Diversity and Inclusion - Just Court ADR

Archive for the ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ Category

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 »

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 »

New Resources Help Address Barriers to Diversifying Organization’s Mediator Roster

Stephen Sullivan, October 24th, 2025

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.

We are excited to share that our evaluation report, Fostering Equity in a Volunteer Mediator Roster: An Evaluation of the Center for Conflict Resolution’s Equity Audit Implementation, is now available on RSI’s website. The report includes our findings from surveying, interviewing and observing staff, board members and volunteers who participated in the project and facilitated CCR’s new applicant screening and recruiting processes.

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.

Posted in Accessibility, Community Mediation, Diversity and Inclusion, Program Design, Research | No Comments »

Should States Institute Mediator Certification? The View From Maryland

Heather Fogg and Jennifer Shack, January 16th, 2025

In late 2024, California passed a law authorizing the state bar to develop a certification system for mediators and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practitioners. Although the program being created is voluntary, the move was controversial and resurfaces a long-running debate in the U.S. about the value of mediator certification. Proponents say certification is needed to ensure mediators are competent. Opponents say it may not provide any such assurance and is a barrier to aspiring mediators.

Having spent much of her career working on ADR in Maryland, including serving as the steward of the Maryland Program for Mediator Excellence (MPME) from 2015 to 2021, RSI CEO Heather Fogg has participated in similar conversations about mediator certification in that state. As of today, Maryland has built a system to support mediator excellence that exists alongside optional certification programs. Here, we present some insight into how that state came to the decisions it did.

Seeking Structure, With Flexibility

In 1998, Chief Judge Robert M. Bell established the Maryland ADR Commission to promote the use of mediation and other conflict resolution processes in Maryland courts, schools, government agencies and other settings. The ADR Commission brought together leaders and collaborators in the field of ADR to chart a pathway forward for mediation in Maryland, culminating in the ADR Commission report Join the Resolution. The ADR Commission addressed questions relevant to mediation quality assurance and certification in part by writing and adopting the Maryland Standards of Conduct for Mediators in 2001, while also creating the Maryland Judiciary Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO).

Amid a variety of perspectives among mediators in the state, the field of mediation in Maryland sought to be structured, with basic introductory training and annual continuing education requirements for all mediators, as well as flexible, with local court jurisdictions and community programs independently deciding on any additional requirements necessary for mediators to join or remain on their rosters.

MACRO went on to develop a signature no-cost membership program, the Maryland Program for Mediator Excellence (MPME). While Title 17 of the Maryland Rules of Procedure governs court-referred mediation, the MPME was collaboratively designed and implemented to provide mediators with a network of fellow practitioners; a stable resource for continuing education and training opportunities; and a guiding emphasis on learning, growth and development as mediators.

Defining Mediation — and Quality

The MPME developed from the work of various task groups and committees made up of practitioners around the state, including MACRO’s Definitions Task Group and Mediator Quality Assurance Committee. As the field and practice of mediation grew, the conversations within the MPME came back to the question of what defines mediation as a distinct process in contrast to other forms of dispute resolution. Providing a clear, specific and bounded definition of what mediation is, in contrast to other forms of ADR, helped it to determine how to measure and evaluate quality in mediation practice. Nonetheless, adoption of a shared definition of mediation does not eliminate differences among mediation frameworks. Depending on the framework employed, mediators are trained to embrace different values and apply different skills and strategies in the mediation process. This is just one potential challenge in the creation of a general mediation certification process.

The debate about mediation certification in Maryland was also likely affected by a 2009 report using data from two parallel studies and comparing mediators’ self-reported mediation strategies with the directly observed strategies employed by other mediators. The report findings suggested that there are likely important differences between what mediators self-report that they do and what they are actually observed to be doing in mediation. In light of concerns that mediators may not accurately identify and self-report what they do, many ADR leaders in Maryland have advocated for a certification process that requires direct observation, known as a “performance-based certification,” in contrast to a written review or “paper-based certification” process.

The State of Certification in Maryland

Today, there are several options for achieving certification in Maryland, according to the MPME. Both the Maryland Council for Dispute Resolution and Community Mediation Maryland offer performance-based certification programs. The Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation offers a performance-based certification program recognized in Maryland and nationally. “Generally, mediators seek to have a high level of experience and continuing education before pursuing certification,” the MPME website notes.

In addition, through a collaborative review process, in 2020 the Maryland courts adopted the revised Maryland Standards of Conduct for Mediators. Over the course of two years in discussions, members of the Maryland Judicial Council ADR Committee Work Group on Standards of Conduct for Mediators directly addressed the topic of mediator certification within the Standards. Although the conversations about mediator certification were lengthy, the references to it in the Standards are relatively brief. This may reflect the continuing concerns about the benefits and drawbacks of requiring certification. In an effort to clarify what it means to be certified, one section of the Standards includes this definition:

“Certification” means that a public or private entity with criteria for certifying mediators has determined that the mediator meets those criteria. Different entities certify mediators based on different criteria, which may include observation and assessment of the mediator’s skills (“performance based certification”), a review of the mediator’s training and experience (“paper based certification”), or both. Obtaining a certificate of completion of a mediation training does not constitute certification as a mediator.

Generally, working group members seemed to agree that although the minimum requirement to become a court-referred mediator is to complete a 40-hour basic mediation training, completing the training did not in and of itself “guarantee” the quality of the mediator’s practice. These conversations also included ideas about whether certifying training curriculum might be another way to address the benefit of certification for providing oversight and quality assurance, while simultaneously addressing the challenge of cost in both time and money for mediators to independently seek certification. However, the question of who might host such a certification process for training curriculum within the variety of frameworks for mediation practiced within Maryland led to further questions for future development.

Another section of the Standards pertaining to mediator competence identifies how mediators should acknowledge their certification status to referring programs and their clients:

A mediator shall provide accurate and appropriately complete information about the mediator’s training and experience, upon request, to potential mediation participants, to any program from which the mediator accepts referrals, and to others.

A mediator shall claim to meet the mediator qualifications of a public or private entity only if that entity has criteria for qualifying mediators and has determined that the mediator meets those criteria.

Any communication stating that a mediator is or has been certified shall identify the organization or program that certified the mediator.

In this Standard, the working group sought to acknowledge that seeking certification and providing information about certification status may be a measure of quality of the mediation provided, while also making sure to provide information that allows someone to review the rigor of the certification claimed.

Finally, the working group also sought to acknowledge and avoid one of the challenges to certification processes as a potential barrier to access to potentially skilled mediators by including the following as a drafters note:

“Mediation training and experience are very important to mediate competently; however academic degrees and professional backgrounds are not necessary to mediate competently. Specialized mediation training may be required to mediate some types of conflicts. A mediator who is not competent to mediate a matter independently may be competent to do so as a co-mediator or with appropriate mentoring or other assistance.”

Benefits and Drawbacks of Required Certification

Certification done well may help to regulate the quality of mediators. Indeed, there is a sound argument that some form of oversight is needed in certain circumstances. The American Bar Association Dispute Resolution Section’s Task Force on Mediator Credentialing argued that certification is most needed when parties are mandated to mediate or referred to a list of mediators. In those cases, parties may reasonably believe that the court has “endorsed the competence” of those mediators. Certification may also be of most use when self-represented parties aren’t knowledgeable about mediation or the qualifications of mediators and when attorneys do not have a good understanding of mediation or how to identify skilled mediators.

However, one drawback of requiring certification is the barrier it can create for mediators seeking to gain entry and experience in the field. Mediators in Maryland, for example, often cited the associated financial costs and time required for performance-based certifications as a barrier to younger working professionals joining the field. The Task Force on Mediator Credentialing also argued that certification should not be used to prevent non-certified mediators from practicing or potential mediation participants from seeking their assistance. As the mediation field seeks to diversify both the range of mediator frameworks and approaches as well as the demographic population of mediators, requiring certification to join a roster can negatively impact these efforts.

Conclusion

In sum, many of the concerns and questions raised decades ago remain relevant today as new efforts to provide mediator certification processes emerge. As mediators and mediation program managers continue to keep careful attention to the benefits and risks of requiring mediator certification, we look forward to contributing to the knowledge base and helping programs to make well-informed decisions.

Posted in Accessibility, Child Protection Mediation, Court ADR Across the U.S., Diversity and Inclusion, Eviction Mediation, Foreclosure Mediation, Policy-making, Program Design, State Legislation | 2 Comments »

Just Court ADR