Last year, a few ADR staff from courts around the US approached RSI to help with a need that was no longer being met elsewhere. Court ADR administrators needed a safe space to be honest and open when discussing the challenges they face as ADR administrators. Other options couldn’t provide a closed, confidential opportunity to learn and exchange ideas. The ADR staff asked RSI to provide that safe space for them. We agreed — who else would be better suited to take on the role of convening a network of court ADR administrators than RSI?
So, in November 2025, the Court ADR Network was launched. With dozens of members signed up, we held our first meeting to figure out what members wanted from the network. We decided to have RSI host quarterly meetings at which an expert — who could be a member — would present on a topic of interest, followed by a group discussion of that topic, or anything else. We also voted on the topics that would be the focus of each of the next three meetings.
The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to jshack@aboutrsi.org.
Our next meeting in February focused on how to work with self-represented litigants, from referral through mediation. I presented on the needs of self-represented litigants, including the importance of effective communication and issues presented by power imbalances when one side has an attorney and the other does not. That was followed by a lively discussion of the role of technology and AI as avenues for access to justice.
The topic of our third meeting, held this month, was mediator recruitment and retention. Josh Pando, the New Mexico Statewide ADR Senior Program Manager, talked about his successful recruitment and retention strategies. Discussion ranged from where to find new recruits, to ways programs engage and educate mediators, to what programs require of volunteer mediators. In August, we will be talking about the use of technology and AI.
The meetings have also provided members with an opportunity to get to network and learn about what different programs are doing. In emails, members have expressed their appreciation for the network, including a new member who recently wrote, “I absolutely loved yesterday’s meeting.” In addition to the meetings, RSI periodically lets members know about resources and learning opportunities.
The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to me at jshack@aboutrsi.org.
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.
Hon. Elizabeth Flood
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.
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.
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.
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
Photo by Markus Winkler via Pexels
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.
