Family and Religious Court Social Services: A National Evaluation Study

Background

This report presents the findings of a nationwide study of the work of the Family and Religious Court Social Services (hereinafter, FRCSS). The FRCSS are innovative therapeutic units at the SHALEM administration (Hebrew acronym for rehabilitation, support and prevention) of the Ministry of Welfare and Social Affairs. They are designed to help families engaged in a legal dispute and/or considering divorce to cope with the marital crisis and attempt to reconcile their conflict by way of dialogue and consensus. The FRCSS are mainly active in implementing the 2014 Law for Promoting Family Dispute Resolutions. According to the law, whoever seeks to file a lawsuit related to a family dispute is first referred to the FRCSS for one to four sessions of MAHUT (Hebrew acronym for information, assessment and coordination). These meetings are designed to explore, with both parties, alternative dispute resolutions (ADR) in order to manage the dispute extrajudicially, prior to (and potentially instead of) the filing of lawsuits. In addition, in a second track, the FRCSS assist families in disputes referred to them by the courts.

Objective

The overarching goal of this evaluation study was to provide policymakers with information to help optimize the work of the FRCSS. Specifically, the study examined the characteristics and needs of FRCSS clients, whether they had participated in MAHUT sessions or had been referred by the courts, examined the practices in MAHUT sessions and other sessions in the FRCSS; explored the perceptions of FRCSS professionals regarding strengths and challenges in their practices; assessed the outcomes of the MAHUT sessions; and explored the experiences and perceptions of clients regarding services provided.

Method

This mixed-methods study included quantitative and qualitative components. The quantitative component was a survey of clients served by the FRCSS from June 2021 to June 2022. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with 222 clients who engaged in MAHUT sessions (29% response rate), and with 194 clients referred to by the courts (35% response rate). The survey was conducted from May to July 2023.

The qualitative component consisted of semi-structured in-depth interviews with three staff officials, eleven social workers, and three lawyers from the FRCSS. The interviews were conducted in March-September 2023. In July-September of that year, interviews were also conducted with six FRCSS clients.

Findings

  • According to the assessment of the professionals in both the central office and the FRCSS, the work carried out based on the MAHUT law is of high professional quality, thanks to a learning process that began in the first years of the law’s implementation and continued for years. Practices have been developed and clarified, and the professionals have learned to cooperate and adjust the FRCSS interventions to the unique needs of each family.
  • Compared with a 2019 evaluation study of the implementation of the MAHUT process, the findings of the present study indicate a fall in the percentage of clients who reported filing a legal suit subsequent to the process (42 vs. 52). This means that progress has been made in achieving a key goal of the intervention, i.e. in reducing the percentage of clients who file a lawsuit at the end of the intervention in the FRCSS. In practice, most clients proceeded to managing their conflict by way of dialogue and consensus.
  • Most clients were satisfied with their interactions with FRCSS employees. For example, 70% of the MAHUT process clients were satisfied with the egalitarian and neutral attitude of the FRCSS towards them and the other party, and 67% were satisfied with the service and support of the FRCSS lawyer during the individual sessions. The percentage of clients satisfied with the service FRCSS employees in the MAHUT process was higher than among those referred by judicial decision, in all aspects.
  • Less than half of the clients (but more than a third) were satisfied with the sessions’ contribution to them. For example, among the MAHUT process clients, 48% reported that the meetings helped them better understand their needs and desires, and 38% reported that they contributed to understanding the issues under conflict between them and the other party. Among those referred to the FRCSS by judicial decision, 34% reported that the sessions helped them learn about alternative ways to resolve their conflict, other than litigation, and 31% reported that they helped them understand the conflict’s effect on the children’s emotional condition.
  • The more sessions the MAHUT clients attended, the higher the rate of those reporting substantial contributions from the intervention. For example, among MAHUT clients who attended only one session, only 31% reported that the MAHUT sessions contributed to a great or to a very great extent to understanding the issues under conflict, compared to 38% of those who attended two or three sessions, and 65% of those who attended four or more sessions. Among clients who participated in a single MAHUT session, only 18% reported an improvement in their communication with the other party to a great or very great extent, compared to 33% who attended two or three MAHUT sessions, and 35% who attended four or more. A similar pattern was not found among those referred by judicial decision.
  • In general, men were less satisfied than were women with various aspects of the intervention. For example, among those referred by the court, 49% of the men reported that the information was clear to them to a great or very great extent, compared to 62% of the women; fewer men than women expressed satisfaction with the FCRSS employees – among the MAHUT clients, 64% of the men were satisfied with the egalitarian and neutral attitude of the FCRSS social worker towards them and the other party, compared to 76% of the women. These differences may be due to the fact that most FCRSS professionals are women.
  • The MAHUT process involves unique difficulties and challenges: informing the respondent (defendant) about the first session at the FRCSS, and non-attendance of clients in MAHUT sessions. Other difficulties in the FRCSS work are high turnover and difficulty recruiting for vacancies, and a workload involving holding three MAHUT sessions daily.
  • It is estimated that there has been a decline in the inclusion of children in both the court referral (external process) and the referral by an FRCSS social worker who assists the family in the MAHUT sessions or other interventions (i.e., internal process), and this appears to have occurred for several reasons. For example, according to the interviewees’ assessment, judges invite children to participate less often due to increases in their workload, and social workers initiate fewer cases of child participation due to low awareness of the importance of including children and its possible contribution to them.
  • Only a few of the clients involved in either the MAHUT sessions and/or in other services reported that the intervention(s) had helped them become aware of services or care settings designed to help parents and children involved in family disputes. This may be due to the lack of public and subsidized support services for these families.

Recommendations

  • Continue with existing practices and identify, already at the first MAHUT session, which clients are involved in intense conflicts, and for which clients it would be more appropriate to file a lawsuit. It is best to terminate the intervention with these clients as soon as possible.
  • Act to reduce the difficulties and challenges in the work of the FRCSS, including the absences of clients from MAHUT sessions; act to reduce the turnover of professionals and fill all the vacancies; and act to reduce the professionals’ workload by adding more positions.
  • Invite as many children as possible to participate in both the external and the internal processes.
  • Improve the satisfaction of all clients, particularly men, with various aspects of the FRCSS intervention. This may be done, for example, by holding focus groups with men and learning from them how to improve their satisfaction with the service.
  • Provide subsidized public services, including both (individual, group, and family) therapy, and mediation services. Expanding the range of subsidized public services and providing a variety of subsidized therapeutic and mediation services will improve the implementation of the Law for Promoting Family Dispute Resolutions and the effectiveness
Citing suggestion: Sorek, Y., Nijim-Ektelat, F., Konstantinov, V., & Gilad, A. (2024). Family and Religious Court Social Services: A National Evaluation Study. RR-993-24. Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. (Hebrew)