RSI Director of Research Jennifer Shack joined ODR.com CEO Colin Rule and Redek founder Nicolas Lozada this month for an ODR Cyberweek 2024 webinar on the topic of online dispute resolution to settle family law cases, focusing on a report Shack co-authored in 2021.
ODR Cyberweek is a free, virtual conference hosted annually by the National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution (NCTDR).
Shack answered questions about the 2021 evaluation of a Michigan ODR program she conducted with University of California Davis law professor Donna Shestowsky, which was the first third-party evaluation of a family law ODR program in the United States.
The program, in Ottawa County, Michigan, was launched by the 20th Circuit of Michigan’s Friend of the Court in August 2020 with the goal of providing parties with post-judgment family law disputes a simpler, more convenient and cost-effective way to reach agreements related to child custody, parenting time and child support. It also aimed to increase efficiency in the disposition of these matters.
Among the topics that came up in the ODR Cyberweek discussion were the varying levels of interest by caseworkers and others in participating in ODR; the likelihood that cultural and demographic differences might impact openness to ODR, as well as ways of dealing with conflict in general; and the potential for and possible hurdles to using ODR to mediate cases where intimate partner violence is a factor.
Shack also offered insight on how to improve communications with parties about ODR as a means to improve understanding of the process and increase participation, based on findings from RSI’s ODR Party Engagement (OPEN) Project.
Lozada, who founded the Colombian ODR startup Redek, noted the challenges of advocating for ODR in Colombia when consistent internet access and use remains out of reach for much of the population. In addition to the access problems this presents, it can also mean that those who do have access remain wary of the legitimacy of online programs, Rule suggested.
NCTDR’s ODR Cyberweek serves an international audience, is open to the public, and includes panels in English, Chinese, Spanish and Portuguese. Additional topics this year included AI integration in courts, mediation and arbitration, recent innovations and research findings. The event also included tech demos and a student panel. Recordings of many of the ODR Cyberweek sessions from this and previous years can be found in the NCTDR’s ODR Cyberweek Archive.
RSI recently completed user testing research for the ODR Party Engagement (OPEN) Project! We are excited to share insights from our experience conducting the testing and what we learned from participants about our model court communication materials.
User Test Study
As part of the OPEN Project Phase 2, RSI developed prototype materials — a webpage, a notice document, an informational video and an interactive guide — to help courts communicate more effectively about online dispute resolution (ODR). We worked with an inclusive designer to create materials that exemplify best practices based on designer expertise, OPEN Phase 1 findings and previous research. To ensure these materials were accessible and user-friendly, we planned a series of user tests to obtain feedback from actual users whose backgrounds resemble those of self-represented litigants.
Over the past two months, the RSI research team conducted user tests across the country. We recruited a total of 15 demographically diverse participants from distinct areas: a rural town in New Hampshire; Baltimore, MD; and the Santa Fe-Española area of New Mexico. Participants were instructed to use the materials to complete relevant tasks: read about ODR, watch the informational video, prepare for ODR as a defendant, and sign up for an account. While they tested the materials, RSI researchers observed and took notes on their behavior, listened to their thought process, and asked follow-up questions. We also disseminated post-test surveys and conducted semi-structured interviews about their experience with the materials.
Read more background on the ODR Party Engagement (OPEN) Project, from concept, to focus group feedback, to creation of tools for courts, in RSI’s earlier blog posts.
Real World Feedback
Feedback from the user tests helped us to identify strengths and weaknesses in each of the materials. Users overwhelmingly praised our video for its clarity, engaging visuals, concise discussion about ODR and appropriate length; the video averaged a 4.73/5 rating for how easily it was understood.
The sessions highlighted the importance of accessible visual design. Participants missed some of the information on our webpages because they lacked sufficiently visible indicators for clickable or interactive content. Higher saturated colors, consistent blue hyperlinked text and plus signs are some of the fixes we will implement in new versions of the webpages.
Participants were excited about the prospect of ODR being available to them. The relative ease of their testing experience only amplified this excitement; participants shared frustration with previous instances trying to navigate difficult-to-use court materials. In contrast, they found our materials to be simple to follow and understand.
User testing also provides a beneficial opportunity for users to share their own creative ideas for improving the materials. During the sessions, these ideas encompassed: making the account login interface more accessible, identifying when repetitive information was useful or distracting, and enhancing the perceived trustworthiness of our notice document.
Participants were excited about the prospect of ODR being available to them. The relative ease of their testing experience only amplified this excitement; participants shared frustration with previous instances trying to navigate difficult-to-use court materials. In contrast, they found our materials to be simple to follow and understand, a sentiment shared even among those who were hesitant to use digital technologies generally. Describing the account creation pages, one participant in New Hampshire noted, “Yes, [I would feel confident helping a friend sign up for ODR using this system]. It’s really easy to use. I think my 10-year-old can do this.”
We will next return to our design partners to implement the feedback we received from user testers. RSI is grateful for the participants’ generosity and excitement for the project. We are planning to conduct one more round of user testing once the revised materials are completed to ensure any lingering issues are addressed before making the final models available for courts. RSI is also grateful to the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution (AAA-ICDR) Foundation for its funding of the OPEN Project.
Community mediation centers have long recognized that parties feel seen and benefit from working with mediators who are from diverse backgrounds. Despite this, they have found it difficult to develop mediator rosters that reflect the communities they serve. The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) in Chicago is undertaking an innovative project to address this issue. The staff of CCR has engaged RSI to develop a guide to support other community mediation center staff in their efforts to increase equity in their mediator rosters, and to assess their implementation outcomes. Funding for this project has been generously provided by the American Arbitration Association-International Centre for Dispute Resolution Foundation (AAA-ICDR) Foundation.
Ongoing DEI Assessment
RDNE Stock Project via Pexels
Over the past year, CCR has been working with an external diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) partner to audit its mediator mentorship program (MMP). The MMP is an intensive, three-month training program that prepares participants to meet CCR’s performance-based evaluation standard. Participants then provide a minimum 18 months of mediation services through CCR’s programs. CCR’s primary goals are to increase the demographic diversity and inclusivity of its recruitment, selection, training and retention processes. Meeting these goals has required a comprehensive and holistic retooling of the program. For example, CCR staff are experimenting with new models for meeting program requirements, establishing new communication practices, and creating ways to accommodate different types of mediation skill sets. Measuring the success of these changes is critical; CCR is also developing new survey instruments and tools to determine impact.
RSI is assessing CCR’s progress in meeting its DEI goals, to document lessons learned and share what CCR staff would recommend to other organizations.
Project Outcomes
RSI will communicate findings from our assessment of CCR’s efforts in two main ways: 1) a guide for community mediation centers, and 2) an evaluation report.
Through interviews with key CCR staff, review of audit documents, and analysis of demographic data, RSI will create a reference guide for community mediation centers to learn from CCR’s approach. The guide will include instructions and templates for engagement techniques, methods for measuring demographic data, and forms for screening and interviewing. Along with these materials, we will discuss how CCR staff members implemented changes and addressed challenges.
Our collaboration will also culminate in a final evaluation report, which will focus on insights from CCR’s new survey instruments. RSI will analyze survey data to determine which areas of the retooled program saw the most success and which areas require further refinement. Both the guide and the report will be disseminated widely, through CCR’s website, RSI’s website, the National Association for Community Mediation’s virtual library, conference presentations and social media. Ultimately, our goals are to understand existing exclusionary practices or biases within mediator programs and break down barriers to diversity, equity and inclusion in mediation practice.
We plan to share the guide for community mediation centers and our CCR evaluation in mid-2025. Follow RSI’s blog, newsletter and social media for the latest updates.
Last month, RSI welcomed Heather Fogg as RSI’s new Chief Executive Officer. Heather comes to RSI with an extensive background in court-connected alternative dispute resolution and research. Her expertise includes directing court mediator excellence programs; managing a state court’s ADR data collection tool; and designing and delivering restorative justice practices across a diverse range of sectors. Heather has guided the evaluation, design and data analysis of grant-funded ADR programs; coordinated workshops and training sessions for court ADR program managers, mediation trainers and mediators; and led and mentored scores of researchers and ADR practitioners. For more details on Heather’s background, read her bio on RSI’s website.
RSI CEO Heather Fogg presented with James Doyle at the Center for ADR’s 2024 Annual Conference in Maryland in June. The topic for their presentation was “Ethical Strength Training: Reps and Sets for Everyday Mediator Ethics.”
Recently, Heather sat down for a Q&A to help us begin to get to know the person behind the resume, including what led her to a career in ADR, what motivates her, and some of the aspects of conflict resolution she is passionate about.
How were you first introduced to alternative dispute resolution, and what drew you to it as a career?
I first learned about alternative dispute resolution when leading discussion sections for a course in Criminal Justice 101. The text we used had a brief section about restorative justice, referred to as victim-offender mediation. The process was described as a chance for the people most directly impacted by what happened to come together with a mediator to talk about: 1) what it was like for each of them, and 2) what they each needed in order to make things better. That made so much sense to me — focusing the problem-solving and decision-making on those who were the most familiar with both how the event itself, as well as any effort to resolve it, would affect them personally. I’ve been fascinated by this approach to engaging with conflict and addressing harm among people ever since.
It’s also deeply personal for me. People have broken into two of my homes and two of my cars (all four instances at different times and states). I know the fear, grief and anger those experiences brought to me and my family. I know the challenges we faced in trying to understand the criminal and legal system to make the aftermath of those experiences better. I have no idea why people chose our house or my car, or what conditions in their lives brought them to make this choice. I can see how having an expanded variety of options to meet directly with one another through alternative dispute resolution can bring a different kind of closure, accountability and healing to people who seek them. That’s part of why I have focused my work on seeing what’s possible when we create these opportunities for people who want them.
What appealed to you about working at RSI specifically?
So many things! One thing that has been very important to me is that whatever I’m choosing to give my time and attention is actionable, implementable and purpose-full (yes, you’re seeing that correctly; I wrote it that way intentionally). That’s something I see in everything RSI does, from gathering resources to be shared broadly, to answering compelling research questions, to providing direct services where they might be sorely needed.
Are there any “big questions” related to court-based ADR that interest you in particular?
There are so very many; I’m struggling to name just a few! And admittedly, some may not be so big. I’m very curious about some of the more practical and logistical aspects of court-based ADR, such as: What impacts will changes in technology continue to have, and how will our standards of practice continue to change to meet them? How does the setting where court-based ADR takes place impact how people react and respond within it? And what can we as ADR practitioners learn from the variety of ways people interact with conflict, in order to support them well?
You recently presented at the Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution’s Annual Conference. Can you tell us a little about the topics and how/why you decided to present on them?
Heather Fogg, right, and Kendra Jobe co-presented “Take Two Sessions and Call us Next Time: How Might our Prescriptions for Conflict Engagement Miss the Mark?” at the Center for ADR Conference in June.
I am very fortunate and grateful to Marvin Johnson and Linda Sternberg of the Center for ADR for inviting me to present, and lucky to have incredible friends and colleagues, Kendra Jobe and James Boyle, to develop topics with me. Kendra and I have been working together for years, and one thing we often talk about is the great variety of approaches and processes we’ve learned within the umbrella of ADR — from restorative practices, to group facilitation, to different mediation frameworks. Rather than framing it as though there might be only one “best way” to practice, we invited practitioners to consider: How does the process (or framework within a process) you are the most enthusiastic about fit your own worldview, personality or perspective on conflict? The range of responses and reflections that practitioners offered, as well as the practical tips, techniques and strategies they shared, made the conversation very rich and informative.
The Maryland Standards of Conduct for Mediators is also near and dear to me. In a mediator ethics session, James and I invited mediators to consider how our ethical practice doesn’t come up only when a specific dilemma surfaces, but also in the everyday decisions and actions we take as mediators throughout the mediation process. It’s been important to me to think of any set of standards we use as a constant reminder about why I wanted to become a mediator in the first place: to hold a process where those most directly impacted by the outcomes would have full say and decision-making in what will happen next. I would like mediators to consider that such standards give us guidance in everything we do, say, don’t do or don’t say … and not just when we see a specific dilemma (that may make us suddenly remember to reread them and consider our role).
Is there a book on conflict resolution that you always find yourself recommending (and why)?
This is a wonderfully dangerous question to ask me because one of my favorite things to say is, “I just read {insert book title}, and now I’d love to talk with you about it!” My favorite books about any subject are those that invite the reader to upend their understanding and really look at something from a wholly different perspective. Among my favorite books to do just that in the conflict engagement field are “Justice As Healing: Indigenous Ways” by Wanda D. McCaslin; any of the number of books written by Rupert Ross; “The Outward Mindset” and “Anatomy of Peace,” both by the Arbinger Institute; and “The Conflict Pivot: Turning Conflict into Peace of Mind” by Tammy Lenski.
Have you had a chance to think about any short- and long-term goals for RSI at this point?
One of the things I like that I’m learning about with RSI is the goal to be intentionally reaching more people around the country. I would like to see us have a relationship with at least one court-connected ADR person in every state. So, if you’re reading this now, and you know someone in another state who we should be introducing ourselves to, drop me a line and help us connect (hfogg@aboutrsi.org). I would like RSI to connect with more people around the country who are interested in court ADR as much as we are!
Is there something you’ve learned since starting at RSI that surprised you?
One thing that has really stood out to me is how RSI has such a strong reputation for advancing court ADR that people regularly come to RSI with questions they’re pondering and ideas about how RSI can help them answer them. The depth of relationship and expertise that it shows about RSI is something I feel honored and proud to join.
What keeps you inspired and going when things get tough?
Oddly enough, it’s watching the animals* who live with me squabble, full-on fight, and then get over it, and often even snuggle immediately with each other again. It reminds me that maybe we can follow their example and find our way through conflict without permanently shutting one another out as well. (*Note, I live with seven indoor cats and three delightfully loud parrots. Knowing we can all successfully live together through our conflicts and spats … gives me hope.)
