RSI is developing a tool for use by any court — and potentially others — with a mediation program: a brief animated video explaining the mediation process to parties in an easy-to-follow format. Topics will include: the purpose of mediation, the mediator’s role, confidentiality and exceptions to confidentiality, and what happens if parties reach an agreement. Because the video will focus on the general mediation process itself (instead of the topics discussed in mediation), it will be useful across multiple civil case types (such as child protection, eviction, foreclosure and small claims).
We will create the video in accordance with the findings from user testing in our ODR Party Engagement (OPEN) Project. Our user testing demonstrated that a short, illustrated video that uses plain language and an easy-to-follow narrative was effective at helping people understand the online dispute resolution (ODR) process in ways that other materials had not been. Testers not only understood ODR well, but they gave our model explainer video an average rating of 4.75 out of 5 for ease of understanding. One tester noted that the video was “to the point and easy to follow” without being “overly animated.” Others noted additional positive aspects: One tester appreciated the human voice, saying “it felt like there was somebody there, kind of explaining,” and another liked the shorter video, saying “it was very distinct and to the point and quick; I liked it.” Another tester shared that they felt the video would be “helpful for people that don’t do well … with reading or comprehending.”
Our new video will follow the same format and style as our OPEN video: It will be relatively short and will use animation, including illustrated characters reflecting the diversity of mediation participants. The video will provide viewers with necessary information to meaningfully participate in mediation, but not overwhelm them with information. Our research has shown that taking the “legalese” out of the conversation is likely to help participants understand and feel comfortable with the video.
RSI is excited to take this opportunity to help more courts around the country readily and easily prepare participants, particularly self-represented litigants, to participate in and get the most out of mediation. Be sure to follow RSI’s Court ADR Connection newsletter and Just Court ADR blog for the rollout of the video later this year.
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.
RSI is offering a series of online workshops to help courts and organizations enhance their ADR program communication materials. During these workshops — From Confusion to Clarity: Court Communications that Work — RSI’s researchers will work with participants to review and improve their communication materials, including notices, webpages and videos. Participants will walk away with new or updated materials and the strategies to ensure future communications can effectively serve their communities, including self-represented litigants (SRLs).
Improving Court Experience Remains a Priority
Courts continue to face diminished public trust and a lack of confidence among those who go through the legal system. The 2025 State of the State Courts report by the National Center for State Courts found that poor communications are a major driver of access to justice issues. People find court forms and paperwork confusing or hard to understand, and they lack information about what to expect from court processes, the report notes. In line with these findings, a recent Pew study on perceptions of state and local courts found that US adults want courts to be easier to navigate, to work for all users and to be more user-friendly.
According to the Pew study, one-third of people who have had a court experience emerged with diminished confidence in the courts. More than half of those with court experience found it difficult to understand how to fill out court forms and to understand the steps of their cases. The latter finding held true across demographic groups, including age, education level and income level, and regardless of whether the respondent was a plaintiff or defendant.
Most people also said courts should focus on making processes easier to navigate rather than making them faster. The same Pew study found that 71% of survey respondents with court experience and 68% of survey respondents without court experience said courts should make it easier for people to navigate the system rather than diverting their resources to speed up cases and reduce costs.
Why We Designed the Workshops
RSI’s OPEN research demonstrates that simple and easy-to-understand communications can meaningfully address some of the biggest challenges facing court users. Through usability testing, we found that our accessibly designed OPEN communication models boosted people’s confidence in navigating their case and enabled them to more capably follow the steps required to participate in ADR programs.
Easy-to-understand court communications are especially important for SRLs, people with low literacy and people with low digital literacy. Courts can make important inroads to improving court experience and building trust by addressing barriers in their communication materials. Our OPEN research also highlights scaffolding as an effective strategy for making the steps within court programs easy to follow.
Yet RSI recognizes that courts may not have sufficient resources for a full consultation to improve their materials. We developed these workshops to be low-cost opportunities for court staff to begin addressing these issues. By participating in our workshops, participants can take the first step to improving their existing communication materials or creating new materials that better serve their communities.
What the Workshops Will Cover
We are offering four workshops over the next few months. Each workshop will be 3 hours long and cost $350.Each will take place 12-3 pm Central/1-4 pm Eastern,via Zoom. Below are descriptions of each workshop:
Wednesday, February 25 — Workshop 1: Public-Facing Documents. Bring the documents you would like to modify or thoughts on what you want to create. You will leave with documents that are written and formatted so that SRLs will understand and act on any instructions. Register & pay now for Workshop 1, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 1. Please register by February 18.
Wednesday, April 22 —Workshop 3: Videos. We will help you take your ideas for a video and turn them into a storyboard to provide your communications department or consultant, or ready for you to create your own video. Register & pay now for Workshop 3, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 3. Please register by April 15.
Wednesday, May 20 —Workshop 4: Putting it All Together. Learn how to take your different communication methods and turn them into a workflow that enhances SRL trust and confidence in navigating an unfamiliar process. Register & pay now for Workshop 4, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 4. Please register by May 13.
We are excited to use what we have learned through the OPEN Project to help you with your communication needs. Please reach out to research@aboutrsi.org for any questions you may have about the workshops.
RSI recently completed our evaluation of an equity audit implementation project by the Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) in Chicago. CCR staff, board members and volunteers worked with a consulting partner to uncover barriers preventing their volunteer mediator roster from fully reflecting the diversity of the communities CCR serves. After identifying barriers, they made major changes to how CCR recruits and screens applicants to its Mediator Mentorship Program (MMP), which onboards mediators to volunteer at CCR. RSI evaluated the efficacy of CCR’s implementation and examined initial outcomes of the revamped process.
RSI Researcher Stephen Sullivan will join CCR Volunteer Director Israel Putnam and former CCR Executive Director Cassie Lively to discuss this research at a 9 a.m. session Nov. 6 at the Association for Conflict Resolution conference in Philadelphia. Get conference details and register here.
In addition to the evaluation, we created a guide for community mediation centers, to help them learn from CCR’s efforts.In A Guide for Enhancing Mediator Roster Equity from Concept to Implementation, we document the strategies CCR staff, board members and volunteers took to address barriers to equity in the MMP. We describe which approaches were most effective and which were less effective, and we provide recommendations for staff at other community mediation centers (CMCs).
A Guide for Community Mediation Centers
The guide contains step-by-step instructions to help mediation centers adapt CCR’s approaches to addressing barriers that could keep people from a variety of backgrounds from applying and participating fully as CMC mediators. It advises CMCs on how to build alignment among staff and volunteers on a set of equity-related goals; retool application materials to collect more accurate and relevant information about applicants to their programs; and create more effective screening processes to assess applicants’ mediation-related skill sets.
CCR staff found that their experience with the equity audit and its implementation challenged previously held assumptions about how to best enhance diversity. For example, did you know that using predominantly written application materials might hamper efforts at diversifying mediator rosters? Or that activity-based group interviews might provide more relevant and useful information about applicants’ capacities to be successful mediators than traditional one-on-one interviews?
In the guide, we explain what CCR staff learned about these issues and describe the creative solutions they devised to address them. One major solution is the Matching Event, CCR’s innovative new format for screening applicants to the MMP.
During a Matching Event, applicants participate in a series of stations involving activities designed to assess specific skills, such as being empathetic and being comfortable with conflict. Stations are facilitated by two CCR “Station Runners” (staff or volunteer mentors), with activities that range from describing the emotions of characters in a movie clip to role playing as parties in conflict. Station Runners use CCR’s newly crafted Matching Event Scorecard to rate the extent to which applicants meet these criteria.
CCR generously permitted RSI to include its Matching Event materials in the guide, so that others can understand how they work in greater detail. We also wrote step-by-step instructions to help CMCs craft their own Matching Events, should that fit their applicant assessment needs.
Takeaways for CMCs
RSI had two overarching aims with the evaluation: The first was to assess the successes and challenges involved with the process of implementing the audit recommendations; the second, to evaluate the effectiveness and results of implementation activities, such as staff training sessions and the Matching Events. While the evaluation’s findings and recommendations are geared toward CCR, they have broader implications for other CMCs interested in doing similar work.
Below is a set of key takeaways for CMCs interested in making the role of community mediator accessible to more of the people with the skills to participate. These takeaways are based on what we learned from conducting the evaluation as well as working with CCR staff, board members and volunteers to create the guide.
A successful audit and implementation project requires collaboration, time and consistent communication. CCR staff, board members and volunteers needed plenty of time to review and reflect on the findings of the audit before they could take action. Collaboration helped to make the process more effective; by bringing different stakeholders together during workshops and meetings, CCR was able to build buy-in and ensure different aspects of the program were addressed. Staff and volunteers also benefited most when they were updated on the project’s progress.
Meaningful change requires an open mind and flexibility. CCR leadership gave staff and volunteers wide latitude to make changes to program processes. As a result, staff and volunteers felt empowered to address barriers creatively and maintained investment in the project. Many of the barriers were long standing mindsets and processes; permission to make major changes was critical to the project’s success.
Making processes more flexible does not reduce program rigor. One of the most noteworthy learning lessons for CCR was that a one-size-fits-all approach for participation in the MMP is not a prerequisite to maintaining quality program standards. By introducing flexibility to MMP processes and expanding outreach, CCR was able to create opportunities for volunteer mediators from diverse backgrounds to contribute to the organization while keeping rigorous requirements in place.
Enhancing pathways to program participation is an ongoing dialogue and process. From the outset, CCR recognized that any changes made to the MMP as a result of this project would need to be revisited as their outcomes became clear. Building broader access to the program is a process; CCR has planned time for staff and volunteers to further reflect and make changes as needed.
