Eviction Mediation - Just Court ADR

Archive for the ‘Eviction Mediation’ Category

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 »

Illinois JusticeCorps Volunteer Helps People Seek Rental Support, Navigate Court

Just Court ADR, January 26th, 2026

Since spring of 2025, RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program has benefited from the support of Illinois JusticeCorps to help it run smoothly: Illinois JusticeCorps fellow Sophie Rexrode has worked alongside RSI in the courthouse, providing parties information about the eviction court process, mediation and rental assistance. Sophie was kind enough to sit down recently and answer a few questions for us about her work. We’re so grateful to Sophie for all she does to help the program serve the Kane County community! Please note that the views expressed below do not represent those of Illinois JusticeCorps, AmeriCorps or the Kane County Law Library.

Can you tell us a bit about the Illinois JusticeCorps program? When did you join?

Sophie Rexrode

I joined Illinois JusticeCorps in the fall of 2024, because I knew I was interested in (and frustrated with!) the legal system and wanted to devote time to serving people impacted by it.

Illinois JusticeCorps is an AmeriCorps program that places volunteers in courthouses across the state to help people who don’t have lawyers navigate the legal system. We field all kinds of questions, from “Where is the courtroom?” to “How do I file an employment discrimination complaint?” to “I was just served with divorce papers, and I don’t know what that means or how to proceed.”

JusticeCorps members aren’t lawyers, and we can’t give legal advice, but we can provide legal information like forms and guides, and explain how court processes work. The court system is incredibly stressful and confusing, so we’re here to listen, share resources and hopefully make people’s experiences a little bit easier.

What led you to join Illinois JusticeCorps, and how did you get connected with RSI?

I’d always been interested in law, but I didn’t have any background in it before joining Illinois JusticeCorps — I studied cognitive science and theater in college. But in my time as a JusticeCorps member I expressed a strong interest in housing and eviction issues, so when my supervisor, Hallē Eichert (the Director of the Law Library), heard that there was a need for help with Court-Based Rental Assistance Program (CBRAP) applications, she put me in contact with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Manager) Christina Wright and RSI.

What does your JusticeCorps work at eviction court entail?

I’ve been assisting with CBRAP applications and tabling with RSI outside eviction court since spring 2025. I table with (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Assistant) Cathy McCoy each week to provide information on the court process, mediation and rental assistance.

Much of my work is helping tenants fill out the rental assistance application. You can only apply for CBRAP on a website, so if people want to apply but don’t have access to/aren’t comfortable with computers, I’ll help them through the process of scanning and uploading documents. Because transportation poses a hardship for many tenants in eviction proceedings, I travel all over the county to meet people at public libraries near where they live and help them in person.

Outside of evictions, most of my work is at the Kane County Law Library & Self Help Legal Center in St. Charles, where I work alongside the fantastic staff there to provide legal navigation. I also assist with the Lawyer in the Library programs (bringing free legal advice to local public libraries) and help to redesign signage and resources to make court processes easier to understand.

How many hours a week do you generally spend on JusticeCorps work?

It really depends on how many people I’m working with! I’d estimate I spend anywhere from 2–8 hours per week, including time at eviction court and helping people with applications. I know I’ve volunteered over 95 hours in the time I’ve been doing this.

Do you live in Kane County?

I do! I’m originally from the East Coast but moved here to work with Illinois JusticeCorps. I’ve really enjoyed getting to know the community here and exploring up and down the river and through all the parks!

What is your favorite part about your Illinois JusticeCorps work?

My favorite part about tabling and assisting with CBRAP is the people. The meetings I have with tenants can be stressful and difficult, but they are also full of real connection and (surprisingly) laughter. Even while navigating one of the hardest things in life, the tenants are kind, generous, and funny. It’s a privilege to get to work with them.

What do you find challenging about your work with the eviction mediation program?

I find the limitations on resources available and the services we can provide to be frustrating at times. It’s wonderful that mediation exists as an opportunity, but it can still be an inequitable arena for tenants going up against their landlord’s attorney without any representation, especially for those who aren’t comfortable with computers or have other accessibility or access needs. Similarly, while the CBRAP program is fantastic, far too many people still fall through eligibility gaps and are blocked by procedural obstacles.

Do you have future career plans/goals that relate to this work?

Yes! I’m currently starting the law school application process, with the hopes of pursuing legal aid work specifically around housing and evictions.

Do you do other volunteer work?

I volunteer lots of places! Some of my volunteering relates directly to housing: I take shifts at the Aurora Overnight Warming Shelter and help build houses with Habitat for Humanity. I’ve also done volunteering with local forest preserves, local food pantries/banks and community fridges, and as a “snow angel” (shoveling driveways for neighbors).

Working in an environment where eviction is on the table can be stressful. What do you like to do for fun/to relieve stress?

I love trail running, and try to get outside whenever possible. I doodle in the margins of notebooks and like to write letters to friends and family.

How do you think the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program is important to the community it serves?

I think building 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. 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.

Is there anything else you’d like to talk about that might be interesting/relevant to RSI’s readers?

I just want to emphasize how serious evictions are, and the gap that exists in legal services for low-income people. 96% of tenants don’t have lawyers but are stuck navigating a process that was built by and for attorneys. Almost all landlords are represented by attorneys, many of whom specialize in evicting tenants. Court processes are challenging at the best of times, but they become impossibly confusing in the chaos that ensues when someone is threatened with being removed from their home. Evictions are catastrophically destabilizing events, jeopardizing tenants’ jobs, families, communities, and health, yet there are few support systems for people thrown into this process. Against this backdrop, I am grateful to be able to provide the small assistance I can to tenants, but there is such a tremendous need.

Tags: access to justice
Posted in Eviction Mediation, People & Events, RSI News | No Comments »

Grant Helps RSI’s Eviction Mediation Program Better Serve Domestic Violence Victims

Jasmine Henry, July 30th, 2025

Housing insecurity and domestic violence are deeply intertwined. In fact, according to research cited by the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, 38% of domestic violence victims experience homelessness, and over 90% of homeless women have experienced severe physical or sexual abuse at some point in their lives. Recognizing this correlation, RSI sought to improve our eviction mediation program and better serve participants who have been affected by domestic violence.

Late last year, RSI applied for funding from the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation (IEJF) to support training our mediators on how domestic violence can affect victims and enable us to develop a more robust screening process to better identify any potential mediation cases involving domestic violence. Since receiving funding in January, we screened approximately 500 eviction mediation cases for instances of domestic violence. Of those cases, 13 were identified as involving domestic violence or intimate partner violence, and victims were referred to a variety of resources. Nine of those cases had mediation process adjustments as a result of domestic violence, such as only using separate Zoom breakout rooms or being assigned the specific gender of mediator requested.

What We Needed

Since the inception of the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program in 2021, RSI’s staff has been committed to creating safe mediation spaces for all parties involved. Designing respectful and responsive spaces for our program participants helps us effect our mission of strengthening access to justice by enhancing court alternative dispute resolution (ADR) systems.

Over the last few years, our program routinely noted instances of domestic violence affecting the parties in our eviction cases. While our staff and mediators tried to remain sensitive to our participants’ emotions and how their experiences might affect the mediation, none of our mediators had domestic violence training, so they were not as well prepared to adjust the mediations to ensure the safety of parties with a history of domestic violence. Additionally, it was difficult for our program and mediators to understand the scope of the issue without a proper screening process. Thus, in November 2024 when an opportunity became available, RSI’s Kane County Eviction Mediation Program applied for grant funding from IEJF to assist survivors of domestic and intimate partner violence through civil legal services and legal information.

What We Developed

With funding secured, we designed a system to screen for domestic violence prior to eviction mediations and to modify mediations when domestic violence has been present to promote the safety of the parties involved. To screen for domestic violence, we added three questions to our intake process for all parties. These questions asked if anyone who currently lived with them, anyone they were in a relationship with, or the other party in their case had made them afraid, controlled them, hit them or contacted them in unwanted ways. We also asked if they had a current order of protection.


While it can be difficult to understand the human impact of our program modifications purely based on the number of cases, referrals and process adjustments, the specific instances of domestic violence that participants shared with our staff left a lasting effect.

If warranted based on a party’s response to those questions, a staff member then went through the MASIC-S questionnaire with the party to determine what types of modifications were needed. (The MASIC-S is a research-validated screening tool to help mediators identify the types and severity of domestic violence involved. Depending on the party’s responses, it recommends modifications to the mediation process to maintain participant safety.)

While updating our intake process, we also worked to better train our staff and mediators on how to handle domestic violence issues. We held three separate trainings — hosted by the Community Crisis Center in Elgin, Illinois; RSI; and the Center for Conflict Resolution in Chicago. These domestic violence trainings focused on awareness of victim impacts and needs, how to have compassionate discussions about abuse disclosures and trauma-informed practices. Sixteen mediators on our program roster attended all three trainings and became eligible to mediate eviction cases that included a party who had experienced domestic violence.

In June, we decided to eliminate the more intensive MASIC-S step because the full screening took over an hour to complete and the advice provided after the party responded was essentially the same as what our program would have done without using the MASIC-S. There was also a sense among staff that the MASIC-S step may have been retraumatizing for the involved party, and we could not always provide immediate supportive resources to address these reopened wounds.

Who We Helped

Of the 500 defendants screened for domestic violence, 13 defendants were flagged and referred to outside services. All 13 were referred to legal advocacy, rent assistance and housing counseling services. We also gave 29 additional support service referrals to these tenants, including referrals to disability support services, immigration support services, victim support services, food assistance, utilities assistance and homelessness prevention services. Three of the defendants we referred to legal services ended up being represented by a pro bono attorney.

We held mediations for 11 of the 13 cases involving domestic violence. One was dismissed, and another has yet to take place. Based on our screening, we made safety- and security-related process adjustments for nine of the mediations. The process adjustments included keeping the parties in separate Zoom rooms in six of the mediations, holding an early caucus for one case, allowing a support person to attend with the involved party in one case, and providing a female mediator in one case. Eight mediations ended with an agreement. Seven of these agreements were for the tenant to move out; another was an agreed dismissal order, since the tenant had already moved out. These agreements gave tenants the opportunity to avoid the financial and emotional impacts of eviction while also affording them more time to move out.

While it can be difficult to understand the human impact of our program modifications purely based on the number of cases, referrals and process adjustments, the specific instances of domestic violence that participants shared with our staff left a lasting effect.

In a particularly disheartening case, a female tenant reported being sexually assaulted, verbally abused and intimidated by her male landlord over the course of about five months. As a result of her background, she was wary of the police, and she disclosed to our staff that her landlord actively worked to reinforce those fears. She was terrified that divulging his exploitations would hurt her family. Yet as a result of the abuse, she told us, she was forced to go to the hospital for prescription treatment. Shortly after getting medical care, she reported the abuse to the police but did not find their response helpful. Upon returning home, she found that her abuser had locked her out of her unit.

Soon after, the landlord filed an eviction case; he also continued to threaten and intimidate her throughout the court process, she said. When the eviction case was referred to our mediation program, RSI staff referred her to pro bono legal, immigration and victim advocacy assistance. Throughout the mediation process, our program worked with the tenant to get her into a safe living space. In the end, the woman was able to move out prior to mediation. Her landlord dismissed the eviction case without seeking money and without entering a formal eviction onto the tenant’s record.

In another case, a tenant’s past violent relationship was impacting her current livelihood. Several years ago, this tenant was locked out of her partner’s house during a domestic violence incident. This forced the tenant to get an apartment by herself for the first time. She enrolled in a housing assistance program at a nearby domestic violence support organization. After this assistance ran out, the tenant became distressed and ultimately depressed; she could not maintain employment and, by the time she came into contact with our eviction program, she was several months behind on rent. Additionally, as a result of a previous domestic violence incident with her abuser, she could not obtain free legal aid to help with her eviction case.

Our program adapted to the tenant’s unique needs and pivoted from our traditional referrals. We provided services to a different local domestic violence resource, as well as resources for a local hospital that treats depression. We also referred her to rental assistance and a homeless shelter with additional resources.

The mediation resulted in a moveout order and a payment plan. The tenant avoided eviction, had a plan to pay off her debt, and was given support in finding affordable housing. In this way, we were able to help the tenant stem the damage from her past domestic violence experiences. Moreover, the landlord was made whole financially, and the unit was ultimately returned to their possession.

In yet another instance, the program helped a defendant who was living with her abusive boyfriend during an eviction case. During the intake process, the tenant disclosed her physically and emotionally abusive living circumstances. First, our program staff worked with the tenant to create a safety plan while she was still living with her abuser. Then, we supported moving her and her ten children out of their current living situation. Additionally, our program connected the tenant to a variety of resources, including an agency that could help with both domestic violence and housing counseling, a rental assistance program and our legal aid partner.

What We Learned

In six short months, RSI’s eviction mediation team was able to improve its screening techniques and better assist domestic violence victims involved with our program. Whereas previously we only learned of domestic violence if a party happened to bring it up, we now have a clear system in place to sort the cases and help prepare mediators and parties to make appropriate adjustments. Because we are screening every case, we have the opportunity to provide parties access to support resources prior to their mediation if they seek it; in some cases, this resulted in a faster and smoother resolution for both the landlord and the tenant.

Tags: Kane County Eviction Mediation
Posted in Court Mediation Program, Eviction Mediation, Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), RSI News | 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