Search results

RAND and Safe Horizon worked together to conduct a clarificative evaluation to identify the core components and processes of the Family Courts Program, which include development of a program logic model and an evaluability assessment (EA) of the program. An implementation guide was also created that provides the necessary information to understand the program operations and provide program staff, the research field and other jurisdictions interested in replication the necessary tools to support program implementation as intended.

Specifically, the aims of the project are to:

• Identify the core components, understand and improve program processes, and overcome barriers to effective service delivery;
• Assess the readiness of the Family Courts program to participate in an evaluation of program impact.

To address the research aims listed above, the researchers conducted a comprehensive literature review to explore research and evaluations on family court services to survivors of domestic violence; developed a logic model; collected data from a variety of sources, including site visits, stakeholder interviews, document review, administrative data; analyzed current program data and qualitative data to understand how the program operates in the real-world setting.

This study only includes the quantitative program data that was collected for analysis during this evaluation.

Among divorcing and separating parents referred by family courts to mediation to resolve issues, over half report intimate partner violence (IPV). Whether family mediation can be safely offered to cases with a history of IPV is a major controversy that has not been examined previously with empirically sound research. This study was a randomized controlled trial, the "gold standard" for assessing interventions, of family mediation cases with levels of IPV that would, historically, be considered inappropriate for mediation at our study site, a court-attached mediation center in Washington, D.C. Study cases were randomly assigned to one of three study conditions: traditional court-based litigation (n=67), shuttle mediation (n=49), or videoconferencing mediation (n=50).

Researchers conducted a randomized control trial to compare immediate and one year outcomes for three dispute resolution processes (i.e., traditional court-based litigation, shuttle mediation, and videoconferencing mediation) among family law cases seeking to resolve parenting related issues and self-reporting a level of IPV history that would typically prohibit joint mediation as an option at the court-annexed mediation program where the study was conducted.

The mediation intake interview included an IPV screening measure, the Mediator's Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC; Holtzworth-Munroe, Beck, and Applegate, 2010). There is initial evidence of the reliability and validity of the MASIC (Pokman et al., 2014) and research demonstrating that the MASIC leads to higher levels of detection of IPV among parents seeking mediation than other methods of IPV screening (Rossi, et al., 2015). The MASIC is a behaviorally specific measure, listing a series of abusive behaviors on subscales (e.g., psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual violence, stalking) and consequences of abuse (e.g., fear of the partner, injury). Each item is assessed for occurrence twice-- ever in the relationship and in the past year. The questions ask the party about their victimization from the other party.

Based on party responses to the Multi-Door intake interview, including the MASIC, the DRSs identified cases as being potentially eligible for the study if the level of IPV reported by either or both parties was at a level that the case was considered inappropriate for joint mediation. No specific level of IPV for study eligibility was set, for two reasons. First, no previous empirical data are available to guide decisions regarding what level of IPV would make joint mediation inappropriate. Second, the DRSs were well trained and experienced and wanted to retain the right to use their clinical judgment. However, the Multi-Door staff and research team agreed that DRSs would pay particular attention to level and types of IPV, presence of risk factors empirically related to lethality (e.g., weapons), whether IPV was escalating in frequency or severity, IPV-related injuries, and whether a party was fearful of the other party or expressed IPV-related concerns about participating in mediation.

The Oklahoma Multi-Site Family Drug Court Model Standards Study utilized mixed-methods research in an attempt to advance implementation research on family treatment courts (FTCs), which serve families involved in the child welfare system due to caregiver substance use. The researchers developed the Model Standards Implementation Scale (MSIS), a tool used to assess FTC alignment with national best practices through interviews, courtroom observation, and document review. Administrative data from child welfare, substance use treatment, and court systems were linked to examine treatment completion, child welfare outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. These administrative data were also linked with court-level implementation data to assess the impact of FTC best practice implementation on the likelihood of reunification. Survey data were collected from two groups: 1) caregivers involved in maltreatment cases, to capture baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and clarify the FTC target population, and 2) child welfare professionals, to assess the presence and quality of cross-system collaboration. When merged with court implementation data, the professional survey data were used in an attempt to identify factors that support or hinder implementation of best practices.

Variables include drug use, addiction severity measures, abuse indicators, family dynamics, physical and mental health, along with FTC dynamic and structural traits.

The purposes of this study were (1) to examine factors associated with New York City Family Courts' visitation decisions and conformity to the provisions of the Model Code of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges when there was a history of abuse of the mother by the father, (2) to compare the different visitation conditions in regard to reabuse -- both psychological and physical, and (3) to examine children's psychological well-being as measured by maternal report on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), given their exposure to abuse.

Two hundred forty-two participants were recruited from the Family Courts and supervised visitation centers in the five counties in New York City. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. There were two interviews with the mother, with an average interval of six months between interviews. Baseline interviews were conducted in person, at the court, or visitation center from 2002 to 2004. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 168 of the participants from 2003 to 2005 and were conducted over the phone, except on the rare occasions when a participant requested an in-person interview.

Information in the the baseline interview included demographic information on the participant as well as on the father of the child(ren), information on the level of physical violence and the children's exposure, how often particular acts of violence took place, threats and coercion, an injury index, information regarding court orders, information regarding custody petitions, information regarding visitation orders, and visitation experience. The follow-up interview asked about abuse since the previous interview and included updates, changes, and modifications to the information provided in the baseline interview.