Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Two New Chapters of RSI’s Guide to Program Success Now Available!

Just Court ADR, September 12th, 2018

We are thrilled to announce that Chapters 8 and 9 of our Guide to Program Success are now available!

Our Guide to Program Success combines the expertise of Executive Director Susan Yates and Director of Research Jennifer Shack and discusses how to effectively design, manage, and evaluate successful court ADR programs. Newly released chapters 8 and 9 cover how to design the mechanics of a court ADR program and how to select and manage neutrals.

In addition to being available online, each chapter of our Guide to Program Success is also available to download for offline reading. If you are looking to design or improve a court ADR program, this is the step-by-step guide that you need.

Click here to start reading Chapters 8 and 9.

 

Eric Slepak-Cherney Named RSI Associate Director

Susan M. Yates, September 4th, 2018

I am pleased to announce the promotion of Eric Slepak-Cherney to the newly-created position of RSI Associate Director. In this position, Eric focuses on how to sustain and grow RSI in our mission to improve access to justice through court alternative dispute resolution. He has been with RSI since 2015 and with this promotion is now assisting with setting the strategic vision for RSI, coordinating the development and administration of the organization’s programs, and managing our fundraising activities.

Please join me in congratulating Eric and wishing him well in this new position!

Sincerely,

Susan M. Yates

Illinois Attorney General Funding for Foreclosure Mediation Ends After Five Impactful Years

Just Court ADR, August 30th, 2018

On August 31, 2018, a five-year grant to develop, operate and evaluate foreclosure mediation pilot programs across Illinois will conclude. Funded by settlements obtained by the Office of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, this grant allowed Resolution Systems Institute and our partners statewide to assist over 1,000 homeowners in saving their homes and an additional 3,000 homeowners in sitting down with their lenders to get clarity about available options in addressing their foreclosures. We produced a comprehensive evaluation in 2015, and will be publishing a follow-up later this fall, which examine and contrast how different program models affect outcomes – making it a valuable resource not just for Illinoisans, but for ADR program administrators anywhere.

We are truly grateful to AG Madigan, our partners, stakeholders and the Illinois courts who made these outcomes possible.

AG Madigan speaking in 2014 as RSI Executive Director Susan Yates and Former Board President Hon. Morton Denlow (ret.) listen.

Follow RSI on Twitter

Just Court ADR, August 20th, 2018

RSI is on Twitter! You can now stay up-to-date with us and get the latest court ADR news and research in a new way. Same great content, now in 280 characters or less.

Not on Twitter? You can also connect with us on Facebook and LinkedIn.

The Role of Prejudice and Bias in ADR

Jennifer Shack, August 1st, 2018

How can mediation be saved? This is the question that Nancy Welsh attempts to answer in her recent article, “Do You Believe in Magic?: Self-Determination and Procedural Justice Meet Inequality in Court-Connected Mediation,” (SMU Law Review, Vol 70, 2017).Welsh laments the lack of self-determination in mediation and looks at social science research to question whether mediation really provides procedural justice in a world of inequality, bias and prejudice. Gilat J. Bachar and Deborah R. Hensler take a slightly different tack in their article, “Does Alternative Dispute Resolution Facilitate Prejudice and Bias? We Still Don’t Know” (SMU Law Review, Vol 70, 2017). They look at empirical research on ADR to see if there is evidence that ADR does indeed facilitate bias and prejudice.

In her article, Welsh argues that the promise of mediation to ensure self-determination isn’t being upheld. Instead, she claims that self-determination has been sidelined by judges and lawyers, and calls for reform have fallen on deaf ears. So Welsh turns to procedural justice, which includes having voice, being heard, being treated in an even-handed manner and being treated with dignity, as another way of providing self-determination. If the elements of procedural justice are present, the parties are more likely to have self-determination because they can have an open discussion that leads to an outcome that truly represents the interests of all involved.

The provision of procedural justice, however, is not straightforward. Recent social science research has found that the provision of procedural justice can be impeded by inequality, bias and prejudice. First, one’s experience of procedural justice and how much it influences one’s view of the substantive outcome is affected by one’s status. Procedural justice is more important to those of lower status, who use it to determine if the outcome was fair. Second, one’s ability and desire to have voice is dependent upon one’s status. Third, those with lower status may not be heard by those with higher status. Indeed, research has found that those with higher status are less likely to hear those of lower status due to their prejudices and biases.

Welsh proposes a number of ways to address inequality, bias and prejudice, in the hope that mediation can live up to its promise of providing procedural justice, substantive justice and self-determination. These include: increasing the diversity of the mediator pool and training mediators to recognize and address implicit bias; utilizing pre-mediation caucusing to build trust; encouraging active listening in mediation; promoting the use of online tools for communication (as research has shown that people with lower status are more likely to exercise voice using online media); and empowering mediators to avoid unconscionably lopsided outcomes.

Where Welsh looks to social science research to inform how prejudice and bias may play out in the provision of procedural justice in mediation, Bachar and Hensler examine empirical research to find evidence of prejudice and bias in mediation and arbitration outcomes. They looked at 38 studies conducted over three decades that looked at a variety of case types. They found that the studies arrived at “mixed and contradictory” results and lacked methodological rigor. Therefore, they could draw no robust conclusions from them. However, they believed that the results of these studies indicate that both women and minority men fare worse in mediation than white men. There is no research on racial or ethnic bias in arbitration, but recent research points to women – both parties and lawyers – faring worse than men in the process.

Both articles point to a need for a greater focus on whether inequality, bias and prejudice impact the provision of justice through ADR, and how they may be addressed. This intersection of ADR and prejudice is examined in the two 2017 ADR Symposium issues of SMU Law Review, which are definitely worth the time to read.