Who's responsible:

Family and Child mediation survey - Final report - March 1998

Publication date: 11 May 1998

Author: ACNielsen

Executive summary

1. Introduction

Legal Aid and Family Services (LAFS) commissioned ACNielsen to undertake a national survey to explore the level of community awareness of, and attitudes to, Family and Child Mediation. This survey is a follow up to the 1995 survey.

The overall objectives of this research were to inform ongoing program administration and policy development as well as gauging the effectiveness of the community education campaign conducted in 1996.

Specifically the survey aimed to:

• determine the community's level of awareness of family and child mediation services and to establish whether there has been an improvement since the first national survey in July 1995;

• gauge attitudes to the proposal to shift the Family Court's delivery of mediation services to the community sector; and

• identify community attitudes towards the role of mediation in the resolution of family conflicts including child support.

2. Methodology

Fieldwork for the 1998 Family and Child Mediation National Poll was conducted over two weekends, the first from 20-22 March 1998, and the second from 27-29 March 1998, on the ACNielsen face to face omnibus survey vehicle. In total, 1,444 interviews with members of the general community aged 18 years and over were conducted.

3. Main findings

3.1 Awareness of Family and Child Mediation service

All respondents were asked whether or not they had heard of a service known as Family and Child Mediation without any prior explanation of the service (ie. unaided). Then, after having a description of family mediation read to them, all respondents were again asked whether or not they had heard of family mediation (ie. aided).

• Unaided awareness of the Family and Child Mediation service was relatively low at 18% and had changed little since 1995 (17%).

• Aided awareness of the Family and Child Mediation service was higher than aided awareness at 27% but had dropped from 36% in 1995.

• Awareness of the mediation service varied mainly by education and income with awareness generally increasing with education and income.

3.2. Value of Family and Child Mediation service

A large majority of the community considered that Family and Child Mediation services would be helpful in resolving disputes generally and in resolving specific types of disputes :-

• 75% thought Family and Child Mediation would be helpful in assisting separating and divorcing couples to settle their affairs (83% in 1995).

• 75% thought Family and Child Mediation would be helpful in relation to disputes over care of children (75% in 1995).

• 74% thought Family and Child Mediation would be helpful in relation to disputes over child support.

• 66% thought Family and Child Mediation would be helpful in relation to disputes over property (76% in 1995).

• 66% thought Family and Child Mediation would be helpful in relation to disputes over financial matters (77% in 1995).

The view that mediation would be helpful generally increased with education and income and decreased with age.

People were mainly of the view that mediation was better earlier than later in the relationship:-

• Nearly two thirds (64%) of the community said Family and Child Mediation would be most helpful before separation had occurred. Roughly one quarter (23%) thought that family mediation would be most helpful during separation, while a small percentage believed it would be most helpful after the couple had divorced.

• The overwhelming majority (83%) of people felt that families would benefit from mediation at an earlier (than separation) stage in their disputes.

3.3 Willingness to use Family and Child Mediation

The majority (69%) of the community said they would be willing to use Family and Child Mediation if they themselves were separating or divorcing (76% in 1995).

Willingness to use Family and Child Mediation generally increased with education and income and was lowest for older age groups.

However, opinion was fairly well divided on whether it would be difficult to get both partners to attend mediation (36% agree, 27% disagree and 37% were either neutral or didn't know). A similar divided view existed in 1995 as well.

3.4 Mediated solution versus legal solution

The great majority of the community (81%) could see benefits of using Family and Child Mediation instead of the Family Court to resolve disputes (88% in 1995).

The main benefits mentioned were:

• Less stressful/more informal (47%);
• Cheaper/avoid legal costs (42%);
• Easier process/avoid going to court (25%); and
• Promotes cooperation between disputing parties (21%).

The likelihood of seeing benefits generally increased with education and income.

In addition, the most common reason given by those who indicated that they would be willing to use Family and Child Mediation was that Family and Child Mediation was better than the courts/less stressful/less traumatic (41% gave this reason).

Other attitudes indicating a preference for a mediated solution were :-

• Only 16% agreed with the statement that it would be better to let the courts decide disputes involving separating or divorcing couples (no change from 1995).

• Less than one quarter (23%) agreed that a lawyer and a court would protect your interest better than a mediator (25% in 1995).

• The majority (52%) of the community agreed that a mediated solution is always better than a legal solution (compared with 62% in 1995). Only 15% disagreed with this view.

3.5 Preferred service provider

The community was somewhat divided on whether they thought people would be more willing to use mediation services if they were provided by professional community organisations or by professionals employed by the Family Court :-

• 40% thought people would prefer community organisations to supply the service;

• 29% thought people would prefer professionals employed by the Family Court;

• 19% thought there would not be any difference; and

• 12% did not know which people would prefer.

The most common reasons provided by respondents who thought people would prefer a community organisation to provide Family and Child Mediation related to the perceived atmosphere (more comfortable, less intimidating) and approach (more personal/human) of the provider and perceptions of the courts as being something to avoid.

The most common reasons provided by respondents who thought people would prefer a professional employed by the Family Court to provide Family and Child Mediation related to the perceived legal knowledge and professionalism of such a person and the fact that they felt the outcome would be legally binding and that people would take more notice of any decision if it was made by an employee of the Family Court.

3.6 Other key attitudes

3.6.1 Payment for services

The community were split on whether or not people who use family mediation should have to pay for the service - 47% saying they should have to pay and 37% saying they should not have to pay. A similar divided view existed in 1995 as well.

3.6.2 Attitudes to 'outside help'

The community splits into 3 sizeable groups on the issue of keeping problems/disputes in the family and solving problems themselves :-

• For the statement 'People should solve these sorts of problems themselves' 43% agreed, 30% disagreed and 27% were neutral or didn't know.

• For the statement 'Such disputes should be kept within the family' 38% agreed, 38% disagreed and 24% were either neutral or didn't know).

A predominant view was more evident in relation to the involvement of 'strangers' in disputes :-

• For the statement 'Such disputes are too private to discuss with a stranger' 57% disagreed, 21% agreed and 22% were either neutral or didn't know.

• For the statement 'Strangers cannot help to resolve such disputes' 60% disagreed, 19% agreed and 21% either were neutral or didn't know.

A similar pattern in attitudes to outside help was evident in 1995.

3.6.3 Mediator bias

Mediator bias was not considered a major problem in that only 13% agreed with the statement that 'the mediator would favour one partner' (14% in 1995).

3.7 Conclusions

1. Awareness of Family and Child Mediation is relatively low and has changed little since 1995.
2. Community attitudes, as in 1995, are generally very positive to the concept of family mediation in that most people see the value of mediation in dispute resolution and would be willing to use it themselves.
3. Most people see benefits in a mediated solution over a Family Court (or legal) solution and most preferred a mediated solution to legal solution
4. However, while the majority of people were amenable to the idea of "outsiders" involving themselves in family disputes, at the same time views were very much divided in relation to keeping disputes in the family and people sorting out their own problems.
5. The community are split between community organisations and the Family Court as the preferred supplier of mediation services although more prefer community organisations.
6. Finally, awareness and attitudes in relation to family mediation do not vary markedly across demographic groups. However, persons with less education, lower incomes or who speak a language other than English at home tend to be somewhat less likely to be aware of family mediation services and to be somewhat less likely to have positive attitudes to family mediation.