ONLINE FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION Applications and Experiences Mark

ONLINE FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION Applications and Experiences Mark Thomson – Director, Virtual Services mthomson@relateqld. com. au OFDR Research Team • Dr Elisabeth Wilson-Evered, Victoria University • Jennifer Murray, Relationships Australia Queensland • Tristan Casey

Online FDR – Overview of Project Overview of OFDR project Funded by Attorney-General’s Department 1 July 2009 to 31 March 2011 Activity: - To develop and evaluate OFDR capabilities, including videoconferencing, for clients of the TDRS - Evaluation of a pre-FDR education session for non face-to-face clients - Provision of an Evaluative Report to inform the development of a Best Practice Guide Final report submitted 30 Mar 2011

The OFDR System + RAQ Staff OFDR Software/Server Internet Client VOIP + +

Toward a prototypical OFDR client • Out of 622 respondents, 451 (73%) indicated an intention to use the service 6% 7% 13% 42% 31% Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Agree

Toward a prototypical OFDR client Who elected not to use the service and why? • Of 622 clients, 73% were keen to adopt OFDR • 164 (26%) clients indicated low or no intentions to use OFDR • We compared the two groups to identify statistically significant differences (chi 2) • Groups differed significantly on: – Presence of Domestic Violence – Party Type (A vs B) – And all technology questions

Online Family Dispute Resolution http: //youtu. be/O 3 F 7 WMt. D 7 J 0

OFDR Research Overview Code Service point Method Constructs T 1 Client Registers for Client Survey Intake session (Baseline) Parental acrimony, Co-Parental Communication, Technology T 2 Post-Intake Client and Staff Survey Client Satisfaction, Rapport Technology T 3 Post-OFDR Session Client and Staff Survey Client Satisfaction, Rapport Technology, Mediation Outcomes Standard Evaluation Questionnaire (MOSEQ) T 4 3 -Month Follow-up Client Survey Parental Acrimony, Co-Parental Communication, Technology, Agreement Compliance, Post-OFDR Service Access, Service Satisfaction T 5 9 -Month Follow-up Client Survey Parental Acrimony, Co-Parental Communication, Agreement Compliance, Post-OFDR Service Access, Service Satisfaction

OFDR Research Preliminary Results Time 1 - Baseline OFDR survey clients (N = 90) • Clients booked for Intake session emailed survey beforehand • 90 client surveys • Average = 38 years • 44% Male, 56% Female

OFDR Research Preliminary Results Time 1 - Baseline OFDR survey clients (N = 90) • 72% Employed; 10% Unemployed; 18% missing data • Earnings per week before tax (nb. 2% missing data): • 51% earned from $0 -599 • 37% earned from $600 -1599 • 10% earned from $1600 -2000+ • Highest Education Level – (nb. 2% missing data): • 37% High School • 43% Certificate or Diploma • 18% University degree

OFDR Research Preliminary Results Parental Acrimony Scale (PAS) (Shaw & Emery, 1987) – Score 1 (Low) to 4 (High) OFDR Baseline: – Overall Mean = 2. 65 (. 43) (N = 81) – fairly high acrimony – Female = 2. 68 (. 46) N = 41 – Male = 2. 60 (. 40) N = 40

Time 2 - Post OFDR Intake Service • Client = 26 client surveys • Staff = 28 incidence surveys by four FDR practitioners

OFDR Research Preliminary Results Post-intake survey clients (N = 26) – – Average = 41 years 58% Male; 42% Female, 77% Employed Highest Education Level – nb. 27% missing data • 23% High School • 27% Certificate or Diploma • 23% University degree

OFDR Research Preliminary Results Post OFDR Intake Service Client Satisfaction (Cronin, 1992) - (Sample Size (n) = 26) • 96% were satisfied to very satisfied • 92% met most of my needs to all of my needs • 96% would come back again

OFDR Research Preliminary Results OFDR Intake Service Rapport Measure (Puccinelli & Tickle-Degnan, 2004) • Both staff and clients rated similarly high levels of rapport (staff n = 28 incidences, client n = 26 people) Low Very High

Technology Perspective OFDR Anxiety (Havelka & Beasley, 2004) and Trust (Mayer & Davis, 1999) Low Very High

Technology Perspective Low Very High

OFDR Client Post-intake Comments 1. Positive interaction with staff: • Client 1 - The interaction was really helpful • Client 2 - I found the experience of the OFDR system very rewarding. Rather than just a voice on the phone i felt more involved with the mediator which helped me feel more comfortable and more able to speak the truth and confident that the interview was kept confidential • Client 3 - I felt that the mediator was knowledgeable, concerned, very helpful with guidance, and ensured my understanding of the whole process to date • Client 4 - I was put at ease and communication was good. All matters here explained clearly to me. Thank You. 2. Comfort and ease of service: • Client 5 - I felt comfortable being able to do this in my own home, in surrounds that are familiar to me. • Client 6 - I would definitely use this service again, and recommend it to anyone else

OFDR Client Post-intake Comments 3. I wish it was more like Skype: • Client 7 - The only thing I found difficult was using the online interface yet having to rely on the telephone handset. An hour holding the handset was a long time and as I am comfortable with using Skype I guess I am comfortable using that format (i. e. no handset) • Client 8 - A suggestion I would make is to make the platform appear more like Skype and be able to make the image of the practitioner larger and the image of myself smaller. 4. Connection Issues: • Client 9 - The video feed of the Intake Officer was not smooth and may need greater bandwidth and processing power • Client 10 - The only comment I have is that 3/4 of the way through the intake we lost video connection, but apart from that the session was great.

OFDR Client Post-intake Comments 5. Sometimes a little strange and artificial: • Client 11 - It was a bit disconcerting initially to see myself in computer view - I wasn't prepared for a formal face to face meeting and was very casual in appearance (I was still in my outfit from morning swimming lessons). It would be good to know that it is a bit formal. • Client 12 - It also felt a little strange as far as eye contact goes - I was looking primarily at practitioner on the screen rather than at the camera and it felt a little disconnected for me in a subtle way visually as I wasn't sure he was able to see me • Client 13 - I understand that the Online Officer's have a lot of information to get across. . however it feels a little "automatic pilot" and makes it quite difficult to ask questions or be heard. It is an excellent scheme and I hope that it continues.

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session • • • 7 staff incidence surveys (by 4 FDR practitioners) and formal staff feedback Currently no formal client data Two qualitative client comments

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session – Staff perceptions Rapport with Part A & Party B (Puccinelli & Tickle-Degnan, 2004)

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session – Staff perceptions Perceived Ease of Use and Usefulness (Van Shaik & Ling, 2005)

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session – Staff perceptions Usefulness, Satisfaction and Confidence with Mediation Outcomes (MOSEQ; Poitras & Le Tareau, 2009)

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session Staff comments 1. Client Web Cam issues: • The male was up side down on his camera. The female couldn’t get the camera working • Party A was unable to turn on their webcam, therefore, Party B was not encouraged to turn their webcam on. However, both parties were able to view the: Agenda, Options, Agreements Pod without incident. 2. Client Connection issues: • One of the clients kept losing internet connection. We were able to get her into a routine each time the internet dropped out so that she could reconnect without interrupting the flow of the session, however when it occurred the first time, we did have to stop discussions so that she knew how to sort it out.

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session Staff comments 3. More time to set up technology: • More time for sessions so that any technology issues could be sorted before the clinical work begins. 4. Web cams not always needed for every client: • FDR session was completed without the use of web cameras - this was a client preference as they had no interaction for over 5 years and thought it would be too much of a shock to the system to see the other party's face. • For this particular case, webcams were not utilised. The details of this case were also unique, in that negotiation was not really required, it was more about them discussing a particular issue that was critical in the life of their child.

Time 3 – Post-OFDR session Staff comments 5. Beneficial to show actual written agenda and agreements to clients online: • I found to be beneficial as the clients were able to focus on the writing in front of them

Time 3 - OFDR Client Post-FDR Comments OFDR Case 1 - Male client (Party B) • • “Found the online mediation process very good” “Had good rapport with the FDR Practitioners” and got along with them very well” “Very satisfied with the online mediation” “No agreement was reached at the end of the online mediation process”

Time 3 - OFDR Client Post-FDR Comments OFDR Case 2 - Female client (Party A) • • • “Very satisfied with the online mediation process” “A very good rapport with the FDR Practitioners” “Online connection would drop put at times because her screensaver would come up on. However still had connection by phone”.

Evaluation Summary • • Overall positive signs from clients who have used the system so far Still areas to develop though: • Promote service further with video demonstrations of OFDR service on RAQ website • Continue to work with staff in regards to integrating the new technology into practice more easily

Where next with OFDR research? • • • Still to collect survey data for OFDR mediation session, 3 months and 9 month follow-up Compare measures over time Compare to TDRS and Face-to-Face FDR Examine how different factors relate to each other Continue to act on client and staff feedback that arises along the way