Quantitative evidence in the evaluation of ADR: the case of judicial mediation in UK Employment Tribunals

Existing evidence on the effectiveness of mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) suggests high settlement rates and enhanced levels of satisfaction. Faced with pressures on the UK Employment Tribunal (ET) system from increased case volumes and complexity, policymakers have turned to ADR as a policy tool that can potentially ease the strain. However, studies that provide robust evidence of a statistically significant effect or 'value added' from ADR are scarce. In this paper, we consider evidence from a quantitative evaluation of judicial mediation in the UK ET system, piloted for discrimination cases. The findings suggest that judicial mediation is particularly favoured by employers, and controlling for a range of factors, including jurisdiction, we find that women are significantly more likely to take up the offer of mediation; as are employers who do not have representation in the early stages of the process. However, the main finding from the evaluation using propensity score matching is that no statistically significant effect can be identified when comparing the outcomes from matched mediated and unmediated case samples. The focus of discussion is on why this result occurs and the implications for the wider debates on ADR; specifically we consider the need for variety in the types of ADR used, in situations where the primary aim is to cope with increased case volumes and complexity.