However, we can’t make a site work better for its audience without talking to members of that audience. So, I’m asking: what features would you like to see on the new CourtADR.org? What types of resources, covering which topics?

One new section of the site will be a collection of “quick reference guides.” The guides will list the top “must-read” resources for certain topics related to court ADR. These topics might include:

• Mediator ethics
• Mediator certification
• Mediation advocacy
• Working with pro-se parties in mediation
• Confidentiality in mediation

We’re also planning to create guides on specific case types, like small claims or child custody, and updated versions of our “Special Topics” pages for:

• Judges
• Lawyers
• Legal aid professionals
• Neutrals
• Program administrators
• Mediation parties

What do you think of our list so far? Are there any other topics you’d like to see us cover? Let us know in the comments section below, or you can email me directly at jglowinski[at]aboutrsi[dot]org.

These are just a few of the over 4,000 resources available on CourtADR.org. We are always looking to expand our collection – if you know of any new research, programs, legislation, videos, or other resources, please let us know!

Child Protection Mediation: The Cook County Illinois Experience–A Judge’s Perspective
Martin, Hon. Patricia M., Family Court Review: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 47(1): 81-85, January 2009
Judge Patricia Martin of the Cook County Juvenile Court discusses her belief in the efficacy and even necessity of mediation in child protection proceedings. She offers a history of certain developments within theIllinoisjudicial system and the obstacles to implementing a mediation program.

Consensus Arbitration: A Negotiation-Based Decision-Making Process for Arbitrators
Witkin, Nathan, Negotiation Journal, 26(3):309-325, July 2010
This article promotes consensus arbitration as an alternative to the judicial model of arbitration.

Divorce Mediation With and Without Legal Representation: A Focus on Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse
Beck, Connie J.A.; Walsh, Michele E.; Ballard, Robin H.; Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy; Applegate, Amy G.; Putz, John W.. Family Court Review, October 2010
This study examined the demographic profiles of pro se litigants in Indiana and Arizona, focusing on cases involving partner violence or abuse.

Do Mediators Walk Their Talk in Civil Cases?
Wall, James A. Jr.; Chan-Serafin, Suzanne, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(1): 3-21, Fall 2010
This article notes the incongruities between stated and observed strategies of mediators and the effect that “walking the talk” has on outcomes in mediation. It describes three styles or strategies of mediation — neutral, evaluative, and pressing — and the rates of success within each.

Fairness, Understanding, and Satisfaction: Impact of Mediator and Participant Race and Gender on Participants’ Perception of Mediation
Charkoudian, Lorig; Kabcenell Wayne, Ellen, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 28(1): 23-52, Fall 2010
This article examines the effect of matching a mediator’s race and gender with that of participants, particularly in regard to conflict behavior, mediator behavior, and participants’ perception of the process. It summarizes recent studies on the impact of gender and race on mediation styles and then discusses the effects of sameness or difference between the mediator and the participants.

Mediation and Inequality Reconsidered: Bringing the Discussion to the Table
Wing, Leah, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(4):383-404, Summer 2009
This article raises questions about power, neutrality, and self-determination in the mediation process and examines the role of mediators in addressing imbalances of power. The author specifically considers the anomaly that parties often express dissatisfaction even after “successfully” reaching an agreement.

Meet Me on Death Row: Post-Sentence Victim-Offender Mediation in Capital Cases
Rossi, Rachel Alexandra, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, 9(1): 185-210, 2008
This article begins with a story of a double homicide, and then shifts its focus to the people who remained in the wake of that event: the offender, and the victims’ families. The author explains the process of victim-offender mediation and identifies the primary concerns for both victims and offenders. She concludes that implementation of victim-offender mediation programs in capital cases should be promoted as an option after sentencing.

Representation Disparities and Impartiality: An Empirical Analysis of Party Perception of Fear, Preparation, and Satisfaction in Divorce Mediation When Only One Party Has Counsel
Pettersen, Michael M.; Ballard, Robin H.; Putz, John W.; Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy, Family Court Review, 48(4): 663-671, Winter 2010
Disparity in representation may give an advantage to one party over the other during divorce mediation; this article considers the extent to which that is true, as well as the parties’ perception of fairness in such unequal representation cases.

The Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC): A Screening Interview for Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse Available in the Public Domain
Holtzworth-Munroe, Amy; Beck, Connie J. A.; Applegate, Amy G., Family Court Review, 48(4): 646-662, October 2010
The authors propose a new domestic violence screening tool: the Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns (MASIC). It assesses psychological abuse, coercive control, physical violence, sexual abuse or assault, stalking, and fear. The test is designed to be non-accusatory and to encompass categories of abuse that are not fully captured by other tests.

The Sieve Model: An Innovative Process for Identifying Alternatives to Custody Evaluations
Silver, Robert B.; Silver, Deborah Coe, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26(3): 333-348, Spring 2009
This article describes the Sieve Model of collaborative dissolution of marriage and places it within a broader historical context of divorce proceedings. The model is tailored to suit individual couples, and the “sieve” works to channel these couples through whichever processes may be useful, avoiding those that are unproductive or excessively adversarial.

Why Are Subordinates Less Satisfied with Mediation? The Role of Uncertainty
Bollen, Katalien; Euwema, Martin; Muller, Patrick, Negotiation Journal, 26(4): 417-433, October 2010
This article examines how hierarchy and status can affect the perceptions and experiences of mediation when one party is a supervisor and the other a subordinate, as in labor disputes.

This small, national symposium was organized by the Association for Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the Marquette University Law School, and RSI. While the on-site participation in Milwaukee is limited, everyone who is interested is welcome to join the first day of the conference online at no cost. Sessions will run from 8:30am-5:30pm Central Time. The sessions and times are listed below, and you can view the agenda for information on the nationally recognized presenters. The links to the webcast presentations will be listed on the conference website. Each session will have a moderated webcast, and those attending remotely will have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments via the webcast page. All you need is a standard internet connection and you are all set. You can join any and all of the sessions, so please join the sessions of interest to you and contribute to the conversation(s)!

• Conference Welcome, 8:30-9:00am
• Core Values of Dispute Resolution—Is Neutrality Necessary?, 9:00-10:15am
• What Do Stakeholders (Courts & Neutrals) Want & Need?, 10:30am-12:00pm
• What Do Stakeholders (Parties & Lawyers) Want & Need?, 1:00-2:30pm
• Contemporary Practices Meeting These Needs, 2:45-4:15pm
• Small Group Discussion*, Where Do We Go From Here?, 4:30-5:30pm
  *This segment will not be webcast, but the results of the small group discussions will be posted on the conference website.

We hope to “see” you at the conference. In the meantime, please contact Natalie Fleury, natalie.fleury@marquette.edu, if you have any questions about the webcast.

This month’s “Be Neutral” newsletter from the Georgia Office of Dispute Resolution highlighted the Georgia Supreme Court’s revised rule on providing interpreter services for people with limited English proficiency. The rule now requires the court to provide free access to interpreters for all court-managed functions, including court alternative dispute resolution programs.

The revisions bring the state into compliance with standards set by the US Department of Justice, which recently put out a warning to state courts that if they don’t comply with the standards, they’re violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Prior to Georgia, the state judiciaries in Colorado and Maine also agreed to implement the DOJ’s standards. Providing free interpreter services in the courts obviously increases access to justice for people with limited English proficiency. From the courtroom to the mediation table, how can justice be served if a party doesn’t understand the proceedings? Some might argue that instead of the courts providing interpreters, parties should bring friends or family members to interpret for them. However, friends or family might bring bias into the proceedings, or simply not be able to interpret effectively or accurately. Interpreters provided by the courts would be trained, neutral professionals.

However, the DOJ is experiencing push-back from judges and court administrators. Two national groups, the Conference of Chief Judges and the Conference of State Court Administrators, argue that the money simply isn’t there to provide the extra services. In “Be Neutral,” GODR Director Shinji Morokuma suggested that local mediation providers in Georgia may have to cut back on services in order to accommodate the added costs of interpreters, which are unknown at this point.

The way the debate has been painted so far, it seems like a lose-lose situation. But are there other options? Are you involved in a mediation program that provides interpreter services? How does the program provide those services while managing cost?

Do you know of any statistics that aren’t included in this report? Please let us know!