Eviction Mediation - Just Court ADR

Archive for the ‘Eviction Mediation’ Category

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 »

RSI Mediator Also Helps to Calm Nerves in New Role as Volunteer at Eviction Court

Just Court ADR, October 15th, 2024

In honor of Conflict Resolution Day on October 17 and the American Bar Association’s Mediation Week the third week of October, we are featuring a Q&A with RSI mediator Cathy McCoy. In addition to mediating for RSI, Cathy recently became our first volunteer at the Kane County Courthouse in Geneva, Illinois, supporting parties in the Kane County Eviction Mediation Program. RSI is grateful for Cathy’s contributions to our programs, and for the contributions of all of those who have mediated for our programs and other programs across the country and world!

When and why did you first become interested in being a mediator?

Using mediation-related skills has always been an informal part of my career working as a non-attorney guardian ad litem on behalf of children in Kane and DuPage counties in Illinois. I was involved with the Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program for 20+ years, initially as a volunteer, then on staff as an Advocate Supervisor for the guardian ad litem programs both in Kane and DuPage counties. I retired from CASA in 2022. The role of CASA is to advocate for the best interests of children who have experienced abuse or neglect. CASA volunteers were encouraged to represent the “voice of the child” in court to help ensure that children are safe, have a permanent home and have an opportunity to thrive. Conflict between parties was a factor in every family that I encountered in the court system. Even though a formal mediation process was not always an option, the conflict I encountered in juvenile court proceedings highlighted the need to allow each party to have a say in the outcome of their court case. Discussing family conflicts in child protection matters allowed me to develop listening and communication skills to help parties to remain focused on child safety and well-being.

With the pandemic, courts were closed, so I found I had the time to further my education in two areas that interested me. Since I spent much of my time in court, I enrolled in a paralegal program to become more adept at preparing documents for the court and to gain a better understanding of the legal terminology. I then completed the 40-hour mediation training presented via Zoom by the Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) in Chicago. A co-worker recommended the CCR mediation training, and I was excited to see that I didn’t need a law degree to participate!

Can you share a little about your history as a mediator with RSI’s programs?

Early on, I started working with the planning team at the inception of the Kane County Child Protection Mediation Program while I was working as a Guardian Ad Litem Supervisor with the CASA program in the juvenile court. I was fortunate to be able to participate in mediations as a representative of CASA, and later, after leaving the CASA program, I was able to step into the role of mediator in child protection disputes. In late May 2021, I started mediating with RSI in eviction court cases in Kane County.

What do you like about being a mediator?

I love interacting with families and have spent countless hours encouraging family members to put aside their differences and remain focused on the needs of the children. I have found that the mediation process provides an opportunity for the parties to express what is really important to them, to know that someone is listening, and to take a more active role in problem-solving. When I worked in the juvenile court, we spent a great deal of time talking with families in the hallway and waiting room outside court, and some of the best plans and discussions came during those hallway meetings. Shifting to mediation via Zoom after the pandemic allowed me to keep the conversations going, and families have been appreciative of the intervention.

Is there a type of mediation that you like best, and if so, why?

I enjoy eviction mediation because there are such varied situations, and the parties usually come to mediation prepared to take action to change their situation.

My other passion in mediation continues to be working with families when there are children involved in the court system. My specialty is working with guardians of children, with a focus on improving communication between parents and guardians about the needs and best interests of the children. It was disappointing when the child protection mediation program in Kane County ended. In order to continue the process, and in conjunction with court partners, I developed a pilot program for mediation in cases involving guardianship of minors in DuPage County, and the program has been steadily growing. If parties agree to participate, the Probate Guardianship Court judge refers pro se family members to mediation in order to resolve various conflicts involving children. This year, our Guardianship Family Engagement Mediation Program was awarded an Achievement Award from the National Association of Counties. The awards honor innovative, effective county government programs that strengthen services for residents and promote equal access to services.

Do you think that learning the tools of mediation has affected other aspects of your life? If so, how?

Mediation has truly changed the way I interact with everyone, even when it comes to communication with friends and family. I hope that family members would say my listening and communication skills have improved over the past few years!

What are some challenges with being a mediator?

Personally, one of the most challenging aspects was to put aside my assumptions and listen to the needs and interests of each participant. And at times difficult situations seem to arise when a participant does not want to be there or doesn’t trust the mediation process.

When did you start volunteering with RSI, and what do you do? What motivated you to start volunteering?

This is the first year that RSI has had a volunteer in court at the first appearance of parties in the Eviction Court. I greet people when they arrive and answer questions about mediation in general. If the judge refers their case to mediation, I speak with the parties afterward, gather contact information and explain the process and next steps.

I offered to volunteer because RSI staff understood the importance of having a person present when parties attend court in person. Parties are often nervous when they arrive; being in court can be intimidating, so greeting them in person seems to help. There is also an RSI staff member on Zoom attending court remotely so that every person present in court, either remotely or in person, has the ability to make a connection with the mediation program.

What inspires you to continue volunteering with the eviction mediation program?

I will be there as long as (RSI Eviction Mediation Program Manager) Chrissy (Wright) needs me! I find that interacting with parties before and after court provides insight into the needs and interests of parties in this type of court case. And, I love working with Chrissy, Brock, Kiasha and the folks at RSI. They have welcomed me as part of the team, and I have learned a great deal from them.

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

I love that eviction mediation can benefit both tenants and landlords, both by shortening the time it takes to resolve their case and by reducing the stress level so that parties can focus on the future and make difficult decisions. Most importantly, mediation can help avoid evictions and provide a bit of stability during challenging times. I often work with pro se parties that express gratitude that RSI mediators help them understand the process and empower them to make decisions, when the expense of an attorney would be a financial burden. In addition, being able to participate in mediation remotely via Zoom has been a huge benefit to all parties. Attending mediation and court in person in Kane County can be difficult without access to transportation, given the layout of the county.

Tags: Kane County Eviction Mediation Program
Posted in Eviction Mediation | No Comments »

Survey Comments Highlight What Tenants, Landlords Think About Mediation Program

Jasmine Henry, September 16th, 2024

Since 2020, Resolution Systems Institute has administered the Kane County (Illinois) Eviction Mediation Program. Our team works with the 16th Judicial Circuit Court and community services to mitigate the negative effects of eviction filings. We conduct intake, schedule mediations, provide guidance for parties going through eviction mediation, manage the mediator roster, and provide assistance to the mediators as needed. After parties participate in mediation, we ask them to complete a survey about their experience, including answering multiple open-response questions.

Landlord and tenant comments on the program and their mediations illuminate what they value and what falls short for them. We have seen how the process makes parties feel respected and listened to, and what that means for them. We have also learned of issues that arise with power imbalances and with mediators who repeatedly facilitate cases involving the same attorney.

Mediation as a ‘Life Preserver’

Comments from the past year make clear that many parties have been profoundly affected by their experience with our program and their mediation. This is perhaps best exemplified by this comment from a tenant: “Everyone has their own reasons for difficulties. I got a chance to say how this happened and also how I can prevent it from happening in the future. I’m thankful for everyone who has helped me through this and being treated fairly and with respect. This program is a life preserver to a drowning person. Thank you.”

Another tenant shared a similar sentiment, saying, “When people go through a difficult time, this program gives them a chance.”

Mediator Role is Key

As with so many mediation programs, mediators are central to parties’ positive experience in the Kane County program, survey responses show. In fact, the presence of a knowledgeable, impartial mediator is one of the most appreciated aspects of the program. One participant noted that the mediator “listened to both sides of the story.” Another commented: “I really appreciated . . . the way the mediator helped to point out the facts of the situation and allow both parties to express themselves. As a tenant without a lawyer who’s been through a major financial crisis, it gave me the opportunity to be listened to and to get my head above water.”

Many survey respondents praised their mediators’ ability to help parties find compromise. As one tenant put it, “They really try to meet in the middle and make everyone happy in the end. It gives so much clarity and security.” Another tenant succinctly stated, “It gave a compromise to a no win situation.”

Participants noted that both the skills of the mediators and the structured nature of the mediation process ensure that all parties have a chance to contribute to the conversation. A tenant shared: “Both sides were given the opportunity to speak uninterrupted. Everything was explained clearly and the mediator was very pleasant to work with. I came in feeling anxious not knowing what to expect but was pleasantly surprised by the whole experience and outcome.” A landlord shared that it was “good to talk to the other party in the presence of some responsible people.”

“The meeting was not at all stressful once the call was started. Each party received ample time to discuss any offer, explanations of situation, possible resolutions to ensure both parties benefited.”

Tenants in particular mentioned the importance of feeling listened to. When asked what they liked about the mediation, tenants described mediators who “listened to my doubts and questions,” were “helpful and caring and want to hear what you have to say,” or gave all parties “the opportunity to discuss their thoughts and concerns.” A landlord added that their mediator “listened and asked good questions.”

Additionally, mediators were often commended for their patience and thoroughness, as exemplified by this comment: “The [mediator] was very respectful and kind and listened to all my doubts and questions. The [mediator] helped a lot and explained everything in very good detail.” Another participant described their experience this way: “The meeting was not at all stressful once the call was started. Each party received ample time to discuss any offer, explanations of situation, possible resolutions to ensure both parties benefited.”

These comments underscore the program’s success in creating an environment where both tenants and landlords feel they can speak openly, are listened to and are treated equitably.

Resources for Vulnerable Individuals

Several survey responses highlighted the program’s value for vulnerable individuals. For example, a number of comments mentioned the importance of the resources beyond mediation that the program can connect parties with. One tenant wrote that the program “was there to help me [with court paperwork] when they really didn’t have to.” Multiple commenters emphasized that they had applied to the court-based rental assistance program — which the mediation program directed many parties to, and which parties were able to access until funds ran out in June 2024. When asked if they would recommend eviction mediation to a friend, a tenant shared that they would (even though they didn’t settle their case in mediation) because “sometimes tenants are unaware of the resources available due to lack of communication or shame.”

Others expressed more general appreciation for being able to participate in the program as someone in a challenging situation: “Just every single mother that actually works and tries 100% for her and children deserves this opportunity.” Another shared: “I think it is an excellent program for families who are going through difficulties, personally I felt supported and confident in the ability of this incredible program to help.”

Perceptions of Mediator as Biased

Some survey respondents indicated that their mediators worked to minimize the usual power imbalance between tenants and landlords. For example, one commented: “My mediator was a rockstar ! The attorney tried to bully us and was interrupting them but they kept their calm and brought up my rights.”

However, some tenants expressed concerns about potential bias in the mediation process, with one tenant stating, “They are there to mostly help the landlord … It doesn’t help the tenant. At all … The mediator is on the landlord side to help them evicted you.”

“I felt because the lawyer and the mediator were familiar with one another they may have been more partial to the landlord.”

Similarly, a tenant shared, “Not only was I not informed what mediation was going to be like, but also the mediator didn’t take everything I said and just went with what the landlord [said].” And one tenant went so far as to say, “I feel like I was gaslit by the Lawyer, and [the lawyer], as well as the mediator didn’t want to hear my side.”

Some comments about pro-landlord bias reflected a tenant’s understanding that the mediator already knew or had worked with the landlord’s attorney in the past, with one tenant writing: “I felt because the lawyer and the mediator were familiar with one another they may have been more partial to the landlord.”

Another explained: “[I]t’s like the mediator and the landlord and the landlord Lawyer have some kind of friendship already[,] so that kind of singles you out when they’re cracking jokes and laughing with each other[. A]nd then [the mediator is] only hearing [the landlord’s] side and telling you [that] you have to take your side to court.”

Other criticisms related to feeling unduly pressured to reach an agreement. One tenant explained how they felt both unheard and pressured: “I feel as if, regardless what was disclosed, my landlord and his attorney pushed too hard at a hard no to mediation, not giving me a chance, and the mediator seemed to take what I had to say about the situation with a grain of salt.” Another tenant stated, “My concerns were not fully addressed, felt bullied into settling.” One expressed their frustration, saying: “The mediator didn’t listen to my needs and disregarded any of my opinions[. The mediator] listened to every word the lawyer said and also wrote anything they wanted word for word.”

How RSI Uses Feedback

RSI uses party responses to our post-mediation surveys both to evaluate and improve our program, as well as to tell the full story of the eviction mediation process. These firsthand accounts allow us to go beyond statistics to better understand how eviction mediation programs affect real people in our communities. Furthermore, these comments provide invaluable evidence of the program’s tangible benefits. By thoughtfully analyzing and presenting these comments, we strengthen our partnerships, justify program funding and, ultimately, improve our ability to effectively serve the Kane County community.

RSI takes party criticisms of our mediators and program very seriously. Every quarter, we evaluate the participant post-mediation survey responses to determine what is or is not working. Every month, we hold meetings with our program staff to review our findings. We also use our research to train mediators on how to cultivate better party experiences. When necessary, we provide further training and support to mediators with recurring issues. Occasionally, if feedback was provided but no improvement made, we remove underperforming mediators from our roster.

Negative party perceptions, even if not reflective of actual bias, indicate a need to ensure and communicate impartiality more effectively. While it can be demoralizing to read party comments complaining that a mediator was biased, these comments help us to understand the impact that such perceptions have on party experience. Mediation is meant to be a level playing field for all parties — landlords and tenants, unrepresented parties and those with attorneys.

Tags: access to justice, evaluation, Kane County Eviction Mediation Program, mediation
Posted in Court Mediation Program, Evaluation, Eviction Mediation, Program Evaluation | No Comments »

Just Court ADR