Just Court ADR

A Look Back at Nearly Five Years of RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program

Sandy Wiegand, April 22nd, 2026

When RSI launched the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program in May 2021, the Chicago collar county was facing the prospect of an onslaught of evictions as it became evident that pandemic-related eviction moratoria could soon wind down. Having cost so many lives and livelihoods, COVID-19 was also threatening people’s homes.

Today, as the eviction mediation program nears the milestone of five years in operation, we are taking the time to reflect on its goals and share some of its outcomes, including observations from some of the folks involved. Stay tuned in the coming weeks, too, for a more detailed and rigorous report from our Research Team, evaluating the program’s performance in 2025.

*Stock photo by Kamaji Ogino via Pexels*

Goals and Opportunities

RSI and Illinois’ 16th Judicial Circuit developed the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program together because we saw its potential to help families avoid sheriff’s eviction, as well as to help the court — which had only one eviction judge — manage the “tsunami” of evictions some feared would overtake it when the state’s eviction moratorium ended. Supporters also recognized that the grant-funded mediation program, which was free to participants, could benefit landlords by being cost-effective and potentially helping them to avoid empty units.

One of the program’s early, vital proponents was Judge John Dalton, who presided over Kane County Eviction Court from the program’s inception through December 2023. Judicial support has been key to the success of the program, as a 2022 RSI report stated: “The program can only function if the judges support it both by educating the parties about the resources available to them and by either strongly encouraging or requiring the parties to attend mediation. When tenants and landlords are educated about the benefits of mediation, they are more likely to want to participate.”

Noting that Kane County had been the first in Illinois to launch an eviction mediation program, Judge Dalton commented in 2023: “We have been overwhelmingly pleased with the outcomes. It has been successful in assisting landlords and tenants in reaching mutually beneficial agreements.”

Those with ADR experience, including RSI, foresaw another set of benefits from the eviction mediation program. One was the opportunity for parties to experience procedural justice, elements of which include feeling able to express oneself in mediation, finding the mediation process fair, and feeling satisfied with the process. We also knew that mediation carried the possibility of parties finding creative solutions in a way that was unlikely to occur in court.

Furthermore, because mediation was conducted online, and because the program did not charge parties any fee, it could increase access to justice.

“(B)eing able to participate in mediation remotely via Zoom has been a huge benefit to all parties,” RSI Eviction Mediation Program Assistant Cathy McCoy noted. “Attending mediation and court in person in Kane County can be difficult without access to transportation, given the layout of the county.”

Mediations, Agreements and Avoided Evictions

Over the course of its existence, the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program has mediated almost 3,000 cases, which led to more than 2,100 agreements that helped parties avoid eviction. RSI program staff has also connected thousands of parties to support such as financial and housing counseling, legal aid, utility assistance and rental assistance.

Cathy, who joined RSI’s staff in 2025, has also been a paid mediator for RSI since the program’s beginning. In 2024, her dedication to providing a supportive process for eviction mediation parties led her to begin volunteering in person at the Kane County Courthouse in Geneva, Illinois, as well. (Although parties can attend mediation and court online, some still choose to attend in person.)

“Eviction mediation can benefit both tenants and landlords, both by shortening the time it takes to resolve their case and by reducing the stress level so that parties can focus on the future and make difficult decisions,” Cathy told us in 2024. “Most importantly, mediation can help avoid evictions and provide a bit of stability during challenging times.”

Tenants in eviction cases are overwhelmingly self-represented, and they often feel overwhelmed and powerless trying to navigate their case. Access to mediators and other support personnel can reduce their barriers to justice. “I often work with pro se parties that express gratitude that RSI mediators help them understand the process and empower them to make decisions, when the expense of an attorney would be a financial burden,” Cathy explained.

Sophie Rexrode is an Illinois Justice Corps fellow who has worked alongside Cathy at the courthouse, providing parties with information about the eviction court process, mediation and rental assistance. Sophie points to the program as a means to improve access to justice, while also noting that promoting dialogue can have additional, less obvious impacts.

“(B)uilding out parallel and alternative ways of resolving issues is tremendously important if we are interested in having a justice system that works for everyone, and the eviction mediation program is a significant step in that direction,” Sophie said recently of the program. “I also think that opening doors for dialogue in the community is critical, and the benefits from that ripple outward even if an individual case doesn’t get resolved.”

Judge and Party Feedback

In 2024, a new presiding judge was assigned to the Kane County Eviction Court and its eviction mediation program. Judge Elizabeth Flood oversaw the mediation program from January 2024 through December 2025. “I think the program was effective in facilitating communication between the parties and giving tenants the possibility of keeping their housing or negotiating more favorable terms to move or decrease debt,” she told RSI recently.

Many on the other side of the bench seemed to agree with this assessment. RSI’s Research Team regularly surveys Kane County Eviction Mediation Program participants as one way to evaluate the program’s effectiveness. Although feedback on the program has not been universally favorable (read full reports on the program’s survey responses on RSI’s website), the great majority of comments have been positive. Here are a few:

“When people go through a difficult time, this program gives them a chance.”

“This program is a life preserver to a drowning person. Thank you.”

“This process gave me hope that I could get through a difficult time in my life, without having to further upset my life via eviction! I am very grateful!”

And apart from the surveys, just this month, a landlord emailed program staff to say:

“I truly have nothing but incredibly positive things to say so far in the mediation process and [staff member] was beyond helpful.”

The same week, an attorney sent staff the note:

“I generally have nothing but positive things to say about the mediation program. It has helped me resolve [many] cases over the past few years. … I appreciate that the program is available to facilitate resolution.”

Procedural Justice

RSI’s post-mediation surveys of Kane County Eviction Mediation Program participants focus in particular on measures of procedural justice, or the degree to which people feel they have been treated fairly during the process. In addition to being a useful gauge of participant satisfaction, procedural justice is important to the effectiveness of mediation. When people leave mediation with a sense of having been treated fairly, they tend to be more likely to abide by the agreement reached.

RSI’s survey asks questions about voice, fairness, trust in the mediator, respectful treatment by the mediator and more. Throughout the lifetime of the Kane County program, survey respondents have consistently given it high marks for procedural justice. For example, parties who responded to RSI’s surveys after participating in the program in 2025 gave an average rating above 4 on a five-point scale for each of the five procedural justice questions.

Comments from parties often reflect their appreciation for having a voice in the process and feeling respected. For example, tenant comments from surveys on mediations held in 2025 included the following:

“[Staff member] and [mediator] … made me feel important, I was heard, I was treated fairly and it made a stressful situation very comfortable …”

“[Mediator] did a great job at making sure both myself and my landlord were ‘heard.’”

“The mediator was fair with both sides which is all anyone could ask.”

Likewise, landlord’s attorneys who took surveys provided the following comments regarding 2025 mediations:

“Mediator was fair to both sides and not overly pushy toward settlement. Mediator was incredibly inquisitive, prompting both sides to be more honest or consider things they had not considered. Mediator was patient and thorough, made sure the case was settled and worked through tech issues with the tenant.”

“The resolution took into account the requests and needs of both sides.”

Asked about the program’s impact on parties, Judge Flood summarized: “I believe most parties felt they had a greater opportunity to express themselves and be heard than in a busy courtroom.”

Benefits to the Court

Both Judge Dalton and Judge Flood also credit the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program with helping the court run smoothly.

“Around 70% of the cases referred to mediation were resolved with a settlement agreement,” Judge Flood noted, “which streamlined the court process, led to quicker resolutions, and alleviated the need for trial settings on the majority of the cases.”

“Thanks to this program, the court has been able to run efficiently during an eviction surge,” Judge Dalton said.

RSI is grateful to the funders of this program over the years, including the American Arbitration Association – International Center for Dispute Resolution Foundation and the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation.

We hope to see the program continue for many years to come.

A Q&A With Judge Flood on ADR, Mediation

RSI has administered the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program in Illinois’ 16th Judicial Circuit since 2021. Hon. Elizabeth Flood, the first woman to be appointed Presiding Judge of the Family Division in the 16th Circuit, presided over the Kane County Eviction Court and oversaw this mediation program from January 2024 through December 2025. During Judge Flood’s time overseeing the program, it mediated over 1,100 cases, reached almost 800 agreements, and avoided eviction in 792 cases. Throughout the life of the program, it has also connected thousands of parties to support such as financial and housing counseling, legal aid, utility assistance and rental assistance.

With Judge Flood having recently been transferred to another courtroom, we wanted to catch up with her while her thoughts on the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program were still fresh.

What were your initial thoughts about the mediation program when you were assigned to the Kane County Eviction Court?

I was curious about the impact it had on the cases and resolutions.

Did you have previous interest in, or exposure to, mediation or other types of ADR?

I had presided over a family/divorce courtroom for six years, and we often used individual mediators in those cases to resolve parenting and financial issues. In the courtroom which handled evictions, I also presided over arbitration cases, in which parties were ordered before an arbitration panel to facilitate resolution before trial.

How would you describe the impact of the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program?

I think the program was effective in facilitating communication between the parties and giving tenants the possibility of keeping their housing or negotiating more favorable terms to move or decrease debt. I believe most parties felt they had a greater opportunity to express themselves and be heard than in a busy courtroom.

Around 70% of the cases referred to mediation were resolved with a settlement agreement, which streamlined the court process, led to quicker resolutions, and alleviated the need for trial settings on the majority of the cases.

What were some challenges for/with the program?

Some counsel representing landlords did not like the intervening step and subsequent three- to four-week delay if a case could not be resolved. A few did not come to mediations prepared with full information or a mindset to negotiate. We had meetings with many of the plaintiffs’ counsel explaining the benefits to both sides and the expected behavior and parameters.

You were also a part of an ADR Task Force created by the Illinois Judicial Conference as part of its 2025 Strategic Agenda Operational Plan. The 2026 Strategic Agenda Operational Plan has a similar ADR initiative Are you still involved?

The task force is continuing; I am not involved as I recently moved to a courtroom which does not utilize arbitration, so I did not feel I had adequate background and knowledge to meaningfully contribute at this point.

Why did you join the task force? What did you gain from the experience?

I was nominated to the task force; I gained a better understanding of the challenges and benefits from all stakeholders in arbitration programs.

How has your understanding of ADR evolved after partnering with the mediation program and participating in other ADR projects?

Both programs shed light on the issue of better communication between the parties leading to better outcomes in court, and the role the courts can play in encouraging and facilitating this communication.

Are there any lessons or experiences you bring with you into your new courtroom from your time in eviction court?

I will look for instances in which mediation or arbitration may be helpful in resolving any cases, in order to increase the efficiency of the courtcall for all sides.

Tags: Kane County Eviction Mediation
Posted in Court Mediation Program, Evaluation, Eviction Mediation, Program Evaluation, RSI News | No Comments »

Report Offers Useful Insight on Remote Mediation for People with Disabilities

Jasmine Henry, March 20th, 2026

A recent report on remote mediation and disability by Nick White, Research and Evaluation Director for the Maryland Judiciary’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO), sheds light on how remote mediations might improve access to justice for people with disabilities. The RSI team has found the report’s findings helpful in assessing how our own eviction mediation program serves this population.

A woman with long brown hair and wearing a light pink top and blazer looks intently at a laptop screen while taking notes with a pen and paper. She is sitting in a wheelchair at a round white and brown wood table. — ***Photo by Gustavo Fring via Pexels***

White’s research team recruited 23 mediators and 62 people with disabilities to participate in simulations of remote mediations. The research focused on participants with visual, hearing and physical disabilities. Researchers used interviews and focus groups to gain insight about participants’ and mediators’ experiences before and after the simulated mediation. Participants also completed surveys before and after the simulated mediation.

Participant Experiences vs. Expectations

In many instances, the simulated mediation seems to have met or exceeded participants’ expectations in terms of barriers. Before their simulated mediation, participants were asked what concerns they had and what potential benefits they anticipated. While most participants reported expecting technology challenges or problems communicating online, the participants’ responses after the simulated mediation indicated that most experienced fewer barriers than expected.

When asked after their simulated mediation whether it “reduced any barriers … that [they] expected to face,” 85.5% of 54 participants responded “yes.” Additionally, when participants were asked if remote mediation “created any barriers … that [they] were not expecting,” 74.5% answered “no.” This is in line with the participants’ overall comments, 73.5% of which focused on potential benefits to using remote mediation, and 26.5% of which focused on potential barriers.

Although the participants’ responses were largely positive, some barriers, discussed below, did affect the simulated mediations.

Technology Challenges

Unsurprisingly, technology issues were among the challenges. Both participants and mediators mentioned having connectivity issues during their simulated mediation. Complications also occurred with the use of assistive technology. For example, during one simulated mediation, the mediator was unable to work their closed caption software, despite having practiced using the tool prior to the session. Further, a participant noted that closed captions are not always accurate.

Participants and mediators in White’s study seemed to agree that the best solution for any potential technology challenge is to ensure everyone is fully prepared for the session. When asked what advice or info they would give someone with a disability who is considering remote mediation, a party stated: “Always communicate your needs before the mediation to make the process comfortable for you.” When asked what worked well in their session, a mediator said: “Understanding ahead of time how the participants wanted to engage in the mediation, what technology they were using, and checking in ahead of time regarding any needed accommodations or supports.”

A good intake protocol, such as the one provided in the appendix of White’s report, is important for being fully prepared. As RSI works to improve our eviction mediation program’s intake process to better serve parties with disabilities, we plan to adopt some of the report’s guidance, including adding the intake question: “Do you have any accessibility needs that we should be aware of to ensure your full participation in the remote mediation process?”

Online vs. In-Person Mediation

Participants in the simulated mediations also voiced concerns about potential disadvantages to online versus in-person mediation. A central concern was the potential loss of nonverbal communication and the possibility that the mediator might miss subtle cues like body language or tone.

Such disadvantages are exacerbated when parties are either unable or choose not to turn on their cameras. The question of whether participants should be required to keep cameras on is tricky, and not just for mediations involving people with disabilities. Having video provides mediators with nonverbal cues that can help them better recognize party emotions and engagement. It also allows everyone in the mediation to more easily see if others are in the room with a participant. Additionally, using videos for mediations can provide participants with more context; for example, a deaf participant noted that they find lip reading helpful and recommended that camera use be mandatory. However, some participants may not be able to navigate the necessary technology to turn their videos on for a remote mediation, and some may prefer to keep their cameras off, for reasons that may or may not be connected to their disability.

RSI’s mediation program typically requires that both parties’ cameras be turned on, with case-by-case exceptions. When those exceptions occur, we recommend that our mediators tell both parties to keep their cameras off, as a way to address potential power imbalances created when only one party has their camera on. (See our Power Imbalance Toolkit for more on this.)

Concerns About Discrimination

Another concern named by parties in the research was the potential for the mediator to misunderstand or discriminate against them because of their disability. Participant comments noted that discrimination sometimes occurs when the mediator does not fully understand the parties’ needs, with one participant’s post-mediation comment calling on mediators to “make sure they are sensitive to people with [disabilities].” Another research participant shared the following post-mediation feedback: “you are thinking that one size fits all disabilities — this will not be true,” and another shared, after the mediation, that “[the mediator] can check their ableist attitudes.”

The report recommends ways for mediators to accommodate parties. For example, for participants with visual disabilities, mediators can take specific care to describe any documents, graphics or photos shared on the screen. For participants with auditory disabilities, mediators should ensure they are able to use closed captioning; and, once closed captioning is enabled, they should remain vigilant to ensure it is accurate. Above all, the research emphasized that mediators should remember to treat parties with empathy and patience, regardless of their status.

Conclusions

Overall, the report found that remote mediation opened access to people with disabilities who may otherwise have a hard time participating in mediation. Further, research participants were highly positive about their experience. The report’s findings indicate that courts should take careful consideration when providing remote mediation to parties with disabilities. Deliberate planning, mediator training and a good intake protocol are all essential aspects of a fair, effective and efficient service.

RSI’s mediation program works to address several of the issues named in the report in our mediator meet-ups, which occur monthly. These meet-ups are geared toward helping our mediators better provide services to all parties who enter our program. Reports such as this are essential to helping our mediators improve.

Tags: Deaf, Disability, Hard of hearing, mediation, Remote mediation, Visual impairment
Posted in Accessibility, ADR Resources, Diversity and Inclusion, Program Design, Research, Training, Skills & Techniques | No Comments »

How Should AI Be Used in Criminal Justice?

Stephen Sullivan, February 25th, 2026

A pair of policy briefs by the Center for Justice Innovation offers recommendations for when AI could and should not be used in the criminal legal space. They call for leaders in the field to deploy AI responsibly — to foreground values and commit to mitigating harm. Publication of the briefs preceded the Center’s announcement of the AI and Justice Consortium, which they describe as convening justice practitioners, researchers, tech companies and communities to discuss and develop AI infrastructure in criminal justice. The reports’ focus on prioritizing values and assessing risk are germane to court ADR.

Leading with Values and Lessons Learned

The first brief urges criminal justice leaders to learn from previous efforts to deploy algorithmic-based technologies. The authors offer three main recommendations: 1) Prioritize values over technology; 2) Stay active, curious and informed about technology; and 3) Resist the siren song of efficiency long enough to weigh unintended consequences.

Risk assessment systems and electronic monitoring are two examples to learn from. The authors note that early legal adopters positioned these technologies as “evidence-based” and “neutral” tools that could effectively predict recidivism. However, the field did not sufficiently establish a values framework to evaluate and constrain the use of these technologies prior to deployment — ignoring those who warned of risk scores injecting inherent biases. The warnings were prescient. These technologies perpetuated race- and class-based inequities and harms present in the criminal justice system; efforts to address these issues came too late and are still catching up.

The authors thus call for a front-end commitment to values such as transparency and the well-being of communities. Through a sustained effort to understand why and how predictive technologies such as AI can and will fail, practitioners can make informed, proactive decisions to mitigate harm.

We need to proceed with caution, the authors contend, to determine what purposes AI tools might serve, for whom and for what intended outcomes. The report outlines potentially positive uses of AI tools, such as surfacing racial biases in charging and sentencing patterns and expediting reviews of applicant case files to potentially get people out of prison sooner. The authors describe these uses as not bearing direct negative impact on people’s liberties.

Establishing Constraints and Safeguards

The second brief discusses the practical application of the first brief’s values recommendations; it includes recommendations to constrain the use of AI in high-risk scenarios and establish safeguards for its use in low-risk scenarios. This set of recommendations synthesizes the insights of criminal legal and technology leaders who attended a working session at the Center. Most notably, the authors call for a moratorium on AI use in high-stakes contexts to “allow for a thorough assessment of AI’s impact on liberty and safety, and for a proper consideration of whether it should be deployed at all in certain higher-stakes contexts.”

The authors distinguish high-risk scenarios, in which AI should not be used, from low-risk scenarios, in which AI tools could be used with human oversight and decision-making. High-risk scenarios involve the potential for significant harm: spaces where people are intensely vulnerable (such as jails and prisons) and decisions such as detention versus release. In contrast, examples of lower-risk scenarios in which AI tools are potentially better suited include supporting case managers to disseminate community resources and housing services, summarizing case notes, or analyzing case patterns to match services to client needs. They also identify an opportunity for court staff and researchers to use AI to identify disparities in court policies and programs.

The authors call for mandatory comprehensive evaluations before any deployment of AI in justice settings. Conducting trial runs with representative, real-world data sets is the minimum needed to anticipate real-world consequences and identify biases. Lastly, the authors call for a greater push for standards to “put the brakes on hasty experimentation” and safeguard AI implementation in criminal justice. Taken together, the reports urge criminal justice leaders to carefully consider what purposes they use AI for, when to draw firm lines to mitigate harm, and how to be guided by the needs and values of people in the justice system.

The value of these briefs to the ADR community is the emphasis on the risks that seemingly neutral AI uses might entail and the call for real-world evaluation of potential consequences and biases prior to deployment. To ensure that AI is adopted in ADR responsibly, we need to check that guardrails are in place and that the risks to parties are not ignored.

Posted in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Ethics | No Comments »

New Toolkit Helps Mediators Manage Power Imbalances Within Eviction Cases

Victoria Wang, February 11th, 2026

What happens when one party is an experienced attorney ready to negotiate, while the other is a self-represented tenant who is unsure of what to say or what the terms in the agreement really mean? This scenario is common in eviction mediations, where differences in legal knowledge, resources and confidence can create a stark imbalance in disputes between landlords and tenants. These imbalances are not always obvious, but they can quietly shape the course of the discussion and the fairness of the outcome. For mediators, navigating these dynamics is one of the toughest challenges of eviction cases. How does a mediator balance power without going too far in assisting the tenant?

To better support mediators in this critical work, Resolution Systems Institute (RSI) has developed a Power Imbalance Toolkit. This resource draws on direct observation of eviction mediations, review of academic literature, and feedback from practitioners to identify the most common imbalance issues and provide practical strategies for mediators to address them. The toolkit is designed to be both accessible and actionable: Mediators can use it for training, preparation or even a quick reference during a session.

Why a Toolkit on Power Imbalance?

Since 2021, as an aspect of fulfilling its mission to enhance court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems, RSI has administered an eviction mediation program in Kane County, Illinois. As part of this work, RSI observes eviction mediations from time to time to identify what is working well and where additional support for mediators might be needed.

In the summer of 2025, our research team focused specifically on how power imbalance plays out in these sessions. In reviewing these mediations, we noticed recurring patterns: Tenants frequently came to mediation not understanding the court process, and they struggled with legal terms and procedures; mediators grew familiar with attorneys from past mediations; and some tenants became silent or disengaged under the stress of the situation.

Academic research confirms that power imbalances can erode mediation’s intended benefits. Research points out that while mediation has the potential to give tenants a voice and produce fairer outcomes than litigation, these benefits can be undermined when mediators lack clear strategies for addressing imbalance. Moreover, consistent with RSI’s observations, scholars highlight the persistent and layered power disparities in landlord-tenant relationships, from differences in financial resources and legal knowledge to broader structural inequalities such as poverty disparities. A review of the related literature finds a gap: Much has been written about structural reforms and ethical questions, but less attention has been paid to the micro-level conduct of mediators and the practical steps they can take during sessions to account for power imbalances.

We saw during our observations that mediators sometimes responded well to these challenges, but at other times they lacked specific tools or awareness to recognize and respond to power imbalances in real time. For example, in some sessions, tenants asked about legal terms, but mediators hesitated to provide an explanation, noting that they had not received clear guidance on how to handle such requests. This is not uncommon among mediators in general, and it is not surprising. Most mediation training covers neutrality, communication and facilitation skills in a comprehensive way, but power imbalance in eviction cases raises a distinct set of issues that may not be directly addressed in standard training. In addition, many mediators are also mindful of maintaining clear distinctions between providing legal information and providing legal advice.

We developed the Power Imbalance Toolkit to help bridge this gap, offering mediators concrete, context-specific strategies to recognize and respond to the challenges of eviction mediation in real time.

What’s Inside the Toolkit?

The toolkit is organized into nine sections, each focused on a particular imbalance that mediators are likely to encounter in eviction sessions:

Technological Issues — When parties join remotely, particularly via mobile phone, and struggle with Zoom functions, electronic document signing, etc.
Mediator Mediated with the Attorney Before — When mediators have mediated with the attorney before and have a level of familiarity with them, which tenants may see as an indicator of bias
One Party’s Dominance — When one party controls the conversation, sidelining the other party
One Party’s Silence or Passivity — When one party remains quiet, making it possible to mistake silence for consent
One Party’s Emotional Stress and Fear — When parties’ anxiety or fear inhibits participation
Parties’ Unfamiliarity with Court Procedures and Legal Terms — When parties, usually tenants, do not understand legal terms like “seal the case” or “dismissed without prejudice”
Complex Proposals — When attorneys suggest intricate settlement terms that may be hard for tenants to grasp
Drafting Agreements — When agreements are written in legalese or terms are dictated by attorneys without tenant input
Scope of the Discussion — When attorneys limit the scope of the conversation and do not address issues like unpaid rent after a tenant moves out

Each section of the toolkit follows the same structure to make it easy for mediators to use. It begins with “What is the issue and what should I watch for?,” which describes the specific imbalance and highlights common warning signs that might appear during a session. The second part, “What should I do?,” provides concrete approaches that mediators can take, including sample questions and prompts to encourage fuller participation or check for understanding. Finally, each section ends with “Quick Tips for Your Toolbox,” a concise summary that mediators can consult at a glance, whether as preparation just before a mediation or as a quick refresher.

The toolkit also includes a plain-language glossary of legal terms that commonly arise in eviction mediation. Terms like “sealing the case” and “dismissed without prejudice” can be intimidating to tenants who are unfamiliar with court processes. The glossary gives mediators simple, accessible definitions they can use to ensure tenants understand what is being discussed.

How Mediators Can Use the Toolkit

The Power Imbalance Toolkit is meant to be flexible. Mediators can:

Prepare before sessions by reviewing the common issues and reminding themselves of strategies to address those issues
Reference it quickly during sessions for language prompts or quick tips
Incorporate it into training for new mediators who are just beginning to work on eviction cases

RSI sees the toolkit not as a static document, but as a living resource. We encourage mediators to share their feedback and experiences, which will help refine and expand the strategies over time.

Looking Ahead

Addressing power imbalances in mediation is essential to ensuring fairness and accessibility. While mediators cannot eliminate the structural disparities that exist outside the mediation room, they can take meaningful steps to create a process where all parties feel heard and where agreements reflect informed consent.

The Power Imbalance Toolkit is part of RSI’s broader mission to strengthen mediation practice and improve access to justice. We hope mediators will find it useful in their day-to-day work and that it sparks conversation about how to best support tenants and landlords navigating the difficult realities of eviction.

You can read and download the full Power Imbalance Toolkit on our website. We welcome your feedback and ideas for future updates. Together, we can continue building mediation practices that are fair, effective and responsive to the communities they serve.

Tags: access to justice, ADR, mediation, mediators
Posted in ADR Resources, Diversity and Inclusion, Eviction Mediation, RSI's Resource Center | No Comments »