Resources / Study / Innovation for Court ADR

Just Court ADR

The blog of Resolution Systems Institute

Archive for the ‘Court Mediation Program’ Category

Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals to Launch Appellate Mediation Program

Nicole Wilmet, February 27th, 2020

Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals will be launching an appellate mediation program. The Fifth District Court is the largest appellate court in Ohio and serves the Ashland, Coshocton, Delaware, Fairfield, Guernsey, Holmes, Knox, Licking, Morgan, Morrow, Muskingum, Perry, Richland, Stark and Tuscarawas counties. Recent news about the appellate mediation program reports that the program will be voluntary and limited to civil cases. The program is expected to launch by spring 2020.

According to the Court’s announcement about the program, the Court is currently in the process of drafting a local mediation rule. Once drafted, the proposed rule will be published on the Court’s website with a request for comment from the public and legal community. Recent news reports that once published, the rule will be available for comment for 30 days. The Court has selected Aletha Carver to serve as the Court’s mediator. Those interested in additional information about the program should please contact Ms. Carver at amcarver@starkcountyohio.gov.

Ohio’s Portage County Launches the Nation’s First ODR Program for Foreclosure Mediation

Nicole Wilmet, November 25th, 2019

On November 18, 2019, Ohio’s Portage County launched the country’s first foreclosure mediation online dispute resolution (ODR) program. The program, developed under the guidance of Portage County Common Pleas Court Judge Laurie J. Pittman, uses Court Innovations’ Matterhorn software. A press release for the program indicates that one of the goals of the program is to make the process more accessible to the public by allowing parties to work on their cases remotely. The program’s mediator Benito Antognoli explains that prior to the launch of the online program, the first in-person mediation session between borrowers and lenders often only lasted about 20-30 minutes and required the parties to attend subsequent mediations. Most often, the brevity of this first meeting stemmed from borrowers being unable to fully respond to forms from the lender’s attorney since, due to the nature of the forms, they do not have the required documentation with them. As Antognoli highlights, the difficulty of having to make accommodations and find time to attend additional mediations is often a substantial inconvenience for both parties.

However, with the new ODR program, borrowers and lenders are now able to complete this process remotely. As Antognoli describes, once a borrower has opted-in to the program they will receive an email that invites them to the platform. From there, the lender’s attorney will request various documents from the borrower, which the borrower can now submit online at their convenience. Additionally, the online platform also now allows Antognoli to be involved during the entire process and communicate with the parties regularly. Like the in-person program, the entire online process is intended to take about 90 days from start-to-finish. Ultimately, the press release notes that Judge Pittman’s hope is to expand the use of online mediation and offer ODR programs to parties involved in other types of civil disputes.

Those interested in learning more about the program or accessing the court’s press release, should please contact Antognoli at 330-298-3233.

Victim Youth Conferencing Program in Nebraska Showing Promise

Jennifer Shack, July 22nd, 2019

A statewide victim youth conferencing (VYC) program in Nebraska has proven to be successful at promoting participant satisfaction, attaining reparations agreements and ensuring youth fulfillment of those agreements. The program was launched in March 2015 as a pilot in three jurisdictions covering four counties and was expanded statewide in January 2018. Services are provided by Nebraska Office of Dispute Resolution-approved mediation centers. Referrals to the program came at three stages: pre-court referrals from the County Attorneys’ offices after a school-based incident, court diversion referrals from the County Attorney and Courts pre-adjudication, and referrals from the court post-adjudication.

The evaluation of the VYC program looked at the program’s goals to determine whether they were being met, as well as other aspects of the program, including who was served by the program and how the process was working in each of the centers providing the services. In terms of outcomes, the program had the following goals: 95% of conferences will end with a reparations agreement, 95% of agreements will be fulfilled and 97% of participants will report being satisfied with the process. The program exceeded the first goal and came within a percentage point or two of attaining the other two goals. All conferences held ended with a reparations agreement. Youth completed 94.2% of those agreements and partially completed 5.8% of them. Ninety-five percent of participants were satisfied with the process.

In addition to being satisfied with the process, 89% of participating youth and 70% of participating victims believed that the VYC made the justice system more responsive to their needs. Further, 94% of victims agreed that it was helpful to talk directly with the person who was responsible for the harm, and 77% of victims said that meeting that person reduced any fear that he/she would commit another crime against them. The youth held similar opinions: 88% said it was helpful to talk directly with the victim and 94% said that after the meeting they had a better understanding of the full impact of the crime on others.

The program also had longer-term goals of reducing recidivism, “closing the gap in disproportionate minority contact with courts,” increasing safety in communities and sustaining capacity for VYC statewide. The program’s effect on recidivism proved hard to assess. The evaluator found that the 38 youth who participated in the initial pilot, 16% recidivated in the succeeding 12 months, compared to 24% of the 17 youth who did not. However, the data was insufficient and unreliable, so she did not determine that participation in the program caused the reduction in recidivism. The hope is that later evaluations can address this, as well as the other goals mentioned above.

New Mediator Self-Reflection Tool

Susan M. Yates, January 9th, 2019

The Supreme Court of Virginia has developed a wonderful new self-reflection form for mediators. While the Court developed this tool for their certified mediators as part of their re-certification process, it is a valuable tool for any mediator (just ignore the instructions about continuing mediator education credits). There is a lot of content, so if you are using this on your own you will probably want to pick and choose among the questions. This new tool coordinates with Virginia’s excellent Mediator Self-Reflection Treasury.

Even though mediators work very closely with people when we mediate, typically no one else in the room shares our mediator perspective. There are exceptions, such as co-mediation or when we are observed by new mediators, but mediation can be an isolated activity (made especially so by the limits of confidentiality). This isolation makes self-reflection particularly important.

I can imagine many uses for these tools beyond self-reflection. A group of mediators could pick a few of the questions to discuss over lunch. For co-mediators, the tools could aid their debriefing. The forms might help a new court or community mediation program get clear about what they expect from mediators. The tools will probably spark other ideas when you read them.

Many thanks to the good people of the Supreme Court of Virginia for taking the time to produce and share these tools. They are a real gift to the mediation community.

Verified by ExactMetrics