2000, Vol. 49, No. 1 53

Strengthening Evaluation Strategies for Divorcing FamilySupport Services: Perspectives of Parent Educators, Mediators,

Attorneys, and Judges*Robert Hughes, Jr. and Jacqueline J. Kirby**

Mediation and parent education are increasingly common support services provided to divorcing families. Although there is accumu-lating evaluation evidence, important questions remain. In this study we surveyed mediators, parent educators, attorneys, and judgesin one state to identify the types of evidence that may be useful in further evaluation efforts and to obtain their professional judgementsregarding the effectiveness of these programs. Most programs only obtain minimal evaluation, but professionals had helpful ideasabout types of evidence that would be helpful. Judges, parent educators and mediators perceived the programs as more useful andeffective than attorneys. Results are discussed in terms of ways to strengthen evaluation efforts of mediation and parent educationprograms for divorcing families.

*The research reported here was funded in part by the Supreme Court of Ohio andthe Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Council. The authors wish to thank EileenPruett and Jim Dickerson for their assistance in overall implementation of the study andNatalie Brown and Eunjee Joo for their assistance with data analysis.

**Address correspondence to: Jacqueline J. Kirby, Department of Human Develop-ment & Family Science, The Ohio State University, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH43210-1295;(614) 688-4365; FAX (614) 292-7536; e-mail: kirby.21@osu.edu

Key Words: divorce, evaluation, parent education, prevention programs.

(Family Relations, 2000, 49, 53–61)

Separation and divorce have become normative life eventsfor many families in the United States. Despite some re-cent indications that the rate of divorce may be leveling

off, Martin and Bumpass (1989) estimated that about two-thirdsof all first marriages are likely to be disrupted by separation ordivorce. Each year, it is estimated that over 1 million childrenexperience parental divorce (U.S. National Center for Health Sta-tistics, 1991), and it is estimated that 40% of the current gen-eration of children will experience the divorce of their parentsbefore they are 18 years of age (Glick, 1988).

Researchers over the past two decades have documented thatboth parents and children who experience family disruptions dueto divorce are at risk of experiencing problems with health andwell-being. In the short-term parents are likely to experiencestrong feelings of anger, anxiety, depression, loneliness, and im-plusivity (Hetherington, 1989, 1993). Several years following di-vorce both residential and nonresidential parents are more at-riskof experiencing psychological disorders (Chase-Lansdale &Hetherington, 1990). Both divorced men and women are morelikely to have higher rates of illness than adults in other familygroups. Nonresidential fathers engage in more health compro-mising behaviors, such as alcohol consumption (Umberson &Williams, 1993), and are over represented among suicides andhomicides (Bloom, Asher, & White, 1978).

Parental divorce can have negative effects on children. In-vestigators have found that children whose parents have divorcedare likely to have elevated levels of aggression, poor academicperformance, and more difficulties getting along with peers(Amato & Keith, 1991; Hetherington, 1989). Sandler, Wolchik,MacKinnon, Ayers, and Roosa (1997) recently calculated therisk associated with divorce for children and suggest that almost22% of conduct problems in children are related to parental di-vorce. Additionally, there is evidence that children of divorce areover represented in treatment settings (Zill, 1983). In a longitu-dinal study of a representative sample of children, Zill, Morrison,and Coiro (1993) reported that the effects of divorce persist intoadulthood. They found that adults who had experienced the di-vorce of their parents 12 to 22 years ago had poor relationshipswith their parents, high levels of problem behavior, and an in-creased likelihood of dropping out of high school and receivingpsychological help.

Support Services for Families Experiencing DivorceGiven the prevalence of divorce and the potential for ad-

justment problems among children and adults, professionals have

developed support services for these families. In the early 1980smediation was introduced as a way to resolve custody and vis-itation disputes among parents seeking a divorce. California wasthe first state to adopt legislation mandating that courts requireparents to resolve differences with the use of a mediator. Sincethen 29 states have included divorce mediation provisions as apart of their approach to dealing with divorce (Buehler & Gerard,1995).

In addition to mediation, many communities have recentlybegun developing family life programs for educating divorcingparents. In a 1994 nationwide survey of county courts Blaisureand Geasler (1996) estimated that about 17% of U.S. countiesprovided parent education programs to divorcing families. Intheir 1998 survey Blaisure and Geasler found that there were1,516 programs representing almost half of the counties in theUnited States.

Evaluation of Support ServicesNewman and Tejeda (1996) assert that in order to address

the concerns of a wide variety of stakeholders of human serviceprograms including consumers, funders, policymakers, and pro-gram developers, evaluators must address program’s efficacy, ef-fectiveness, and cost effectiveness. In regards to evaluating me-diation and parent education programs for divorcing families,this requires considering three questions. First, can programs bedesigned that have an impact on the health and well-being ofdivorcing parents and their children in carefully controlled ex-periments (efficacy)? Efficacy studies are designed to determinewhether a specific strategy results in client changes under labo-ratory conditions. The second question is whether or not pro-grams typically implemented in community settings are capableof having positive effects on children and their families (effec-tiveness). Effectiveness studies seek answers to whether inter-

54 Family Relations

vention strategies in common use and under less controlled con-ditions make a difference to clients. The third evaluation ques-tion is whether support services to divorcing families can bedelivered in ways that reduce costs to society (cost effective-ness).

Evaluation evidence for mediation. At the present time theevaluation results for mediation indicate that there is some evi-dence of the efficacy of mediation, some support for its effec-tiveness in community settings, and some beginning evidencefor its cost effectiveness.

Recent reviews of the effects of mediation (Ellis & Stuck-less, 1996; Emery, 1995; Irving & Benjamin, 1995) arrive atsimilar conclusions regarding the impact of mediation on di-vorcing families. The most comprehensive examination of theefficacy of mediation has been conducted by Emery and his col-leagues (Dillon & Emery, 1996; Emery, Matthews, & Kitzmann,1994; Emery & Wyer, 1987; Kitzmann & Emery, 1994). Fornine years they followed divorcing parents who were randomlyassigned to either traditional litigation or mediation. In the firstreport, Emery and Wyer (1987) found that the divorcing parentswho participated in mediation were 67% more likely than thelitigation group to reach agreement and avoid the courtroom. Theevidence on parental satisfaction with mediation was more mixedwith fathers reporting more satisfaction with the process thanmothers. In a one-year follow-up of these families, the research-ers found that the mediation group was more likely to complywith agreements that had been made, but not different from thelitigation group in terms of rates of relitigation (Emery et al.,1994). There was some evidence that the mediation group wasmore likely to engage in cooperative behaviors toward their for-mer spouses than those parents who were in the litigation group;nevertheless, there was no evidence that the well-being of chil-dren or parents was different between the groups (Kitzmann &Emery, 1994). Nine years later, mothers but not fathers, reportedthat noncustodial parents who had been assigned to mediationhad more frequent contact with their children and were moreinvolved in decision making related to the children (Dillon &Emery, 1996). Parents in the mediation group also reported hav-ing more frequent communication with their former spouse abouttheir children since the time of the dispute resolution as com-pared with parents who had been in the litigation group. Again,there was no evidence that the well-being of parents or childrenwas affected by the dispute resolution processes. These findingsprovide considerable evidence that mediation can substantiallyeffect the processes through which divorcing couples reachagreement and that mediation can influence coparental processesin the long term.

Other investigators have examined the effectiveness of com-munity-based mediation programs. Kelly (1989) compared agroup of parents who voluntarily chose mediation with a groupof parents who experienced litigation and found that the parentswho participated in mediation were more satisfied with the pro-cess and outcome than parents in the litigation group. She alsofound that the mediation group was more likely to cooperate inparenting following the divorce. The most extensive examinationof community mediation programs has been conducted by Dep-ner, Cannata, and Ricci (1994) who collected parental satisfac-tion data from almost 1,400 parents in 51 counties in California.Overall, they reported that almost two-thirds of parents were ableto reach an agreement without involving the court and that 80to 90 percent of the parents were satisfied with the helpfulness

of mediation and the opportunity to discuss family issues. Theyalso found that parents were more satisfied with mediation whenthe mediator was not called to make a recommendation to thecourt when parents failed to reach agreement.

Despite the obvious implications for differences in costs as-sociated with the use of mediation, there has been relatively littleattention to the cost effectiveness of mediation. Pearson andThoennes (1984) report that the legal costs for couples who aresuccessful in mediation were less than for parents using the ad-versarial approach, but that couples who were unsuccessful inmediation had the highest legal expenses. Kelly (1990) con-ducted the most comprehensive cost analysis comparing adver-sarial and mediation approaches to divorce settlements. In thisstudy she examined both legal and mediation expenses and foundthat the median costs for the mediation group were about $1,000less than the parents who did not participate in mediation. Fol-berg (1983) also suggests that mediation may facilitate privatedecision-making and self-determination of disputes which mayhave more long-term cost benefits. There have been no data col-lected on these possibilities.

Overall, these studies indicate that in efficacy studies me-diation has been found to be effective in helping parents reachagreements and in improving coparental behaviors that extendinto the future. There is also evidence that community-basedmediation programs are effective in helping parents reach agree-ments and that parents are generally satisfied with mediation pro-cesses and outcomes. Finally, there is some limited evidence thatparents’ costs for mediation may be less than for parents whodo not use mediation.

Evaluation evidence for parent education. The evaluationevidence for parent education programs with divorcing parentsis still in its early stages. At present there is some modest evi-dence for the efficacy and effectiveness of parents’ programs,and only meager ideas about the possible cost effectiveness ofthese programs. Two recent reviews (Lee, Picard, & Blain, 1994;Grych & Fincham, 1992) examining the efficacy of programsfor divorcing parents indicate that there is still much to learnabout how to prevent difficulties in these families. These review-ers conclude that most interventions make little difference in thelives of adults or children. Lee et al. (1994) wrote, ‘‘Data fromthe child and adult intervention studies offer modest support forthe efficacy of group programs for dealing with divorce issues’’(p. 13).

There have recently been several studies that have lookedat the effectiveness of community-based programs for divorcingparents (Arbuthnot & Gordon, 1996; Buehler, Betz, Ryan, Legg,& Trotter, 1992; Kramer & Washo, 1993). In each case the au-thors report substantial parent satisfaction with the programs, butrelatively few changes in the parent’s behaviors or well-being asa result of the program.

Kramer and Washo (1993) found mixed evidence of effec-tiveness for a mandated divorce education program. The majorityof parents (82%) recommended the program continue to be le-gally mandated in their county and many of the participants ben-efited from referrals to other community resources. Yet very fewimprovements were reported in child or parenting behavior.However, parents from the high-conflict group reported signifi-cant reductions in the behaviors of their ex-spouses that wouldtriangulate their children in postmarital conflict. For example,parents reported that the former spouse now avoided exposing

2000, Vol. 49, No. 1 55

children to fights, blaming the other parent for the divorce, orputting the other parent down in front of the children.

In a follow-up study, Kramer & Kowal (1996) found thatdivorce education programs may be particularly beneficial forparents reporting high levels of inter-parental conflict, triangu-lating children into postmarital conflict, and low levels of adap-tive parenting. The frequency of relitigation over a 6-year periodwas lower for parents receiving divorce education compared toa control group.

In a six-month outcome evaluation of a mandatory divorceeducation program, Arbuthnot and Gordon (1996) found thatparents learned and maintained useful parenting and communi-cation skills, and were more willing than a comparison group tolet their children spend nearly half of their time with the otherparent (44% of the time versus 26% of the time). Parents re-ported significant declines in the frequencies with which theyput their children in the middle of parental conflicts, specifically,a reduction in put-downs of the other parent, asking the child tocarry messages to the other parent, and spying. Arbuthnot andGordon (1996) indicated that children of participants experi-enced less stress than children from the comparison group. Thisevidence suggests that community programs show some prom-ise, but the programs examined have still been carefully selected.As Blaisure and Geasler (1996) note, of the 541 court-connectedparent education programs they surveyed, providers of programsanticipate positive outcomes but have little documentation tosubstantiate these hopes.

The only efforts to examine the cost effectiveness of theseprograms has been the consideration of relitigation rates (seeKramer & Kowal, 1996) and even in this case there was noanalysis of the costs of the program in relation to the reducedrates of relitigation. Clearly, more attention will need to be paidto the costs and benefits of parenting interventions for divorcingfamilies.

Stakeholder’s Perspectives on Evaluation EvidenceAlthough there is a growing body of evidence about the

effectiveness of a few programs for divorcing families, there isstill limited evidence for most programs. In their nationwide sur-vey Blaisure and Geasler (1996) concluded, ‘‘Evaluation re-search on parent education programs in connection with courtsystems is in its infancy and limited primarily to local parentsurveys’’ (p. 35). Similar statements could be made in regardsto most mediation programs.

Developing effective evaluation of family life programs re-quires a systematic process of developing evidence regardingmany aspects of programs, beginning with an understanding ofprogram processes and then considering evidence of change(Hughes, 1994; Jacobs, 1988; Small, 1990). Small (1990) andJacobs (1988) have asserted that all too often programs are sub-jected to evaluation procedures that are inappropriate to the stageof program development. Evaluators have asserted that appro-priate evaluation requires that the evaluators understand theneeds of stakeholders (Newman & Tejeda, 1996). Generally infamily life education only the program providers are viewed ascritical stakeholders in evaluation. However, in view of publicpolicy regarding mandated mediation and parent education it isimportant to consider the views of others in regards to supportservices for divorcing families. In particular, what is needed isa better understanding of the effectiveness of community-based

mediation and parent education and stakeholder views about thecriteria for judging the effectiveness of these programs. Withoutthe support of attorneys and judges, fewer programs would befunded and fewer participants would be referred or mandated toattend.

To improve the procedures of evaluating mediation and par-ent education programs for divorcing families, this study wasdesigned to identify what types of evaluation were being con-ducted currently, what various stakeholders (e.g., judges, attor-neys, parent educators, mediators) considered as evidence of suc-cess, and the current perceptions of these professionals as to theeffectiveness of these programs.

Methods

Procedure. The study involves four written questionnairesthat were designed to obtain information from parent educators,mediators, attorneys, and judges.

Survey instruments. Questionnaires were developed to ob-tain information from each group. The mediator and parent ed-ucator questionnaires included questions about the history andstatus of their respective programs, program content, program-ming methods, obstacles to success, evaluation methods, anddemographics of the person completing the survey. Judges andattorneys were asked general questions about their experiencewith mediation and parent education as well as demographiccharacteristics.

All four groups were asked a common group of questionsabout their perceptions of the usefulness of the programs (5-pointscale from 1 very useful to 5 not useful at all) and their assess-ment of changes in participants as a result of the programs (4-point scale from 1 no change to 4 much change). Judges andattorneys rated both the parent education and mediation pro-grams and the parent educators and mediators only rated theirown programs. To assess perceptions of program effectivenessindicators, judges, attorneys, and mediators were asked an open-ended question about what evidence or indicators they wouldconsider as proof that mediation or parenting programs weresuccessful. They were not asked what evidence they had, butrather what evidence would they accept as proof of programeffectiveness. At the time of data analysis we realized that wehad failed to include this question on the parent education pro-vider survey.

Sample selection. Mailing lists for each group were devel-oped in somewhat different ways. A list of all the domestic re-lations judges in the state was obtained from the offices of theSupreme Court. A list of parent educators that is maintained bythe Supreme Court was also obtained. A list of Ohio membersof the Academy of Family Mediators was used to obtain namesand addresses of mediators. From the Ohio Bar Association weobtained a random list of 200 attorneys (total number was 4,822)who were members of the Family Law section of the Associa-tion. In addition to this, we obtained additional names of me-diators and parent educators from various other lists and direc-tories related to divorce education.

The first survey was mailed to 126 judges, 200 attorneys,58 mediators, and 86 parent educators. Additionally, we mailed33 surveys to the generic title ‘‘parent educator’’, and 79 surveysto the generic title ‘‘mediator.’’ These were addressed to Ohiocounty courthouses in which we did not have any parent edu-

56 Family Relations

Table 1Demographics of Participants

Characteristics

ParentEducators(N 5 68)

Mediators(N 5 43)

Attorneys(N 5 131)

Judges(N 5 106)

Work Experience (years)Current job 6.0 6.9 13.0 7.8Total 11.8 10.1 15.6 19.0

Gender (percent)Male 25 31 77 81Female 75 69 23 19

Ethnicity (percent)Asian 0 0 0 0African-American 4 0 2 2Latino 0 0 0 0Native-American 2 0 0 1White 94 100 97 96

Education (percent)Bachelors 17 10 — —Masters 40 51 — —Doctorate 6 10 — —JD 32 29 — —

Table 2Mediation Program Characteristics (N 5 43)

Program Start Date (percent)Prior to 1980 21980–1989 441990–1993 301993–present 23

Average Number of Sessions (Mean 5 4 sessions)Two or less 213–5 565–10 23

Total Hours of Mediation (Mean 5 7 hours)2–5 406–10 50

11–20 11

Attorney’s Role in Mediation (percent)None 12Consultant to Client 67Participate in Mediation 17

Issues Mediated (percent)Support 55Custody 93Visitation 100Property 67Finance 62

cator or mediator identified. We did this to attempt to obtain anyadditional information from all 88 counties. For those who didnot return the first survey, we sent a follow-up three weeks later,and then sent an additional follow-up in another three weeks.Postage-paid return envelopes were included with each mailing.

Return rate. From judges we received 107 completed copiesand 1 blank copy for a response rate of 85%. From the attorneys,23 or 11.5% were either not at the known address or the attor-neys did not practice family law. We received 140 questionnairesfor a return rate of 79%. Nine of the returned questionnaireswere insufficiently completed.

From the mediators 11 or 20% were undeliverable or notappropriate respondents. Of the 79 questionnaires sent without aname we obtained 20 completed questionnaires. Of the ques-tionnaires mailed to identifiable people we received 33 responsesfor a return rate of 79%. Ten questionnaires could not be usedbecause they were incomplete.

From parent educators 2 or 2% were undeliverable or notappropriate respondents. Of the 33 questionnaires sent without aname we obtained 10 completed questionnaires. Of the 81 ques-tionnaires sent to identifiable professionals we received 68 re-sponses for a return rate of 86%. Ten questionnaires could notbe used. The overall response rates for these surveys werejudged to be excellent.

Sample CharacteristicsThe characteristics of each of the 4 groups of participants

are described in Table 1. Generally, the parent educators hadabout six years of experience in their current positions and about12 years of experience overall. Mediators had about seven yearsof experience in their current position and 10 years of overallexperience. Attorneys had been in their current positions for amean of 13 years with about 16 years of total experience. Judgeshad been in their positions for about 8 years with 19 years ofexperience overall. In terms of gender of the four groups, parenteducators and mediators were predominately women (75% and69%, respectively). Attorneys and judges, on the other hand,were predominately men (77% and 81%, respectively). Across

all four groups, over 94% of the participants were White. Theeducational backgrounds of the parent educators and the medi-ators indicated that about one-third had law degrees, with anotherlarge percentage having Master’s degrees in the social sciences,(40% and 51%, respectively).

Results

Mediation Program CharacteristicsTable 2 provides a summary of some of the general char-

acteristics of the mediation programs. Over half (53%) have beenstarted in the 1990s. Mediators reported that the mean numberof sessions was four and the mean number of hours spent inmediation was about seven. For the most part, the client’s attor-ney played little direct role in the mediation other than to serveas a consultant to their clients. The major areas of mediationwere custody and visitation, but over half of the mediators in-dicated that they were also involved in resolving disputes aboutsupport payments, property, and finances in general.

Characteristics of the Parent Education ProgramsThe development of parent education programs is a much

newer development (see Table 3). Almost half the programs inthe state have been started since 1994. In 93% of the counties,attendance in these programs is mandated prior to the final de-cree. Most of the programs were three hours in length and themean number of participants in each session was 23. In mostcounties the programs were offered twice per month. Almostone-third of the counties reported a program for children as wellas for parents. Almost half the programs delivered (45%) werebased on a curriculum developed by Ohio Children’s Hospital(Steinman & Petersen, 1993), another 34% were self-designedand the remaining programs were not identified.

Usefulness of Mediation and Parent EducationIn Table 4 we report a one-way ANOVA comparing the

ratings of judges, attorneys, and program providers on the use-

2000, Vol. 49, No. 1 57

Table 3Parent Education Program Characteristics (N 5 68)

Program Start Date (percent)1981–1989 71990–1993 361994–present 56

Attendance at Program (percent)Mandatory Pre-decree 93Pre-filing 2Voluntary Pre-decree 5

Participants Per Session (Mean 5 23)4–10 23

11–20 4221–50 3051–110 6

Length of Program (hours) (Mean 5 3)2 303 66More than 3 4

Frequency of Program (percent)Monthly 23Weekly 13Two/Month 46Quarterly 2

Children’s Program (percent)Yes 32No 69

Table 4Overall Usefulness of Mediation and Parent Education

N

MediationUsefulness

(Mean) F df p

Mediators 42 1.4 27.4 2, 179 .001Judges 49 1.8Attorneys 91 2.5

Attorneys , Judges, Mediators

N

ParentEducationUsefulness

(Mean) F df p

Parent Educators 47 1.4 48.2 2, 225 .001Judges 78 1.5Attorneys 103 2.5

Attorneys , Judges, Parent Educators

Note: The number of judges and attorneys varies due to whether or not a countyhad a mediation and/or parent education program. Each county court decideswhat programs to offer.

Table 5Changes as a Result of Parent Education

NUsefulness

(Mean) F df p

Improved Parent UnderstandingParent Educators 32 3.7 37.3 2, 199 .001Judges 72 3.5Attorneys 98 2.7

Attorneys , Judges, Parent Educators

Better Parental CopingParent Educators 29 3.2 40.8 2, 190 .001Judges 68 2.8Attorneys 96 2.0

Attorneys , Judges , Parent Educators

Fewer ArgumentsParent Educator 26 3.0 42.9 2, 189 .001Judge 67 2.9Attorneys 99 2.0

Attorneys , Judges, Parent Educators

NChange(Mean) F df p

Quicker ResolutionParent Educators 24 2.8 39.6 2, 188 .001Judges 69 2.8Attorneys 98 1.9

Attorneys , Judges, Parent Educators

Less RelitigationParent Educators 25 2.8 22.9 2, 186 .001Judges 67 2.8Attorneys 97 2.0

Attorneys , Judges, Parent Educators

Better Adjusted ChildrenParent Educators 25 3.0 28.7 2, 163 .001Judges 51 2.6Attorneys 90 1.9

Attorneys , Judges , Parent Educators

fulness of the parent education and mediation programs. Posthoc comparisons of the three groups were calculated using Student-Newman-Keuls procedure that uses a stepwise procedure to com-pare means for differences. Although there were differences be-tween the three groups in their ratings, it is important to notethat most of the ratings were positive.

For the mediation programs, there were significant differ-ences between the raters, with mediators and judges rating theprograms as the most useful. Attorneys rated the programs lessfavorably, but still rated the programs between neutral and use-ful.

There was a similar pattern for the ratings of the parenteducation programs. The parent educators and judges were aboutequally favorable in their ratings of usefulness and attorneys

again rated the programs less favorable, between neutral anduseful. Only 13% of the attorneys rated either the mediation orparent education programs as not useful.

Changes as a Result of Parent EducationJudges, attorneys, and parent educators were also asked to

rate the amount of change that they perceived as a result of theparent education programs. They were asked to rate six types ofchange—improved parent understanding, better parental coping,fewer arguments, quicker resolution, less relitigation, and betteradjusted children. The results of six one-way ANOVAs indicatethat overall there were differences among the raters on each ofthese dimensions (see Table 5). Post hoc tests using the Student-Newman-Keul’s procedure indicate that there was a somewhatdifferent pattern of differences across each dimension. In termsof parental understanding, judges and parent educators rated theprograms most highly, indicating some to much change. Attor-neys, on the other hand, indicated that they only saw some ratherthan much change. In terms of parental coping, parent educatorsperceived the most change, followed by judges who perceivedless change, and then attorneys who reported less change. Interms of the frequency of parental arguments, parent educatorsand judges noted some change, while attorneys noted littlechange. There were similar findings in terms of the three groups’view of quicker resolution of the divorce proceedings and reli-tigation, with parent educators and judges rating the programs

58 Family Relations

Table 6Changes as a Result of Mediation

NChange(Mean) F df p

Improved Parental UnderstandingMediator 29 3.3 19.7 2, 146 .001Judge 40 2.8Attorney 80 2.2

Attorneys , Judges , Mediators

Better Parental CopingMediator 28 2.9 13.6 2, 146 .001Judge 41 2.9Attorney 33 2.2

Attorneys , Judges, Mediators

Fewer ArgumentsMediator 30 3.0 13.1 2, 150 .001Judge 43 2.9Attorney 80 2.3

Attorneys , Judges, Mediators

Quicker ResolutionMediator 26 3.0 11.6 2, 147 .001Judge 44 3.0Attorney 80 2.3

Attorneys , Judges, Mediators

Less RelitigationMediator 29 3.2 17.5 2, 144 .001Judge 40 2.9Attorney 78 2.3

Attorneys , Judges, Mediator

Better Adjusted ChildrenMediator 23 3.0 19.2 2,126 .001Judges 33 2.7Attorneys 73 2.0

Attorneys , Judges, Mediators

Table 7Success Indicators for Stakeholders

Indicator

Mediators

N %

Attorneys

N %

Judges

N %

Less legal involvement 7 27 27 30 36 32More parental agreement 13 50 27 30 20 18Better adjustment of family members 2 8 26 29 27 24Positive views by participants 3 12 7 8 15 13Positive views by professionals 1 4 4 4 14 13

Note: Parent educators are not included in this table because this question wasmistakenly left off the survey form.

as producing some change, but attorneys reporting little change.The last question was in regards to the perceived effects of theprogram on children. In this instance parent educators rated theprograms most positively indicating some change, judges ratedthe programs somewhat less positively, and attorneys indicatedthat they thought there was little change in children’s adjustment.

Changes as a Result of the Mediation ProgramsMediators, judges, and attorneys were also asked to rate

their perceptions of the changes that have occurred in parentsand children as a result of the mediation programs. The programswere rated on similar dimensions to the parent education pro-grams—improved parental understanding, better parental coping,fewer arguments, quicker resolution, less relitigation, and betterchild adjustment. The results of six one-way ANOVAs indicatethat there were differing perceptions of change across the threegroups and post hoc Student-Newman-Keuls’s tests indicate dif-ferences between the three groups (see Table 6). In terms ofimproved parental understanding, mediators had the most posi-tive views of change, followed by the judges, with the attorneyshaving the least positive views. In regards to ratings of parentalcoping, mediators and judges had similarly positive views andattorneys indicated they thought there was little change. Ratingsof whether there were fewer parental arguments as a result ofmediation indicated that judges and mediators thought there wassome change, with attorneys indicating somewhat less change.There were similar patterns on the dimensions of quicker reso-lution and less relitigation with mediators and judges indicating

some change and attorneys indicating there was little change.The final dimension of better child adjustment was rated morepositively by mediators, but not significantly differently thanjudges; however, both groups perceived more positive changethan attorneys.

Evaluation ProceduresA series of questions were asked to mediators and parent

educators about current strategies for collecting evaluation evi-dence. Almost all of the parent educators reported collecting atleast some evaluation data (88%), but less than half (45%) ofthe mediators reported collecting evaluation data. Most evalua-tion data were collected by personnel within the program. Forboth parent education and mediation the most common form ofevaluation was informal client feedback. For parent education,the next most common evaluation strategies were observationand informal feedback from personnel. For mediation, informalfeedback from personnel and from exit interviews with clientswere the next most common strategies of evaluation.

We also asked open-ended questions regarding evidence ofsuccess so that program providers, judges, and attorneys couldoffer their own ideas about possible outcomes. Following datacollection, answers to the open-ended questions were typed anda content coding system was developed. The coding scheme wasrefined until the first author and an independent rater were ableto achieve interrater reliability of 80%. All the answers werecoded and disagreements were resolved through discussion be-tween the two raters. The resulting categories were: (a) less courtinvolvement with families, (b) more parental agreements, (c) bet-ter adjustment of family members, (d) positive views of pro-grams by participants, and (e) positive views of programs byparticipating professionals (e.g., attorneys, judges, and so forth).About 20% of the answers could not be coded in any of thesecategories. The percentage of mediators, attorneys, and judgeswho suggested answers in each of these categories is providedin Table 7. Across all three professional groups, less legal in-volvement, more parental agreements, and better adjustment offamily members were the most commonly mentioned indicatorsof success. There were differences between the groups such thatmediators placed more emphasis on parental agreement as anindicator whereas attorneys viewed less legal involvement, moreagreements, and better adjustment as all being important. Judgeswere the most likely to mention reduced legal involvement as ameasure of program success.

Discussion

This paper provides a description of the mediation and par-ent education programs in one state and the overall perceptionsof the usefulness and effectiveness of these programs as viewed

2000, Vol. 49, No. 1 59

by mediators, parent educators, judges, and attorneys. Thesefindings indicate that in terms of program characteristics, theparenting programs in this state were comparable to programsacross the country (Blaisure & Geasler, 1996; 1998; Braver etal., 1996). In general, most of the programs have been developedin the 1990s, they were generally 2–4 hours in length, and be-tween 11 and 50 participants were in sessions conducted twiceeach month.

The mediation programs were also similar to programsacross the United States. These too have mostly been developedin the 1990s. Most participants were involved in four sessionswith about seven hours of contact with the mediator. Generally,attorneys have little direct involvement in the mediation session.One important finding is the degree to which mediators wereinvolved in the property and financial aspects of the divorcesettlement. The general public policy has been to arrange formediation of the parenting aspects of the divorce (Personal com-munication, Eileen Pruett, Supreme Court, Dispute ResolutionCoordinator), but the findings of this survey indicated that morethan half were mediating property, support, and financial matters.

The ratings of the usefulness of the programs and the degreeof change resulting from the programs probably reveals moreabout the raters than the programs. The general pattern was pro-gram providers (mediators and parent educators) rated their pro-grams the most useful and more likely to result in changes inparents and children. The judges, who have frequently been in-strumental in establishing these programs, were also very likelyto give favorable ratings to these programs. The attorneys, whoare independent of the programs, gave the least favorable ratings.However, it is important to note how few attorneys rated theprograms as not useful—only 13 percent. Thus, while attorneyswere less positive, they seemed more cautious in their assess-ment rather than in clear opposition.

It is worth noting that most of the available empirical studiesof the effects of parent education programs (Buehler et al., 1992;Kramer & Washo, 1993) and mediation (Dillon & Emery, 1996;Emery, 1995) have found mixed evidence of the effectivenessof these programs. In other words, the empirical findings to dateare closer to those of the attorneys than to those of the judgesand program providers.

In general, this study provides a description of the devel-opment of parent education and mediation programs in one state.It provides a unique comparison between the perceptions of me-diators, parent educators, judges, and attorneys. Each of thesefour groups has an important stake in the development of theseefforts and in their success. Although there were differences inviews, they were favorable overall. In the future it will be im-portant to identify more clearly the type of evidence that willprovide more proof of the effectiveness of these programs andto compare the programs to find out which are the most effective.

Improving EvaluationThere is still much work that needs to be done to establish

the efficacy, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of mediationand parent education for divorcing families. The present studyoffers some insight into the effectiveness of community-basedservices as viewed by providers, judges, and attorneys. In gen-eral, providers and judges were more convinced than attorneysthat the programs were useful and improve the lives of families.An important missing perspective from this data are the reports

of the families themselves. To advance our understanding ofthese programs we need improved effectiveness studies and weneed to begin examining cost effectiveness issues.

Recommendations for future effectiveness studies. In orderto better understand the effectiveness of community-implement-ed mediation and parent education programs we need to establishsome common procedures and measures that can be successfullyimplemented by a wide range of program practitioners and con-tribute to broad and general analysis of these programs. Al-though the methods for evaluating mediation and parent educa-tion programs will vary, certain issues are common to both typesof programs. The following are a few initial suggestions.

Documentation of program model. Practitioners need to beable to describe the specific strategies and activities that they areusing and explain how these procedures will lead to parent orchild outcomes. This will allow programs to be compared andcontrasted on the basis of what they are trying to accomplishand the types of procedures used.

Documentation of the general program characteristics. Theprogram development data will be different for mediation andparent education programs, but documenting the program pro-cesses is vital in both cases. This is the type of work that Blaisureand Geasler (1996) and Braver, Salem, Pearson, and DeLuse(1996) have undertaken, that is, to provide a general descriptionof the length of the program, number of sessions, topics, typesof teaching strategies and so forth. We need to continue to un-derstand the general program developments.

Standardize the collection of demographic data on families.Another important aspect is to understand the nature of the cli-ents that are being served by programs. Although there are manycharacteristics that would be helpful to know, the followingcould serve as a minimum data set: age, gender, SES, ethnicity,number and ages of children, length of time married, length oftime since separation, and history of marital violence.

Standardize measures of satisfaction and knowledge. Manyprograms ask questions about satisfaction and knowledge ac-quired during the program. Kelly and Gigy (1988) have devel-oped a reliable and valid measure of satisfaction with mediationthat could be used across programs. Also, California has devel-oped a statewide measure of satisfaction (Depner, Cannata, &Simon, 1992). Similar measures are needed to assess satisfactionwith parent education. In the meantime the Client SatisfactionQuestionnaire (Larsen, Atkinson, Hargreaves, & Nguyen, 1979)could be modified to fit these programs and serve as a briefgeneral indicator of program satisfaction. Although it is probablynot possible to completely standardize the measure of knowledgesince topics vary across programs, there could be a common databank of questions that could be developed that program devel-opers could use to select items. There has been some success inmeasuring the effects of child abuse prevention using commonmeasures.

Standardize outcome measures. Based on the current studythere was considerable agreement among providers, judges, andattorneys that program success would be indicated by measuresof legal involvement, parental agreement, and adjustment of fam-ily members. At present there would seem to be no agreed uponset of measures for these outcomes. This is an area where re-searchers and practitioners need to work together to developsome practical tools for assessing these outcomes.

Recommendations for future cost effectiveness studies. The

60 Family Relations

area that needs the most attention is the development of a de-tailed understanding of the relationship between the costs ofthese programs and the costs in not providing these programs.At present, the only effort to assess cost effectiveness has beento examine the costs of litigation rates with an implied assump-tion that reduced court disputes would result in reduced costs.To provide more helpful information to social policy makers,evaluators and practitioners, we are going to have to providemore detailed analyses of the costs and outcomes of these pro-grams. Recently, Yates (1996) has developed a comprehensivemodel of examining costs in human services. Importantly, manyof the suggestions that would improve the study of the effec-tiveness of programs can also be applied to measuring costs.Yates (1996) develops a model of human services that allowspractitioners to outline the resources (personnel, space, material)that go into program procedures and follows this through activ-ities and processes that lead to both short-term and long-termoutcomes. This model can be used to examine the outcomes ofindividual programs as well as looking at support services for agiven court or geographic area. Yates (1996) encourages the con-sideration of cost savings in health and mental health services,employee assistance, and taxes. In the case of mediation andparent education, court-related costs (both domestic and juvenile)could also be considered. Many states are currently mandatingthese programs and are working to fund these efforts. Cost ef-fectiveness data could provide helpful information for makingthese policy decisions.

Conclusion

Over the past two decades researchers and practitioners havelearned much about the kinds of support that can be helpful todivorcing families. To advance this knowledge further, there isconsiderable need to better understand the costs and effects ofcommunity-based intervention efforts, in order to provide feed-back to policy makers and program developers.

ReferencesAmato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of chil-

dren: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26–46.Arbuthnot, J., & Gordon, D. A. (1996). Does mandatory divorce education for

parents work? A six-month outcome evaluation. Family and ConciliationCourts Review, 30, 60–81.

Blaisure, K. R., & Geasler, M. J. (1996). Results of a survey of court-connectedparent education programs in U. S. counties. Family and Conciliation CourtsReview, 34, 23–40.

Blaisure, K. R., & Geasler, M. J. (1998). National survey of parent educationproviders. In N. Thoenes & J. Peason, (Eds.), Parent education programs indomestic relations courts (pp. 15–30). Denver, CO: Center for Policy Re-search.

Bloom, B. L., Asher, S. J., & White, S. W. (1978). Marital disruption as astressor: A review and analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 867–894.

Braver, S. L., Salem, P., Pearson, J., & DeLuse, S. R. (1996). The content ofdivorce education programs: Results of a survey. Family and ConciliationCourts Review, 34, 41–59.

Buehler, C., Betz, R., Ryan, C. M., Legg, B. H., & Trotter, B. B. (1992). De-scription and evaluation of the Orientation for Divorcing Parents: Implicationsor postdivorce prevention programs. Family Relations, 41, 154–162.

Buehler, C., & Gerard, J. M. (1995). Divorce law in the United States: A focuson child custody. Family Relations, 44, 439–458.

Chase-Lansdale, P. L., & Hetherington, E. M. (1990). The impact of divorce onlife-span development: Short and long term effects. In P. B. Baltes, D. L.Featherman, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Life-span development and behavior (Vol.10) (pp. 105–150). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Depner, C. E., Cannata, K., & Ricci, I. (1994). Client evaluations of mediationservices: The impact of case characteristics and mediation service models.Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 32, 306–325.

Depner, C. E., Cannata, K. V., & Simon, M. B. (1992). Building a uniformstatistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court services.Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 30, 185–206.

Dillon, P. A., & Emery, R. E. (1996). Divorce mediation and resolution of childcustody disputes: Long-term effects. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,66, 131–140.

Ellis, D., & Stuckless, N. (1996). Mediating and negotiating marital conflicts.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Emery, R. E. (1995). Divorce mediation: Negotiating agreements and renegoti-ating relationships. Family Relations, 44, 377–383.

Emery, R. E., Mathews, S. G., & Kitzmann, K. M. (1994). Child custody me-diation and litigation: Parents’ satisfaction and functioning one year after set-tlement. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 124–129.

Emery, R. E., & Wyer, M. M. (1987). Child custody mediation and litigation:An experimental evaluation of the experience of parents. Journal of Consult-ing and Clinical Psychology, 55, 179–186.

Folberg, J. (1983). A mediation overview: History and dimensions of practice.Mediation Quarterly, 1, 3–13.

Glick, P. C. (1988). The role of divorce in changing family structure: Trends andvariations. In S. A. Wolchik & P. Karoly (Eds.), Children of divorce: Empiricalperspectives on adjustment. New York: Gardner.

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1992). Interventions for children of divorce:Toward greater integration of research and action. Psychological Bulletin, 111,424–454.

Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners, losers, andsurvivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14.

Hetherington, E. M. (1993). An overview of the Virginia Longitudinal Study ofDivorce and Remarriage with a focus on early adolescence. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 7, 39–56.

Hughes, R., Jr. (1994). A framework for developing family life education pro-grams. Family Relations, 43, 74–80.

Irving, H. H., & Benjamin, M. (1995). Family mediation: Contemporary issues.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jacobs, F. H. (1988). The five-tiered approach to evaluation: context and imple-mentation. In H. B. Weiss & F. H. Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs(pp. 37–68). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Kelly, J. B. (1989). Mediated and adversarial divorce: Respondents’ perceptionsof their processes and outcomes. Mediation Quarterly, 9, 71–88.

Kelly, J. B. (1990). Is mediation less expensive? Comparison of mediated andadversarial divorce costs. Mediation Quarterly, 8, 15–26.

Kelly, J. B., & Gigy, L. (1988). Measuring clients’ perceptions and satisfaction.Mediation Quarterly, 7, 43–52.

Kitzmann, K. M., & Emery, R. E. (1994). Child and family coping one yearafter mediated and litigated child custody disputes. Journal of Family Psy-chology, 8, 150–159.

Kramer, L., & Washo, C. A. (1993). Evaluation of a court-mandated preventionprogram for divorcing parents: The children first program. Family Relations,42, 179–186.

Kramer, L., & Kowal, A. (1996, November). Long-term follow-up of a court-based intervention for divorcing parents. Paper presented at the meeting ofthe National Council of Family Relations, Kansas City, MO.

Larsen, D. L., Atkinson, C. C., Hargreaves, W. A., & Nguyen, T. D. (1979).Assessment of client satisfaction: Development of a general scale. Evaluationand Program Planning, 2, 197–207.

Lee, C. M., Picard, M., & Blain, M. D. (1994). A methodological and substantivereview of intervention outcome studies for families undergoing divorce. Jour-nal of Family Psychology, 8, 3–15.

Martin, T. C., & Bumpass, L. L. (1989). Recent trends in marital disruption.Demography, 26, 37–49.

Newman, F. L., & Tejeda, M. J. (1996). The need for research that is designedto support decisions in the delivery of mental health services. American Psy-chologist, 51, 1040–1049.

Pearson, J., & Thoennes, N. (1984). Mediating and litigating custody disputes:A longitudinal evaluation. Family Law Quarterly, 17, 479–524.

Sandler, I. N., Wolchik, S. A., MacKinnon, D., Ayers, T. S., & Roosa, M. W.(1997). Developing linkages between theory and intervention in stress andcoping processes. In S. A. Wolchik & I. N. Sandler (Eds.), Handbook ofchildren’s coping: Linking theory and intervention (pp. 3–40).

Small, S. A. (1990). Some issues regarding evaluation of family life educationprograms. Family Relations, 39, 132–135.

Steinman, S., & Petersen, V. (1993). Helping children succeed after divorce.Columbus, OH: Children’s Hospital Guidance Centers.

Umberson, D., & Williams, C. L. (1993). Divorced fathers: Paternal role strainand psychological distress. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 378–400.

U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. (1991). Monthly vital statistics report,

2000, Vol. 49, No. 1 61

39, (No. 12), Advance report of final divorce statistics 1988. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Yates, B. T. (1996). Analyzing costs, procedures, processes, and outcomes inhuman services. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zill, N. (1983). Happy, healthy, and insecure: A portrait of middle childhood inAmerica. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Zill, N., Morrison, D. R., & Coiro, M. J. (1993). Long-term effects of parentaldivorce on parent-child relationships, adjustment, and achievement in youngadulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 91–103.

Robert Hughes, Jr. is Associate Dean and Professor in the Col-lege of Human Environmental Sciences at the University of Mis-souri–Columbia. His research and extension programming have

focused on developing support systems and programs for di-vorcing families.

Jacqueline J. Kirby is an Extension Associate in the Departmentof Human Development & Family Science at The Ohio StateUniversity. Her main research interests are co-parenting after di-vorce, parenting education, and family policy.

Received 9-28-98Revised & Resubmitted 2-19-99Accepted 6-21-99