50,000 per case. These monetary costs included: 1) legal assistance to the Protective Service agency at the trial and appellate levels provided by the Department of Justice; 2) costs of expert witnesses and investigations for the state’s case; and 3) Indigent Defense costs for legal services for parents and children including attorney fees, expert witness costs, transcript costs and in one case charges for a Guardian ad litem for a parent. It is important to note that these figures do not include: 1) costs of foster care while the child or children are awaiting action, or 2) administrative and staff costs incurred by the Protective Service agency in managing the prosecution of these cases. These seven cases, and their corresponding financial
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
609
costs, are typical for the Permanent Planning units within this state, regardless of how or why the child entered the system. Termination of Parental Rights hearings for children who have been abandoned by their parents are no less costly. In contrast, they may be among the most expensive cases for states to take to final hearings because the legal system provides many protections for parents before removing their parental rights. Parents who cannot be located are given numerous opportunities to become involved in their children’s lives before their parental rights are permanently severed. Two observations are apparent from this examination of cases. First, costs associated with Permanency Planning and TPR cases vary widely. Second, the cases are costly, emotionally and financially. Caseworkers and attorneys have always described them as emotionally costly to all of the parties involved but these data now offer quantitative evidence of their Iinancial costs as well (English, 1994). Typically, state child protective service workers initiate Termination of Parental Rights hearings when they determine that the family cannot currently, nor in the future, provide adequate supervision and care for the child. At the time of the Termination of Parental Rights court hearing, most children are residing either in foster homes or the homes of relatives. In the majority of cases parents have been given months, and more often years, to resolve whatever problems led to the removal of their child from their home, although levels of support from service providers vary greatly between states and even between families within the same state.
Mediation as an Alternative
Mediation is the practice of using a neutral “outsider” to negotiate a common solution to the conflict between two or more parties. It is widely used in divorce settlements, custody disagreements following divorce, criminal and civil legal cases, and private adoptions and been successful (Etter, 1988; Etter & Giovannini, 1988; Hart, 1990; Kaminsky & Cosmano, 1990; Magana & Taylor, 1993; Marthaler, 1989; Mayer, 1985; Mayer, 1989; Pagelow, 1990.) Mediation has been less successful in situations where domestic violence has been a pattern. For example, many report that mediation is inappropriate for spouses and cohabitors who are separating following domestic violence because the power imbalances
Heath
610
continue even during mediation (Hart, 1990; Pagelow, 1990.) Others disagree and argue that with skilled mediators, this power imbalance can be effectively managed (Magana & Taylor, 1993; Marthaler, 1989.) Mayer (1985) has argued that protective service workers have historically viewed the decisions related to Termination of Parental Rights as a dichotomy of extremes: either there is a complete severance of all contact between parent and child or all rights remain with the biological parents. Adoption mediation represents a midpoint between these two extremes with parents voluntarily relinquishing their rights and participating in the planning for their child’s future. After the adoption biological parents are allowed to maintain minimal contact with their children via annual letters or rare visits. Advocates of adoption mediation argue that it is a more humane approach to family crisis; that older children will always remember their “first family” and that mediated adoption gives them a legal, legitimate, but limited connection to their biological kin while at the same time, protecting them from the abusive or neglectful environment from which they were removed. Mayer (1985) called for mediation to be used and evaluated within protective services: It is essential for research to be conducted into this approach [mediation] so that we can determine its effectiveness...it may very well be time for social service agencies to begin exploring mediation and collaborative problem solving as tools with which they can handle protective service cases. In many circumstances, these tools may provide child protection workers with a useful avenue for involving families in a more productive alliance in-service of children (pp. 74-75). Advocates suggest that biological parents may be more willing to cooperate with caseworkers if their input is solicited in planning for the future of their child (Kaminsky & Cosmano, 1990; Mayer, 1985). The process toward Termination of Parental Rights, which places parents and caseworkers in oppositional roles, is typically a costly one.
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
611
Research Questions The evaluation team (composed of protective service agency caseworkers, administrators, supervisors, the coordinator of mediation, and the project evaluator) wanted to evaluate three components of the pilot project. First, the team wanted to test Mayer’s (1985) suggestion that mediated adoptions could be an effective and efficient alternative to customary procedures within a public protective service agency caseload of highly abusive and neglectful parents. Second, the team wondered if mediated adop tion would enable birth parents and caseworkers to find a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and thus be less costly, than the customary adversarial method. Third, they wanted to examine how all involved parties assessed the effectiveness of mediation. To enhance the quality of the measurements, it was decided that each of these three areas of program evaluation would be tested using a unique source of data, therefore requiring that a specific type of data be collected for each analysis, rather than using a single data source for all three analyses. It was believed that this would be the highest standard by which to evaluate this program.
Methodology Seven test sites from among the 41 branches of the state protective services agency were selected for inclusion. These seven sites represented a cross section of the diversity among the state’s population. Families who entered these seven Permanent Planning units between June 1, 1993 and May 3 1, 1994 were included in the pilot project. *
’ The original design also called for a comparison group of families to be included. These families were to have entered the same seven units prior to June 1, 1993 and therefore would not have received any special services (mediation or the therapeutic parent workbooks.) However, caseworkers in each of these seven units were completely unwilling or unable to offer any data from these families for comparison, even after repeated requests and changes in data collection to accommodate the caseworkers’ busy schedules. The caseworkers reported that to do so would compromise their ability to provide even the most minimal services to families on their already bursting caseloads. Consequently, this study does not include any comparison data from families who received customary procedures.
Heath
Each of the three research questions was measured with a unique source of data within this evaluation package. The first research question (that mediated adoptions could be an effective and efficient alternative to customary procedures) was tested by measuring the percentage of referred children who were voluntarily relinquished by their parents following mediation. Although this is an elementary empirical analysis, the percentage of cooperative adoption agreements is at the core of Mayer’s speculation: that mediated adoptions can be an effective and efficient alternative to the customary, adversarial process. We wanted to test his speculation. The second research question (whether mediated adoption enables birth parents and caseworkers to find a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and therefore less costly, than the customary adversarial method) was tested using a Key Informant Survey of caseworkers. Interviews were attempted with every caseworker that referred a child to mediation. Key Informant Surveys are recommended for this type of analysis and have been used in a variety of studies to gather information from elected or appointed political leaders, administrative and program personnel, clergy, teachers, law enforcement personnel, and community leaders. These individuals are selected, not because they are statistically representative, but because of their presumed knowledge about the topic of study (Rhodes & Jason, 199 1). A questionnaire with open-ended questions, was used to measure the third research question of this study: assessing the degree to which all involved parties saw the mediated adoption process as effective. Attorneys, birth parents, adoptive parents, caseworkers, supervisors, private therapists, and foster parents were surveyed on their opinions about mediation. Qualitative Analysis Qualitative analyses were a more appropriate methodology for these research questions than quantitative analyses would have been for the following reasons. First, this was a new, innovative program: that of bringing what had previously been used in private adoption to the difficult TPR populations for the first time. We knew little about how this type of privately developed program would work in this public arena, and knew less about what questions to ask in evaluating it. Qualitative analyses are better than quantitative analyses when exploring a new subject area. The results of an exploratory qualitative analyses can lead to the formation of stronger
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
613
quantitative measures for future evaluations (Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992), saving valuable research resources when larger-scale, quantitative studies are eventually launched. The goal of this study was to guide future studies by providing preliminary information about the adaptability of these privately mediated adoption practices to a public, child protective services clientele, thereby shaping quantitative analyses in future studies. In addition, we desired a deeper, insider’s view more than we desired a distant, outsider’s view of these practices. This was because of the types of questions that guided our evaluation and because of our small sample size. We were willing to forego generalizability to pursue detailed answers to our questions about how these families and staff were helped or hurt by these unconventional practices. Using the concepts of Steckler and associates (Steckler et al., 1992) this is a Model 1 study: qualitative methods were used to provide foundation for the development of quantitative measures and instruments. The methods used are those of qualitative researchers who “immerse themselves in a culture by observing its people and their interactions” (Steckler et al. 1992, p. 2); interviewing key informants, asking open-ended and opinion-seeking questions, and analyzing existing documents. The goals of this study are not compatible with the goals of quantitative analysis, described by Steckler and associates: “...it is the social scientist’s role to quantify these [causes and effects] in order to predict future events, behavior, or other outcomes” (Steckler, et al. 1992, P.3.) As conceptualized, this new process toward adoption has the potential to overturn many of our commonly supported notions about Termination of Parental Rights. Therefore we chose to go slowly in our examination, asking questions, probing for answers which would guide a future quantitative analysis with large numbers of subjects if this initial small-scale study indicated any benefits of this unconventional adoption process. It was not our expectation that any of our findings could be generalized to other populations, but rather that they would serve to guide further analyses. We agree with Steckler et al.: Quantitative measures are often most appropriate...when a program has reached a ‘finished product’ stage and has a certain level of maturity and stability (p.3).
Heath
614
In our opinion, this “infancy” program using private adoptions between public child-protective workers, abusive/neglectful parents currently does not meet for quantitative analysis. But we are hopeful that others in the pursuit of such criteria.
mediators to negotiate the legal system, and the “maturity” criteria this study will spawn
Results
Percentage of Voluntary Relinquishments from Mediation Thirty-three families were referred for mediation services during the study period. These thirty-three families contained a total of 51 separate parent/child dyads. (If there were two parents and two children, four separate parent/child dyads were counted). Of these 5 1 dyads, 13 never began mediation (either because they did not keep mediation appointments or because they attended one session but did not enter into an agreement to participate in mediation.) Five of the 51 dyads attended at least one mediation session, agreed to participate, but withdrew before any resolution (either because the birth parent initiated the withdrawal or because the agency or the family’s attorney initiated the withdrawal.) Four dyads were in mediation and the outcome was still pending at the time of final analysis. One child returned home following mediation. Twenty eight of the 51 dyads were resolved with a signed cooperative agreement. This resulted in the avoidance of 29 contested TPRs (28 Cooperative Agreements + 1 Returned Home) out of 5 1 dyads. (See Table 1 in Appendix A.) Key Informant Survey In this evaluation package, we elected to interview the caseworkers about each family who participated in mediation and a cooperative agreement. This excluded caseworkers involved in cases which were referred to mediation but where 1) the birth parents never began mediation, or 2) mediation was terminated prematurely by the birth parent, CSD, or birth parent’s attorney, or 3) where the child returned home following mediation, were not included in this Key Informant Survey. (This was because we were specifically interested in how caseworkers evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of mediation for the clients who completed mediation
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
615
and participated in a cooperative agreement.) We also included cases which were still pending at the time of the final analysis to include information on every case that either had already resulted in a cooperative agreement or might in the future. Thirty-two cases met these criteria. Twenty-eight resulted in a cooperative agreement and four were still pending at the time of the final analysis. Cases here are defined as a parent/child dyad as described earlier. For example, if Mrs. Jones has two children and signed agreements to relinquish both son and daughter, then her case is counted as two agreements. However, if her husband, Mr. Jones signs an agreement to relinquish his son, but not his daughter, one additional parent/child dyad is added for a family total of three agreements. The number of dyads within families ranged from one agreement (for one parent relinquishing one child to four agreements (two parents relinquishing two children). The decision was made to use these dyads as the data source, and to accept the inherent resulting bias, because each agreement was a separate negotiated contract. A cooperative agreement for one child did not ensure a similar agreement on his/her sibling. In addition, the investment of time by all involved parties influenced this decision on data analysis as well. On average, it required far less time to secure one agreement from one parent on one child, than to secure four agreements in a family of two parents and two children. Of these 32 agreements, we have data on 26. Two caseworkers were unavailable for the survey after repeated attempts. Each of these caseworkers worked with a single family that qualified for the study. One family participated in two agreements and the other family participated in four agreements accounting for the six agreements that were treated as missing data in these analyses and which will be omitted from further discussion. Our goal had been to schedule personal interviews with each caseworker in their office. However, many asked to participate by phone rather than in person. When they did, we obliged them. Interviews were conducted during the months of July 1994 and August 1994. No caseworker refused to participate, although two caseworkers’ schedules precluded time for interviews and their cases are not included in these analyses. During the interviews, caseworkers were asked questions which had been developed and reviewed by seven Evaluation Team and agency staff members. In the first section, they were asked for their opinion about
616
Heath
whether the case would have gone to trial had it not been mediated. If they answered “No”, they were asked to explain why they had referred it to mediation. If they answered, “Yes”, they were asked whether they anticipated the case would have been contested or not at trial. Next they were asked, “How would you rate the complexity of the case (the number of family members + the number of issues + the intensity of the feelings + all the things that prolong the legal process)?” as “High, Medium, or LOW”.
In the second section, caseworkers were asked for their opinion on what impact mediation had on the intensity of feelings component of family complexity. Caseworkers were asked, “DO you believe mediation had any effect on the intensity of feelings in this case?” “Yes or No” and then “Why not? or In what way?“. They were also asked, “Without mediation, would the intensity of feelings have lengthened the legal process in this case?” Their answers enabled us to gather information on whether caseworkers perceived mediation as psychologically and financially beneficial in assisting families through this decision-making process. In the third and final section caseworkers were asked the more general question, “DO you think mediation has value in resolving permanency planning for children?” ”Yes or NO” and “Why or Why not?” The answers to these questions enabled us to determine whether caseworkers saw any broad based value to mediation services for their clients and the Permanency Planning process in general. Caseworker opinions are presented in Table 2, Appendix B. Would have been contested trials. The majority of caseworkers in the Key Informant Survey expected that without mediation, most of their cases (18126) would have gone to trial and would have been contested. Of these 18 agreements, 13 came from families reported as “high complexity” and five agreements came from families reported as “medium complexity”. None came from families reported as “low complexity”. When these caseworkers were asked specifically about the intensity of feelings component in these cases, 17 out of 18 agreements came from parents for whom mediation had a beneficial effect on the intensity of feelings. One parent was reported to be suffering from such severe mental dysfunction that she was unable to participate filly. The caseworkers added rich detail in their explanatory statements. (All are caseworker quotes. The term “CSD” in the following quotes refers to the name of the public protective services agency.)
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
617
lA TPR [Termination of Parental Rights heari@
was inevitable since both parents were incarcerated for sexually abusing their daughter and maybe their son, but mediation gave the adoptive family an option for future information. Mediation saved CSD money when all professional witnesses could be canceled at the trial because a cooperative agreement had already been signed. *Mediation helped to “calm down the process “. Mom went from opposing foster care initially to embracing adoption and blessing it filly. Having mom participate in the planning enabled her to give up the Jight. This case had been up for TPR two years ago and dropped. So this new pending case was expected to explode but because of mediation, it did not. *The birth mother hated CSD for a past TPR on another child. The mediator met with this fugitive mom at a park and got the cooperative agreement signed after several mediation sessions. l Ajer calling the court referee in a previous hearing “a bitch”, which resulted in court security being called in, this methamphetamine-using mom was able to calmly deliver pictures and letters to me [caseworker] in an appropriate manner and admit to the mediator, although still not to anyone else, that the new parents are doing a better job parenting her child than she would ever have been able to. In response to the question regarding, whether “...the intensity of feelings would have lengthened the legal process without mediation”, 11 agreements came from families which experienced shortened legal processes as a result of mediation. Seven agreements came from families which experienced either no shortening because they were already scheduled for trial when the agreement was signed, or in the case of one family, actually experiencing a longer legal process when staff delayed filing court petition papers to give mediation a chance to succeed. However even for those families who went to trial after receiving mediation services, most caseworkers agreed that the trial was simpler, enlisted fewer wit-
Heath
618
nesses, and involved less court time involved. A sample of caseworker responses illustrate these conclusions. (All are caseworker quotes.) Without mediation, the birth mother would have fought the process and continued as a fugitive from pending legal have necessarily charges. Therefore our plan would moved very slowly. This trial was expected to take three weeks given the complexity, but instead we avoided a trial altogether with a cooperative agreement. l
l
Each caseworker involved in these 18 agreements reported that mediation has value in resolving permanency plannings for children and cited: (All are caseworker quotes.) 9 Mediation can cut out lots of time in foster care forchildren, uses a neutral party who can be more eflective because s/he is not the “bad guy” who removed the children initially, and is more respect@1 of the family. Mediation legitimizes what some of us have been doing for a long time. As long as six years ago, we gave families fictitious descriptions of potential adoptive families to solicit their input in choosing adoptive families in the hopes that the birth parents would stay in contact with their children afrr the TPR. I’m 1000% impressed with mediation’s ability to reverse the adversarial process even through tremendous obstacles set up by the birth mother. This case had been with CSD for seven years with the birth mother making no significant change. Mediation made all the difference-shortened the process and left people with a goodfeeling. We all get something from the biological history in our families. As CSD caseworkers, we are not making plans to simply get children o# our caseloads but rather to give them happy, healthy lives. When birth parents can provide something other than parenting, real long-term benefits, not only to the current generation, but to future generations are realized l
l
l
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
619
Would not have been contested. Two caseworkers (accounting for 2/26 dyads) predicted that their cases would have gone to trial but not been contested had they not participated in mediation. These two agreements came from families viewed as having either a “medium complexity” or “low complexity” to their issues. Both caseworkers reported that mediation helped to calm the intensity of feelings in the cases. In one case the birth mother had not been expected to even appear at the TRR hearing. In the other case, the birth mother had refused to work with the agency altogether out of anger and fear. When caseworkers were asked whether the intensity of feelings would have lengthened the legal process in each case, they responded: (All are caseworker quotes.) The birth mother did not have a good rapport with CSD, but had a good relationship with the adoptive family. Mediation allowed planning and resolution without CSD. A neutral thirdparty helped. And the birth mother’s attorney was more open to mediation, too. 8 The birth mother was not responding although CS’D would have continued anyway and gone to TPR. Mediation helped the birth mother feel safe and choose to cooperate. Mediation helped speed up the process and get a voluntary relinquishment. l
Both caseworkers felt that mediation has value in resolving permanency phumings for children and underscored this in their comments: . A neutral third par@ helps expedite the process. The parent workbooks were especially helpfil when used at the beginning of the process. It helps deter the need for permanency planning. Mediation would be great. I wish we would use it more. Would be helpful especially at the @ant end of the process. It would speed up the process, save time, money, and work. Seems like a more humane process in many cases. l
Would not have gone to trial. Three caseworkers (accounting for 6 out of 26 dyads) predicted that their cases would not have gone to trial
Heath
620
without mediation. Two caseworkers referred their cases to mediation for assistance in securing voluntary relinquishment more quickly and in a more satisfying manner for their clients. One of these reported, 9 I knew the birth mother would have made the same decision but I wanted mediation to help her resolve what she knew needed to be done. Mediation speeded up the process and involved the birth mother in the process to decide for herself The third caseworker reported that her case would not have gone to trial because it had been tried once without a successful TPR. Following this unsuccessful attempt, the State Attorney General’s office had informed the agency that they would not attempt another costly TPR with the family. The caseworker predicts that without mediation this child would have remained in foster care until legal adulthood. With mediation, cooperative agreements were reached with both parents. All three caseworkers agreed that mediation has value in resolving permanency planning for children and cited: A neutral, non-threatening third party helps everyone focus on what is best for the child and mediators are more skilled in helping parties deal with issues andfeelings. Anytime we can empower parents to make a mediated plan, there are benefits to these parents’#ture, and to the child’s adjustment to his/her new life. In addition, adoptive parents benejit because the inevitable questions of their adopted children are more likely to be answered. l
l
Questionnaire of All Involved Parties To test the third research question as to how all involved parties assessed the effectiveness of mediation, mediators were instructed to deliver questionnaires to each family member and each professional who was involved in those cases which were referred to mediation. A total of 45 respondents mailed their questionnaires directly to the evaluator as they were instructed: 5 attorneys; 23 birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents; 12 agency supervisors and workers; 3 independent therapists and
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
621
a program manager; and 2 others. Analysis was organized, and will be presented here, by each of these five categories of respondents. Attorneys. Of the five attorneys who returned questionnaires, all answered the question: Was mediation helpful? Four responded “yes” and one responded “no”. The attorneys who responded “Yes” cited that mediators: 1) made their jobs easier, 2) carefully listened and took time to explain procedures to their clients, 3) helped resolve cases without litigation, and 4) were more psychologically helpful to their clients than lengthy court battles would have been. The attorney who responded “no” cited that “no change happens without the application of pressure and mediation is a sofr sale informational approach”. Birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents. Of the 23 Birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents who returned questionnaires, all answered the question: Was mediation helpful? Twenty-two responded “yes” and one responded “no”. Almost all birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents agreed that mediation was helpful. Adoptive parents felt that mediators offered good information and were always available to answer their questions. A foster parent stated, “The mediator’s diplomacy and caring with (birth mother) was beyond belief I think she-more than any of the rest of us-was able to reach (birth mother) and help her to make wise decisions.” Birth parents and relatives felt that mediators helped them understand their options, and demonstrated patience in explaining procedures. Many used the term “open-minded’ to describe how the mediator was helpful. Several of the birth parents begged for the program to be extended so they could continue to use mediation to finish their work with the agency and the courts. Most cited gratitude for open adoption so each could “continue to be a part of my children’s lives afrer their adoption”. The birth parent who responded “no” felt “mediation just postponed the placement of my children and they wasted government money on my case.” Agency supervisors and workers. Of the twelve agency supervisors and workers, all responded to the question: Was mediation helpful? Nine responded “yes”, none responded “no”, and three said they “had no opportunity to use mediation”. The agency workers who responded “yes” cited the following benefits of mediation: 1) gave client other options in planning for her child using a non-threatening manner with a non-agency person, and 2) mediator always kept worker informed of client progress. One summed it up like this: “Mediators were all very good at their work,
622
Heath
follow through with appropriate parties was excellent, and I was able to see positive results from the process.” The workers who had “no-opportunity-to-use” cited that either the mediator was unable to locate the parent or the parent was unwilling to work with the mediator when approached. One worker went on to say that even though mediation did not work for the parent, “it was likely to be he&W between the adoptive parent and the grandparent/sibling group”. One reported that “the @I& took five months to obtain and by the time mediation started, the adversarial process ... made meanin&l mediation impossible.” Independent therapists and program manager. Of the three independent therapists and program manager, all responded to the question: Was mediation helpful? Two responded “yes”, none responded “no” and one responded that there was “no opportunity to use”. The .therapists and program manager, who responded “yes”, cited that the process was helpful to the client because “it raised the salient issues directly related to planning for her children.” The therapists and program manager who responded that there was “no-opportunity-to-use” cited that the “client did not want to meet with her mom and her wishes were expressed through myselj” Others. The two remaining involved parties included a case aide and a volunteer. Both responded “yes” to the question: Was mediation helpful? They cited that mediation was responsible for productive communication: “For the first time, we were able to share concerns and be open in expressing our feelings.” There was consistent support for mediation services among agency staff, attorneys, birth parents, adoptive/foster parents, and independent therapists. This is because most believed that an external mediator is more effective in “reaching” the birth parent and guiding him/her through diffrcult choices than internal agency staff are able to do. It appears that adoptive and foster parents, attorneys for birth parents, and independent therapists are better able to compare the differences in outcomes between birth parents and mediators with that of birth parents and agency staff. Most adoptive and foster parents, attorneys, and independent therapists reported that mediation was effective with birth parents simply because birth parents chose to be more open with mediators than with agency staff. Presumably this is because birth parents recognize the adversarial role that agency staff play in the TPR process. And it was this “openness”, which
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
623
birth parents elected to use in their work with mediators, which contributed to their progress in voluntary relinquishment of their children. Agency staff described the advantages of having another trained professional involved in difficult cases who plays a more neutral role. Caseworkers felt that mediators were effective with agency clients, kept workers informed of the progress, and were pleased with the outcomes of the mediation sessions. Agency staff welcomed the involvement of mediators because many believed that the mediators saved them valuable time on their mediated cases. No caseworker or supervisor reported any negative reactions to mediation. Financial Savings Although this evaluation package did not examine the financial benefits of this pilot project, another related analysis by Etter (1994) on this same project found the following results. On average, the current adversarial system costs $35,000 per child for trial, caseworker, and foster care costs in this northwestern state. The average cost of mediated cases in this project for the same three components plus mediation averaged $7,300 per child. This is because foster care and caseworker supervision hours were reduced by three-quarters (Etter, 1994.)
Limitations of the Study Several limitations of this study are apparent. First, the sample size in this study, and the single state population from which the sample resides, limits the generalizability of these results to only this state. However, these data are invaluable because they offer a foundation of information for other states that might elect to offer this service. Second, because we do not have comparison data from families who did not receive the specialized services, it is more difficult to conclude that these families benefited solely from these specialized services. Nonetheless, the caseworkers who participated in the Key Informant Survey portion of this evaluation package have decades of combined experience in protective services. Their assessments are overwhelmingly positive ones. Children who participated in this pilot study and were relinquished for adoption within the 12 month study period beat the state’s average of 34
Heath
624
months. (Both figures represent the number of months in foster care once the children begin Permanent Planning.) Lastly, reliance upon service providers to be data collectors introduces a bias that may have influenced these findings. Caseworkers necessarily prioritize their work to deliver their service first and collect data second. Consequently their collection of data reflects their personal biases and their time constraints. For example, it was difficult to obtain data for a comparison group of clients who did not receive specialized services. It would be expected, as well, that caseworkers might believe that if they gave positive reports about mediation, the central administration of this child protection agency would include mediation services in future budgets. Caseworkers may have wanted this policy decision, to enable them to more effectively manage their bulging caseloads.
Discussion and Implications The Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project developed and tested an innovative, non-coercive adoption-counseling program to engage abusive and neglectful parents in cooperative planning for their child’s future. Parents who had failed family reunification efforts either because the system had failed them or because they had failed to change their behaviors had the option of working with, rather than against, the state. Experienced child welfare mediators helped birth parents recognize their inability to provide secure, stable home environments for their children and helped them enter into voluntary cooperative plans for the adoption of their children. After signing a cooperative agreement, birth parents participated in the lives of their biological children in limited ways via letters and sometimes occasional supervised visits. Several things are apparent from this evaluation package on the mediation services that were offered to a small number of families in Permanent Planning units across this northwestern state.
First, mediation services were effective in securing cooperative agreements and avoiding contested Termination of Parental Rights trials for a majority of the clients who participated, Mediation also saved money: lots of it. On average, the current adversarial system costs $35,000 per child for trial, caseworker, and foster care costs. The average cost of mediated cases in this project for the same three components plus media-
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
625
tion averaged $7,300 per child. This is because foster care and caseworker supervision hours were reduced by approximately 75% (Etter, 1994.) This is a substantial saving to a system oftentimes crippled under the weight of increasing caseloads and decreasing state support. Replication of this program and evaluation is critically important given the numbers of children affected and the potential rate of savings per child. Second, an overwhelming majority of birth parents, caseworkers, supervisors, adoptive parents, foster parents, therapists, and attorneys who completed the evaluation instrument, attributed mediators and the mediation process with accomplishing unusual success with highly complex families, some of whom had previously had unsuccessful TPRs at great costs to the state and the family. Third, mediation services appear to be a more cost effective way than the adversarial TPR process for securing the relinquishment of children for adoption by birth parents who have been unable to reunify with their children. Fourth, by caseworker and birth parent reports, mediation offers a more humane, respectful way to intervene in the lives of abusive and neglectful families. Finally, mediation allows birth parents and children an opportunity to be involved with each other in limited, but emotionally beneficial ways in the future. The results of this evaluation package indicate that mediation may be a preferred process for Permanent Planning families who can often voluntarily release their children for adoption with the assistance of a private mediator. When they do so, parents, children, and the child welfare system benefit.
Heath
626
References
Ammerman, R.T. and Hersen, M. (1990). Research in child abuse and neglect: Current status and an agenda for the future. In R.T. Ammerman & M.Hersen (Eds.) Children at risk (pp.3-19). New York: Plenum Press. English, T.R. (1994). Cost analysis of a sample of contested termination of parental rights proceedings. (Unpublished manuscript). Etter, J. (1988). Use of mediated agreements in adoption. Mediation Quurterly, 22, 83-89. Etter, J. and Giovannini, M. (1988). Adoption mediation: Applying preventive conflict management to open-adoption planning. Mediation Quarterly, 21, 51-57. Etter, J. (1994). Mediation: An alternative to contested termination of parental rights. (Unpublished manuscript). Hart, B.J. (1990). Gentle jeopardy: The further endangerment of battered women and children in custody mediation. Mediation Quarterfy, 7(4), 3 17-330. Kadushin, A. and Martin, J.A. (1988). Child wefire services. New York: Macmillan. Kaminsky, H. and Cosmano, R. (1990). Mediating child welfare disputes: How to focus on the best interest of the child. Mediation Quarterly, 7(3), 229-235. Magana, H.A. and Taylor, N. (1993). Child custody mediation and spouse abuse: A descriptive study of a protocol. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 3Z( l), 50-64. Marthaler, D. (1989). Successful mediation with abusive couples. Mediation Quarterly, 23, 53-66. Mayer, B. (1985). Conflict resolution in child protection and adoption. Mediation Quarterly, 7,69-8 1. Mayer, B. (1989). Mediation in child protection cases: The impact of thirdparty intervention on parental compliance attitudes. Mediation Quarterly, 24, 89106. Pagelow, M.D. (1990). Effects of domestic violence on children and their consequences for custody and visitation agreements. Mediution Quarterly, 7(4), 347-363. Rhodes, J.E. and Jason, L.A. (1991). Community needs assessment. In H.E. Schroeder (Ed.) New directions in health psychology assessment (pp. 159- 173). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Steckler, A., McLeroy, K.R., Goodman, R.M., Bird, S.T., and McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(l), 1-8.
627
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies Appendix A
Table 1 Outcomes of Referrals to Mediation Services Total number of Families
33
Total No number mtgs/ of Par- No entl mediaChild tion Dyads started 51 13
Premature drop out by BP,CSD, or Atty 5
Still Pending
Child Returned Home
cooperative Agreement Signed
Contested TPR Avoided
4
1
28
29
Appendix B
Table 2 Caseworker Opinions on Case Outcome without Mediation Birth Parents (representing dyads) who signed Coop erative Agreements or are Still Pending 28+4=32-->
Caseworkers (representing dyads) who participated in Key Informant sur-
Would have been Contested TPR tri-
Would Not have been Contested TPR
als
bidS
18 (of 26)
2 (of 26)
Would not have gone togal
VeY
-->32-6=26
6 (of 26)
PIISONO-7409(98)00028-O
Qualitative Analysis of Private Mediation: Benefits for Families in Public Child Welfare Agencies D. Terri Heath University of Oregon A pilot project of mediated adoptions was offered to parents in permanency planning units in seven branches of a state’s public protective child welfare agency. Three research questions guided the study: First, can mediated agreements provide an effective and efficient alternative to adversarial Termination of Parental Rights procedures within a public protective service agency caseload of highly abusive and neglectful parents? Second, can mediated agreements enable birth parents and caseworkers to reach a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and therefore less costly, than is true for the customary adversarial method? Third, of the parties involved (attorneys, birth parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, caseworkers, and agency supervisors) which find mediation to be beneficial? It was decided that three areas of program evaluation would be tested using three unique sources of data, collected independently to ensure the highest standard by which to evaluate this program. These three sources were: 1) interviews with caseworkers, 2) written questionnaires by parents and service providers, 3) empirical data on families who entered into cooperative agreements. Mediation was found to be effective by all three measurements, thereby providing first-time evidence that mediation can change parents’ views regarding adoption and provide them with an avenue for voluntary relinquishment. When abused and neglected children in the United States enter a Protective Service delivery system, many have been violated by the adults who This project was funded under U.S. Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families Grant # 9OCOO63l/01, 1992-1994. The study was presented at the annual conference of the National Council on Family Relations, Portland, OR; November, 1995. Requests for reprints should be sent to D. Terri Heath, The Social Science Instructional Lab, 5246 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-5246 [[email protected]
I. 605
606
Heath
are authorized to protect and defend them: their parents, stepparents, and guardians. Some of these children remain in their homes with varying levels of intervention from this delivery system. Some are removed and placed in the homes of relatives, friends, or foster parents. Others are placed in more restrictive environments, such as residential treatment centers and group homes. For the children who are removed from their homes, most begin a lengthy waiting period. They wait for their caseworkers to set up treatment plans with their parents. They wait for their parents to comply with the treatment plan. They wait for both sides to consult with attorneys, schedule court time, and follow through with treatment plans. They wait for adults to determine their future. While the children live in these other homes, parents are expected to improve their parenting by target deadlines and in accordance with guidelines set forward by protective service workers. Parents who fail to meet the expectations of the child protective service delivery system, who fail to demonstrate their abilities to provide adequate care and supervision for their children, may eventually face-off with protective service workers in Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) hearings. If the court finds in favor of the protective service system, the parents’ rights are permanently severed. In the current system this means the parents have no further contact with their children, are given no opportunities to plan for the future of their children, cannot give to or receive correspondence from their children, and cannot be given reports on the well-being of their children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether external, neutral, third-party mediators could broker a cooperative agreement between biological parents and public protective service workers which would speed up the process, benefit children with sound permanency plans, and save the state in expenditures on staff time, court costs, and foster care expenses. This report details the intervention, the methodology used to evaluate the program, the findings, and the implications.
Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project A northwestern state’s child protective services agency launched a federally funded pilot project to evaluate whether mediation could free foster care children for adoption sooner by employing private external
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
607
child welfare mediators. By offering parents the opportunity to work with caseworkers in mediation (rather than against them in court) it was hypothesized that children would experience fewer months in foster care, and have the opportunity to retain limited ties to their families of origin after adoption. Parents met with the external, private mediators to develop a permanent plan for their child, either to voluntarily relinquish the child for adoption or to return the child to their home under significantly improved conditions. Parents received private mediation services, which were funded under the federal grant. If during mediation, they participated in a signed cooperative agreement with the Permanency Planning caseworkers, they were given the opportunity to assist the staff in planning for their child’s future. (Parents whose rights are terminated via customary procedures are given no opportunity to participate in planning for their child’s future.) The parents did this by recommending specific qualities in the selected adoptive parents such as race, religion, particular child-rearing values and occupations of the parents. Additionally, many participating parents were given opportunities for limited contact with their child following the permanent adoption such as annual letters and pictures, or in rare situations, an annual supervised visit. If the Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project worked, caseworkers might find permanent resolution for children in foster care more quickly, and in a less costly, and more humane manner than in the customary adversarial and involuntary Termination of Parental Rights process. Rationale for the Intervention The public child welfare agency proposed to offer a slightly modified version of the same services provided by a statewide, private adoption agency. This private adoption agency specializes in mediated, open adop tions by using trained mediators to assist birth parents in their decisions to plan for their children’s futures. The clientele of the private agency, however, is vastly different than the clientele in the public agency. Private agency clients have already made the decision to relinquish what is typically their unborn child and place him/her for adoption with one of the many families on the agency’s waiting list. Most of these children are healthy newborns. Most of the families have been waiting for lengthy periods of time to adopt. There is typically no foster care home involved.
608
Heath
Public agency clients, however, have not made decisions to relinquish their typically older infants, toddlers, children and adolescents, and are often fighting hard against their adversary, the child protective services system either via overt, direct actions or through a covert, indirect luck of actions to block a system-initiated Termination of their Parental RightsSo the question at the heart of this study was whether the practices which work with a private agency clientele who want to relinquish their children could be effective with this a public agency clientele, who want to retain their children, using neutral, third-party adoption mediators and thereby lessening the emotional costs to children and families and the financial costs to the child welfare system. Financial Costs of Current System The waiting period is costly, both financially and emotionally (Ammerman & Hersen, 1990; Kadushin & Martin, 1988) The wait costs the state and county wages for caseworkers, foster parents, residential treatment care staff, attorneys and court staff. Many of these children’s cases transfer from intake and on-going units into Permanency Planning units, where discussion between parents, caseworkers and attorneys changes from planning for treatment and reunification with parents to a permanent solution, often outside of the child’s family of origin. In many of these families, children have been in foster care for years before planning begins to include a permanent solution. English (1994) compiled figures from a sample of seven “typical cases” identified by one state’s Protective Service Agency. ‘Ihe trial costs of the customary procedures varied from approximately $7,000 to $50,000 per case. These monetary costs included: 1) legal assistance to the Protective Service agency at the trial and appellate levels provided by the Department of Justice; 2) costs of expert witnesses and investigations for the state’s case; and 3) Indigent Defense costs for legal services for parents and children including attorney fees, expert witness costs, transcript costs and in one case charges for a Guardian ad litem for a parent. It is important to note that these figures do not include: 1) costs of foster care while the child or children are awaiting action, or 2) administrative and staff costs incurred by the Protective Service agency in managing the prosecution of these cases. These seven cases, and their corresponding financial
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
609
costs, are typical for the Permanent Planning units within this state, regardless of how or why the child entered the system. Termination of Parental Rights hearings for children who have been abandoned by their parents are no less costly. In contrast, they may be among the most expensive cases for states to take to final hearings because the legal system provides many protections for parents before removing their parental rights. Parents who cannot be located are given numerous opportunities to become involved in their children’s lives before their parental rights are permanently severed. Two observations are apparent from this examination of cases. First, costs associated with Permanency Planning and TPR cases vary widely. Second, the cases are costly, emotionally and financially. Caseworkers and attorneys have always described them as emotionally costly to all of the parties involved but these data now offer quantitative evidence of their Iinancial costs as well (English, 1994). Typically, state child protective service workers initiate Termination of Parental Rights hearings when they determine that the family cannot currently, nor in the future, provide adequate supervision and care for the child. At the time of the Termination of Parental Rights court hearing, most children are residing either in foster homes or the homes of relatives. In the majority of cases parents have been given months, and more often years, to resolve whatever problems led to the removal of their child from their home, although levels of support from service providers vary greatly between states and even between families within the same state.
Mediation as an Alternative
Mediation is the practice of using a neutral “outsider” to negotiate a common solution to the conflict between two or more parties. It is widely used in divorce settlements, custody disagreements following divorce, criminal and civil legal cases, and private adoptions and been successful (Etter, 1988; Etter & Giovannini, 1988; Hart, 1990; Kaminsky & Cosmano, 1990; Magana & Taylor, 1993; Marthaler, 1989; Mayer, 1985; Mayer, 1989; Pagelow, 1990.) Mediation has been less successful in situations where domestic violence has been a pattern. For example, many report that mediation is inappropriate for spouses and cohabitors who are separating following domestic violence because the power imbalances
Heath
610
continue even during mediation (Hart, 1990; Pagelow, 1990.) Others disagree and argue that with skilled mediators, this power imbalance can be effectively managed (Magana & Taylor, 1993; Marthaler, 1989.) Mayer (1985) has argued that protective service workers have historically viewed the decisions related to Termination of Parental Rights as a dichotomy of extremes: either there is a complete severance of all contact between parent and child or all rights remain with the biological parents. Adoption mediation represents a midpoint between these two extremes with parents voluntarily relinquishing their rights and participating in the planning for their child’s future. After the adoption biological parents are allowed to maintain minimal contact with their children via annual letters or rare visits. Advocates of adoption mediation argue that it is a more humane approach to family crisis; that older children will always remember their “first family” and that mediated adoption gives them a legal, legitimate, but limited connection to their biological kin while at the same time, protecting them from the abusive or neglectful environment from which they were removed. Mayer (1985) called for mediation to be used and evaluated within protective services: It is essential for research to be conducted into this approach [mediation] so that we can determine its effectiveness...it may very well be time for social service agencies to begin exploring mediation and collaborative problem solving as tools with which they can handle protective service cases. In many circumstances, these tools may provide child protection workers with a useful avenue for involving families in a more productive alliance in-service of children (pp. 74-75). Advocates suggest that biological parents may be more willing to cooperate with caseworkers if their input is solicited in planning for the future of their child (Kaminsky & Cosmano, 1990; Mayer, 1985). The process toward Termination of Parental Rights, which places parents and caseworkers in oppositional roles, is typically a costly one.
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
611
Research Questions The evaluation team (composed of protective service agency caseworkers, administrators, supervisors, the coordinator of mediation, and the project evaluator) wanted to evaluate three components of the pilot project. First, the team wanted to test Mayer’s (1985) suggestion that mediated adoptions could be an effective and efficient alternative to customary procedures within a public protective service agency caseload of highly abusive and neglectful parents. Second, the team wondered if mediated adop tion would enable birth parents and caseworkers to find a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and thus be less costly, than the customary adversarial method. Third, they wanted to examine how all involved parties assessed the effectiveness of mediation. To enhance the quality of the measurements, it was decided that each of these three areas of program evaluation would be tested using a unique source of data, therefore requiring that a specific type of data be collected for each analysis, rather than using a single data source for all three analyses. It was believed that this would be the highest standard by which to evaluate this program.
Methodology Seven test sites from among the 41 branches of the state protective services agency were selected for inclusion. These seven sites represented a cross section of the diversity among the state’s population. Families who entered these seven Permanent Planning units between June 1, 1993 and May 3 1, 1994 were included in the pilot project. *
’ The original design also called for a comparison group of families to be included. These families were to have entered the same seven units prior to June 1, 1993 and therefore would not have received any special services (mediation or the therapeutic parent workbooks.) However, caseworkers in each of these seven units were completely unwilling or unable to offer any data from these families for comparison, even after repeated requests and changes in data collection to accommodate the caseworkers’ busy schedules. The caseworkers reported that to do so would compromise their ability to provide even the most minimal services to families on their already bursting caseloads. Consequently, this study does not include any comparison data from families who received customary procedures.
Heath
Each of the three research questions was measured with a unique source of data within this evaluation package. The first research question (that mediated adoptions could be an effective and efficient alternative to customary procedures) was tested by measuring the percentage of referred children who were voluntarily relinquished by their parents following mediation. Although this is an elementary empirical analysis, the percentage of cooperative adoption agreements is at the core of Mayer’s speculation: that mediated adoptions can be an effective and efficient alternative to the customary, adversarial process. We wanted to test his speculation. The second research question (whether mediated adoption enables birth parents and caseworkers to find a resolution to the family’s crisis more quickly, and therefore less costly, than the customary adversarial method) was tested using a Key Informant Survey of caseworkers. Interviews were attempted with every caseworker that referred a child to mediation. Key Informant Surveys are recommended for this type of analysis and have been used in a variety of studies to gather information from elected or appointed political leaders, administrative and program personnel, clergy, teachers, law enforcement personnel, and community leaders. These individuals are selected, not because they are statistically representative, but because of their presumed knowledge about the topic of study (Rhodes & Jason, 199 1). A questionnaire with open-ended questions, was used to measure the third research question of this study: assessing the degree to which all involved parties saw the mediated adoption process as effective. Attorneys, birth parents, adoptive parents, caseworkers, supervisors, private therapists, and foster parents were surveyed on their opinions about mediation. Qualitative Analysis Qualitative analyses were a more appropriate methodology for these research questions than quantitative analyses would have been for the following reasons. First, this was a new, innovative program: that of bringing what had previously been used in private adoption to the difficult TPR populations for the first time. We knew little about how this type of privately developed program would work in this public arena, and knew less about what questions to ask in evaluating it. Qualitative analyses are better than quantitative analyses when exploring a new subject area. The results of an exploratory qualitative analyses can lead to the formation of stronger
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
613
quantitative measures for future evaluations (Steckler, McLeroy, Goodman, Bird, & McCormick, 1992), saving valuable research resources when larger-scale, quantitative studies are eventually launched. The goal of this study was to guide future studies by providing preliminary information about the adaptability of these privately mediated adoption practices to a public, child protective services clientele, thereby shaping quantitative analyses in future studies. In addition, we desired a deeper, insider’s view more than we desired a distant, outsider’s view of these practices. This was because of the types of questions that guided our evaluation and because of our small sample size. We were willing to forego generalizability to pursue detailed answers to our questions about how these families and staff were helped or hurt by these unconventional practices. Using the concepts of Steckler and associates (Steckler et al., 1992) this is a Model 1 study: qualitative methods were used to provide foundation for the development of quantitative measures and instruments. The methods used are those of qualitative researchers who “immerse themselves in a culture by observing its people and their interactions” (Steckler et al. 1992, p. 2); interviewing key informants, asking open-ended and opinion-seeking questions, and analyzing existing documents. The goals of this study are not compatible with the goals of quantitative analysis, described by Steckler and associates: “...it is the social scientist’s role to quantify these [causes and effects] in order to predict future events, behavior, or other outcomes” (Steckler, et al. 1992, P.3.) As conceptualized, this new process toward adoption has the potential to overturn many of our commonly supported notions about Termination of Parental Rights. Therefore we chose to go slowly in our examination, asking questions, probing for answers which would guide a future quantitative analysis with large numbers of subjects if this initial small-scale study indicated any benefits of this unconventional adoption process. It was not our expectation that any of our findings could be generalized to other populations, but rather that they would serve to guide further analyses. We agree with Steckler et al.: Quantitative measures are often most appropriate...when a program has reached a ‘finished product’ stage and has a certain level of maturity and stability (p.3).
Heath
614
In our opinion, this “infancy” program using private adoptions between public child-protective workers, abusive/neglectful parents currently does not meet for quantitative analysis. But we are hopeful that others in the pursuit of such criteria.
mediators to negotiate the legal system, and the “maturity” criteria this study will spawn
Results
Percentage of Voluntary Relinquishments from Mediation Thirty-three families were referred for mediation services during the study period. These thirty-three families contained a total of 51 separate parent/child dyads. (If there were two parents and two children, four separate parent/child dyads were counted). Of these 5 1 dyads, 13 never began mediation (either because they did not keep mediation appointments or because they attended one session but did not enter into an agreement to participate in mediation.) Five of the 51 dyads attended at least one mediation session, agreed to participate, but withdrew before any resolution (either because the birth parent initiated the withdrawal or because the agency or the family’s attorney initiated the withdrawal.) Four dyads were in mediation and the outcome was still pending at the time of final analysis. One child returned home following mediation. Twenty eight of the 51 dyads were resolved with a signed cooperative agreement. This resulted in the avoidance of 29 contested TPRs (28 Cooperative Agreements + 1 Returned Home) out of 5 1 dyads. (See Table 1 in Appendix A.) Key Informant Survey In this evaluation package, we elected to interview the caseworkers about each family who participated in mediation and a cooperative agreement. This excluded caseworkers involved in cases which were referred to mediation but where 1) the birth parents never began mediation, or 2) mediation was terminated prematurely by the birth parent, CSD, or birth parent’s attorney, or 3) where the child returned home following mediation, were not included in this Key Informant Survey. (This was because we were specifically interested in how caseworkers evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of mediation for the clients who completed mediation
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
615
and participated in a cooperative agreement.) We also included cases which were still pending at the time of the final analysis to include information on every case that either had already resulted in a cooperative agreement or might in the future. Thirty-two cases met these criteria. Twenty-eight resulted in a cooperative agreement and four were still pending at the time of the final analysis. Cases here are defined as a parent/child dyad as described earlier. For example, if Mrs. Jones has two children and signed agreements to relinquish both son and daughter, then her case is counted as two agreements. However, if her husband, Mr. Jones signs an agreement to relinquish his son, but not his daughter, one additional parent/child dyad is added for a family total of three agreements. The number of dyads within families ranged from one agreement (for one parent relinquishing one child to four agreements (two parents relinquishing two children). The decision was made to use these dyads as the data source, and to accept the inherent resulting bias, because each agreement was a separate negotiated contract. A cooperative agreement for one child did not ensure a similar agreement on his/her sibling. In addition, the investment of time by all involved parties influenced this decision on data analysis as well. On average, it required far less time to secure one agreement from one parent on one child, than to secure four agreements in a family of two parents and two children. Of these 32 agreements, we have data on 26. Two caseworkers were unavailable for the survey after repeated attempts. Each of these caseworkers worked with a single family that qualified for the study. One family participated in two agreements and the other family participated in four agreements accounting for the six agreements that were treated as missing data in these analyses and which will be omitted from further discussion. Our goal had been to schedule personal interviews with each caseworker in their office. However, many asked to participate by phone rather than in person. When they did, we obliged them. Interviews were conducted during the months of July 1994 and August 1994. No caseworker refused to participate, although two caseworkers’ schedules precluded time for interviews and their cases are not included in these analyses. During the interviews, caseworkers were asked questions which had been developed and reviewed by seven Evaluation Team and agency staff members. In the first section, they were asked for their opinion about
616
Heath
whether the case would have gone to trial had it not been mediated. If they answered “No”, they were asked to explain why they had referred it to mediation. If they answered, “Yes”, they were asked whether they anticipated the case would have been contested or not at trial. Next they were asked, “How would you rate the complexity of the case (the number of family members + the number of issues + the intensity of the feelings + all the things that prolong the legal process)?” as “High, Medium, or LOW”.
In the second section, caseworkers were asked for their opinion on what impact mediation had on the intensity of feelings component of family complexity. Caseworkers were asked, “DO you believe mediation had any effect on the intensity of feelings in this case?” “Yes or No” and then “Why not? or In what way?“. They were also asked, “Without mediation, would the intensity of feelings have lengthened the legal process in this case?” Their answers enabled us to gather information on whether caseworkers perceived mediation as psychologically and financially beneficial in assisting families through this decision-making process. In the third and final section caseworkers were asked the more general question, “DO you think mediation has value in resolving permanency planning for children?” ”Yes or NO” and “Why or Why not?” The answers to these questions enabled us to determine whether caseworkers saw any broad based value to mediation services for their clients and the Permanency Planning process in general. Caseworker opinions are presented in Table 2, Appendix B. Would have been contested trials. The majority of caseworkers in the Key Informant Survey expected that without mediation, most of their cases (18126) would have gone to trial and would have been contested. Of these 18 agreements, 13 came from families reported as “high complexity” and five agreements came from families reported as “medium complexity”. None came from families reported as “low complexity”. When these caseworkers were asked specifically about the intensity of feelings component in these cases, 17 out of 18 agreements came from parents for whom mediation had a beneficial effect on the intensity of feelings. One parent was reported to be suffering from such severe mental dysfunction that she was unable to participate filly. The caseworkers added rich detail in their explanatory statements. (All are caseworker quotes. The term “CSD” in the following quotes refers to the name of the public protective services agency.)
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
617
lA TPR [Termination of Parental Rights heari@
was inevitable since both parents were incarcerated for sexually abusing their daughter and maybe their son, but mediation gave the adoptive family an option for future information. Mediation saved CSD money when all professional witnesses could be canceled at the trial because a cooperative agreement had already been signed. *Mediation helped to “calm down the process “. Mom went from opposing foster care initially to embracing adoption and blessing it filly. Having mom participate in the planning enabled her to give up the Jight. This case had been up for TPR two years ago and dropped. So this new pending case was expected to explode but because of mediation, it did not. *The birth mother hated CSD for a past TPR on another child. The mediator met with this fugitive mom at a park and got the cooperative agreement signed after several mediation sessions. l Ajer calling the court referee in a previous hearing “a bitch”, which resulted in court security being called in, this methamphetamine-using mom was able to calmly deliver pictures and letters to me [caseworker] in an appropriate manner and admit to the mediator, although still not to anyone else, that the new parents are doing a better job parenting her child than she would ever have been able to. In response to the question regarding, whether “...the intensity of feelings would have lengthened the legal process without mediation”, 11 agreements came from families which experienced shortened legal processes as a result of mediation. Seven agreements came from families which experienced either no shortening because they were already scheduled for trial when the agreement was signed, or in the case of one family, actually experiencing a longer legal process when staff delayed filing court petition papers to give mediation a chance to succeed. However even for those families who went to trial after receiving mediation services, most caseworkers agreed that the trial was simpler, enlisted fewer wit-
Heath
618
nesses, and involved less court time involved. A sample of caseworker responses illustrate these conclusions. (All are caseworker quotes.) Without mediation, the birth mother would have fought the process and continued as a fugitive from pending legal have necessarily charges. Therefore our plan would moved very slowly. This trial was expected to take three weeks given the complexity, but instead we avoided a trial altogether with a cooperative agreement. l
l
Each caseworker involved in these 18 agreements reported that mediation has value in resolving permanency plannings for children and cited: (All are caseworker quotes.) 9 Mediation can cut out lots of time in foster care forchildren, uses a neutral party who can be more eflective because s/he is not the “bad guy” who removed the children initially, and is more respect@1 of the family. Mediation legitimizes what some of us have been doing for a long time. As long as six years ago, we gave families fictitious descriptions of potential adoptive families to solicit their input in choosing adoptive families in the hopes that the birth parents would stay in contact with their children afrr the TPR. I’m 1000% impressed with mediation’s ability to reverse the adversarial process even through tremendous obstacles set up by the birth mother. This case had been with CSD for seven years with the birth mother making no significant change. Mediation made all the difference-shortened the process and left people with a goodfeeling. We all get something from the biological history in our families. As CSD caseworkers, we are not making plans to simply get children o# our caseloads but rather to give them happy, healthy lives. When birth parents can provide something other than parenting, real long-term benefits, not only to the current generation, but to future generations are realized l
l
l
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
619
Would not have been contested. Two caseworkers (accounting for 2/26 dyads) predicted that their cases would have gone to trial but not been contested had they not participated in mediation. These two agreements came from families viewed as having either a “medium complexity” or “low complexity” to their issues. Both caseworkers reported that mediation helped to calm the intensity of feelings in the cases. In one case the birth mother had not been expected to even appear at the TRR hearing. In the other case, the birth mother had refused to work with the agency altogether out of anger and fear. When caseworkers were asked whether the intensity of feelings would have lengthened the legal process in each case, they responded: (All are caseworker quotes.) The birth mother did not have a good rapport with CSD, but had a good relationship with the adoptive family. Mediation allowed planning and resolution without CSD. A neutral thirdparty helped. And the birth mother’s attorney was more open to mediation, too. 8 The birth mother was not responding although CS’D would have continued anyway and gone to TPR. Mediation helped the birth mother feel safe and choose to cooperate. Mediation helped speed up the process and get a voluntary relinquishment. l
Both caseworkers felt that mediation has value in resolving permanency phumings for children and underscored this in their comments: . A neutral third par@ helps expedite the process. The parent workbooks were especially helpfil when used at the beginning of the process. It helps deter the need for permanency planning. Mediation would be great. I wish we would use it more. Would be helpful especially at the @ant end of the process. It would speed up the process, save time, money, and work. Seems like a more humane process in many cases. l
Would not have gone to trial. Three caseworkers (accounting for 6 out of 26 dyads) predicted that their cases would not have gone to trial
Heath
620
without mediation. Two caseworkers referred their cases to mediation for assistance in securing voluntary relinquishment more quickly and in a more satisfying manner for their clients. One of these reported, 9 I knew the birth mother would have made the same decision but I wanted mediation to help her resolve what she knew needed to be done. Mediation speeded up the process and involved the birth mother in the process to decide for herself The third caseworker reported that her case would not have gone to trial because it had been tried once without a successful TPR. Following this unsuccessful attempt, the State Attorney General’s office had informed the agency that they would not attempt another costly TPR with the family. The caseworker predicts that without mediation this child would have remained in foster care until legal adulthood. With mediation, cooperative agreements were reached with both parents. All three caseworkers agreed that mediation has value in resolving permanency planning for children and cited: A neutral, non-threatening third party helps everyone focus on what is best for the child and mediators are more skilled in helping parties deal with issues andfeelings. Anytime we can empower parents to make a mediated plan, there are benefits to these parents’#ture, and to the child’s adjustment to his/her new life. In addition, adoptive parents benejit because the inevitable questions of their adopted children are more likely to be answered. l
l
Questionnaire of All Involved Parties To test the third research question as to how all involved parties assessed the effectiveness of mediation, mediators were instructed to deliver questionnaires to each family member and each professional who was involved in those cases which were referred to mediation. A total of 45 respondents mailed their questionnaires directly to the evaluator as they were instructed: 5 attorneys; 23 birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents; 12 agency supervisors and workers; 3 independent therapists and
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
621
a program manager; and 2 others. Analysis was organized, and will be presented here, by each of these five categories of respondents. Attorneys. Of the five attorneys who returned questionnaires, all answered the question: Was mediation helpful? Four responded “yes” and one responded “no”. The attorneys who responded “Yes” cited that mediators: 1) made their jobs easier, 2) carefully listened and took time to explain procedures to their clients, 3) helped resolve cases without litigation, and 4) were more psychologically helpful to their clients than lengthy court battles would have been. The attorney who responded “no” cited that “no change happens without the application of pressure and mediation is a sofr sale informational approach”. Birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents. Of the 23 Birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents who returned questionnaires, all answered the question: Was mediation helpful? Twenty-two responded “yes” and one responded “no”. Almost all birth parents/relatives and foster/adoptive parents agreed that mediation was helpful. Adoptive parents felt that mediators offered good information and were always available to answer their questions. A foster parent stated, “The mediator’s diplomacy and caring with (birth mother) was beyond belief I think she-more than any of the rest of us-was able to reach (birth mother) and help her to make wise decisions.” Birth parents and relatives felt that mediators helped them understand their options, and demonstrated patience in explaining procedures. Many used the term “open-minded’ to describe how the mediator was helpful. Several of the birth parents begged for the program to be extended so they could continue to use mediation to finish their work with the agency and the courts. Most cited gratitude for open adoption so each could “continue to be a part of my children’s lives afrer their adoption”. The birth parent who responded “no” felt “mediation just postponed the placement of my children and they wasted government money on my case.” Agency supervisors and workers. Of the twelve agency supervisors and workers, all responded to the question: Was mediation helpful? Nine responded “yes”, none responded “no”, and three said they “had no opportunity to use mediation”. The agency workers who responded “yes” cited the following benefits of mediation: 1) gave client other options in planning for her child using a non-threatening manner with a non-agency person, and 2) mediator always kept worker informed of client progress. One summed it up like this: “Mediators were all very good at their work,
622
Heath
follow through with appropriate parties was excellent, and I was able to see positive results from the process.” The workers who had “no-opportunity-to-use” cited that either the mediator was unable to locate the parent or the parent was unwilling to work with the mediator when approached. One worker went on to say that even though mediation did not work for the parent, “it was likely to be he&W between the adoptive parent and the grandparent/sibling group”. One reported that “the @I& took five months to obtain and by the time mediation started, the adversarial process ... made meanin&l mediation impossible.” Independent therapists and program manager. Of the three independent therapists and program manager, all responded to the question: Was mediation helpful? Two responded “yes”, none responded “no” and one responded that there was “no opportunity to use”. The .therapists and program manager, who responded “yes”, cited that the process was helpful to the client because “it raised the salient issues directly related to planning for her children.” The therapists and program manager who responded that there was “no-opportunity-to-use” cited that the “client did not want to meet with her mom and her wishes were expressed through myselj” Others. The two remaining involved parties included a case aide and a volunteer. Both responded “yes” to the question: Was mediation helpful? They cited that mediation was responsible for productive communication: “For the first time, we were able to share concerns and be open in expressing our feelings.” There was consistent support for mediation services among agency staff, attorneys, birth parents, adoptive/foster parents, and independent therapists. This is because most believed that an external mediator is more effective in “reaching” the birth parent and guiding him/her through diffrcult choices than internal agency staff are able to do. It appears that adoptive and foster parents, attorneys for birth parents, and independent therapists are better able to compare the differences in outcomes between birth parents and mediators with that of birth parents and agency staff. Most adoptive and foster parents, attorneys, and independent therapists reported that mediation was effective with birth parents simply because birth parents chose to be more open with mediators than with agency staff. Presumably this is because birth parents recognize the adversarial role that agency staff play in the TPR process. And it was this “openness”, which
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
623
birth parents elected to use in their work with mediators, which contributed to their progress in voluntary relinquishment of their children. Agency staff described the advantages of having another trained professional involved in difficult cases who plays a more neutral role. Caseworkers felt that mediators were effective with agency clients, kept workers informed of the progress, and were pleased with the outcomes of the mediation sessions. Agency staff welcomed the involvement of mediators because many believed that the mediators saved them valuable time on their mediated cases. No caseworker or supervisor reported any negative reactions to mediation. Financial Savings Although this evaluation package did not examine the financial benefits of this pilot project, another related analysis by Etter (1994) on this same project found the following results. On average, the current adversarial system costs $35,000 per child for trial, caseworker, and foster care costs in this northwestern state. The average cost of mediated cases in this project for the same three components plus mediation averaged $7,300 per child. This is because foster care and caseworker supervision hours were reduced by three-quarters (Etter, 1994.)
Limitations of the Study Several limitations of this study are apparent. First, the sample size in this study, and the single state population from which the sample resides, limits the generalizability of these results to only this state. However, these data are invaluable because they offer a foundation of information for other states that might elect to offer this service. Second, because we do not have comparison data from families who did not receive the specialized services, it is more difficult to conclude that these families benefited solely from these specialized services. Nonetheless, the caseworkers who participated in the Key Informant Survey portion of this evaluation package have decades of combined experience in protective services. Their assessments are overwhelmingly positive ones. Children who participated in this pilot study and were relinquished for adoption within the 12 month study period beat the state’s average of 34
Heath
624
months. (Both figures represent the number of months in foster care once the children begin Permanent Planning.) Lastly, reliance upon service providers to be data collectors introduces a bias that may have influenced these findings. Caseworkers necessarily prioritize their work to deliver their service first and collect data second. Consequently their collection of data reflects their personal biases and their time constraints. For example, it was difficult to obtain data for a comparison group of clients who did not receive specialized services. It would be expected, as well, that caseworkers might believe that if they gave positive reports about mediation, the central administration of this child protection agency would include mediation services in future budgets. Caseworkers may have wanted this policy decision, to enable them to more effectively manage their bulging caseloads.
Discussion and Implications The Cooperative Adoption Mediation Project developed and tested an innovative, non-coercive adoption-counseling program to engage abusive and neglectful parents in cooperative planning for their child’s future. Parents who had failed family reunification efforts either because the system had failed them or because they had failed to change their behaviors had the option of working with, rather than against, the state. Experienced child welfare mediators helped birth parents recognize their inability to provide secure, stable home environments for their children and helped them enter into voluntary cooperative plans for the adoption of their children. After signing a cooperative agreement, birth parents participated in the lives of their biological children in limited ways via letters and sometimes occasional supervised visits. Several things are apparent from this evaluation package on the mediation services that were offered to a small number of families in Permanent Planning units across this northwestern state.
First, mediation services were effective in securing cooperative agreements and avoiding contested Termination of Parental Rights trials for a majority of the clients who participated, Mediation also saved money: lots of it. On average, the current adversarial system costs $35,000 per child for trial, caseworker, and foster care costs. The average cost of mediated cases in this project for the same three components plus media-
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies
625
tion averaged $7,300 per child. This is because foster care and caseworker supervision hours were reduced by approximately 75% (Etter, 1994.) This is a substantial saving to a system oftentimes crippled under the weight of increasing caseloads and decreasing state support. Replication of this program and evaluation is critically important given the numbers of children affected and the potential rate of savings per child. Second, an overwhelming majority of birth parents, caseworkers, supervisors, adoptive parents, foster parents, therapists, and attorneys who completed the evaluation instrument, attributed mediators and the mediation process with accomplishing unusual success with highly complex families, some of whom had previously had unsuccessful TPRs at great costs to the state and the family. Third, mediation services appear to be a more cost effective way than the adversarial TPR process for securing the relinquishment of children for adoption by birth parents who have been unable to reunify with their children. Fourth, by caseworker and birth parent reports, mediation offers a more humane, respectful way to intervene in the lives of abusive and neglectful families. Finally, mediation allows birth parents and children an opportunity to be involved with each other in limited, but emotionally beneficial ways in the future. The results of this evaluation package indicate that mediation may be a preferred process for Permanent Planning families who can often voluntarily release their children for adoption with the assistance of a private mediator. When they do so, parents, children, and the child welfare system benefit.
Heath
626
References
Ammerman, R.T. and Hersen, M. (1990). Research in child abuse and neglect: Current status and an agenda for the future. In R.T. Ammerman & M.Hersen (Eds.) Children at risk (pp.3-19). New York: Plenum Press. English, T.R. (1994). Cost analysis of a sample of contested termination of parental rights proceedings. (Unpublished manuscript). Etter, J. (1988). Use of mediated agreements in adoption. Mediation Quurterly, 22, 83-89. Etter, J. and Giovannini, M. (1988). Adoption mediation: Applying preventive conflict management to open-adoption planning. Mediation Quarterly, 21, 51-57. Etter, J. (1994). Mediation: An alternative to contested termination of parental rights. (Unpublished manuscript). Hart, B.J. (1990). Gentle jeopardy: The further endangerment of battered women and children in custody mediation. Mediation Quarterfy, 7(4), 3 17-330. Kadushin, A. and Martin, J.A. (1988). Child wefire services. New York: Macmillan. Kaminsky, H. and Cosmano, R. (1990). Mediating child welfare disputes: How to focus on the best interest of the child. Mediation Quarterly, 7(3), 229-235. Magana, H.A. and Taylor, N. (1993). Child custody mediation and spouse abuse: A descriptive study of a protocol. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 3Z( l), 50-64. Marthaler, D. (1989). Successful mediation with abusive couples. Mediation Quarterly, 23, 53-66. Mayer, B. (1985). Conflict resolution in child protection and adoption. Mediation Quarterly, 7,69-8 1. Mayer, B. (1989). Mediation in child protection cases: The impact of thirdparty intervention on parental compliance attitudes. Mediation Quarterly, 24, 89106. Pagelow, M.D. (1990). Effects of domestic violence on children and their consequences for custody and visitation agreements. Mediution Quarterly, 7(4), 347-363. Rhodes, J.E. and Jason, L.A. (1991). Community needs assessment. In H.E. Schroeder (Ed.) New directions in health psychology assessment (pp. 159- 173). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp. Steckler, A., McLeroy, K.R., Goodman, R.M., Bird, S.T., and McCormick, L. (1992). Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: An introduction. Health Education Quarterly, 19(l), 1-8.
627
Private Mediation for Families in Public Agencies Appendix A
Table 1 Outcomes of Referrals to Mediation Services Total number of Families
33
Total No number mtgs/ of Par- No entl mediaChild tion Dyads started 51 13
Premature drop out by BP,CSD, or Atty 5
Still Pending
Child Returned Home
cooperative Agreement Signed
Contested TPR Avoided
4
1
28
29
Appendix B
Table 2 Caseworker Opinions on Case Outcome without Mediation Birth Parents (representing dyads) who signed Coop erative Agreements or are Still Pending 28+4=32-->
Caseworkers (representing dyads) who participated in Key Informant sur-
Would have been Contested TPR tri-
Would Not have been Contested TPR
als
bidS
18 (of 26)
2 (of 26)
Would not have gone togal
VeY
-->32-6=26
6 (of 26)