Last year, a few ADR staff from courts around the US approached RSI to help with a need that was no longer being met elsewhere. Court ADR administrators needed a safe space to be honest and open when discussing the challenges they face as ADR administrators. Other options couldn’t provide a closed, confidential opportunity to learn and exchange ideas. The ADR staff asked RSI to provide that safe space for them. We agreed — who else would be better suited to take on the role of convening a network of court ADR administrators than RSI?
So, in November 2025, the Court ADR Network was launched. With dozens of members signed up, we held our first meeting to figure out what members wanted from the network. We decided to have RSI host quarterly meetings at which an expert — who could be a member — would present on a topic of interest, followed by a group discussion of that topic, or anything else. We also voted on the topics that would be the focus of each of the next three meetings.
The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to jshack@aboutrsi.org.
Our next meeting in February focused on how to work with self-represented litigants, from referral through mediation. I presented on the needs of self-represented litigants, including the importance of effective communication and issues presented by power imbalances when one side has an attorney and the other does not. That was followed by a lively discussion of the role of technology and AI as avenues for access to justice.
The topic of our third meeting, held this month, was mediator recruitment and retention. Josh Pando, the New Mexico Statewide ADR Senior Program Manager, talked about his successful recruitment and retention strategies. Discussion ranged from where to find new recruits, to ways programs engage and educate mediators, to what programs require of volunteer mediators. In August, we will be talking about the use of technology and AI.
The meetings have also provided members with an opportunity to get to network and learn about what different programs are doing. In emails, members have expressed their appreciation for the network, including a new member who recently wrote, “I absolutely loved yesterday’s meeting.” In addition to the meetings, RSI periodically lets members know about resources and learning opportunities.
The network is open to both state and federal court administrators, from trial to appellate level, and from single courts to statewide offices. It is also open to allied staff, such as in-house researchers and staff mediators. If you fit those categories and would like to join the Court ADR Network, please reach out to me at jshack@aboutrsi.org.
A recent report on remote mediation and disability by Nick White, Research and Evaluation Director for the Maryland Judiciary’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO), sheds light on how remote mediations might improve access to justice for people with disabilities. The RSI team has found the report’s findings helpful in assessing how our own eviction mediation program serves this population.
Photo by Gustavo Fring via Pexels
White’s research team recruited 23 mediators and 62 people with disabilities to participate in simulations of remote mediations. The research focused on participants with visual, hearing and physical disabilities. Researchers used interviews and focus groups to gain insight about participants’ and mediators’ experiences before and after the simulated mediation. Participants also completed surveys before and after the simulated mediation.
Participant Experiences vs. Expectations
In many instances, the simulated mediation seems to have met or exceeded participants’ expectations in terms of barriers. Before their simulated mediation, participants were asked what concerns they had and what potential benefits they anticipated. While most participants reported expecting technology challenges or problems communicating online, the participants’ responses after the simulated mediation indicated that most experienced fewer barriers than expected.
When asked after their simulated mediation whether it “reduced any barriers … that [they] expected to face,” 85.5% of 54 participants responded “yes.” Additionally, when participants were asked if remote mediation “created any barriers … that [they] were not expecting,” 74.5% answered “no.” This is in line with the participants’ overall comments, 73.5% of which focused on potential benefits to using remote mediation, and 26.5% of which focused on potential barriers.
Although the participants’ responses were largely positive, some barriers, discussed below, did affect the simulated mediations.
Technology Challenges
Unsurprisingly, technology issues were among the challenges. Both participants and mediators mentioned having connectivity issues during their simulated mediation. Complications also occurred with the use of assistive technology. For example, during one simulated mediation, the mediator was unable to work their closed caption software, despite having practiced using the tool prior to the session. Further, a participant noted that closed captions are not always accurate.
Participants and mediators in White’s study seemed to agree that the best solution for any potential technology challenge is to ensure everyone is fully prepared for the session. When asked what advice or info they would give someone with a disability who is considering remote mediation, a party stated: “Always communicate your needs before the mediation to make the process comfortable for you.” When asked what worked well in their session, a mediator said: “Understanding ahead of time how the participants wanted to engage in the mediation, what technology they were using, and checking in ahead of time regarding any needed accommodations or supports.”
A good intake protocol, such as the one provided in the appendix of White’s report, is important for being fully prepared. As RSI works to improve our eviction mediation program’s intake process to better serve parties with disabilities, we plan to adopt some of the report’s guidance, including adding the intake question: “Do you have any accessibility needs that we should be aware of to ensure your full participation in the remote mediation process?”
Online vs. In-Person Mediation
Participants in the simulated mediations also voiced concerns about potential disadvantages to online versus in-person mediation. A central concern was the potential loss of nonverbal communication and the possibility that the mediator might miss subtle cues like body language or tone.
Such disadvantages are exacerbated when parties are either unable or choose not to turn on their cameras. The question of whether participants should be required to keep cameras on is tricky, and not just for mediations involving people with disabilities. Having video provides mediators with nonverbal cues that can help them better recognize party emotions and engagement. It also allows everyone in the mediation to more easily see if others are in the room with a participant. Additionally, using videos for mediations can provide participants with more context; for example, a deaf participant noted that they find lip reading helpful and recommended that camera use be mandatory. However, some participants may not be able to navigate the necessary technology to turn their videos on for a remote mediation, and some may prefer to keep their cameras off, for reasons that may or may not be connected to their disability.
RSI’s mediation program typically requires that both parties’ cameras be turned on, with case-by-case exceptions. When those exceptions occur, we recommend that our mediators tell both parties to keep their cameras off, as a way to address potential power imbalances created when only one party has their camera on. (See our Power Imbalance Toolkit for more on this.)
Concerns About Discrimination
Another concern named by parties in the research was the potential for the mediator to misunderstand or discriminate against them because of their disability. Participant comments noted that discrimination sometimes occurs when the mediator does not fully understand the parties’ needs, with one participant’s post-mediation comment calling on mediators to “make sure they are sensitive to people with [disabilities].” Another research participant shared the following post-mediation feedback: “you are thinking that one size fits all disabilities — this will not be true,” and another shared, after the mediation, that “[the mediator] can check their ableist attitudes.”
The report recommends ways for mediators to accommodate parties. For example, for participants with visual disabilities, mediators can take specific care to describe any documents, graphics or photos shared on the screen. For participants with auditory disabilities, mediators should ensure they are able to use closed captioning; and, once closed captioning is enabled, they should remain vigilant to ensure it is accurate. Above all, the research emphasized that mediators should remember to treat parties with empathy and patience, regardless of their status.
Conclusions
Overall, the report found that remote mediation opened access to people with disabilities who may otherwise have a hard time participating in mediation. Further, research participants were highly positive about their experience. The report’s findings indicate that courts should take careful consideration when providing remote mediation to parties with disabilities. Deliberate planning, mediator training and a good intake protocol are all essential aspects of a fair, effective and efficient service.
RSI’s mediation program works to address several of the issues named in the report in our mediator meet-ups, which occur monthly. These meet-ups are geared toward helping our mediators better provide services to all parties who enter our program. Reports such as this are essential to helping our mediators improve.
RSI is offering a series of online workshops to help courts and organizations enhance their ADR program communication materials. During these workshops — From Confusion to Clarity: Court Communications that Work — RSI’s researchers will work with participants to review and improve their communication materials, including notices, webpages and videos. Participants will walk away with new or updated materials and the strategies to ensure future communications can effectively serve their communities, including self-represented litigants (SRLs).
Improving Court Experience Remains a Priority
Courts continue to face diminished public trust and a lack of confidence among those who go through the legal system. The 2025 State of the State Courts report by the National Center for State Courts found that poor communications are a major driver of access to justice issues. People find court forms and paperwork confusing or hard to understand, and they lack information about what to expect from court processes, the report notes. In line with these findings, a recent Pew study on perceptions of state and local courts found that US adults want courts to be easier to navigate, to work for all users and to be more user-friendly.
According to the Pew study, one-third of people who have had a court experience emerged with diminished confidence in the courts. More than half of those with court experience found it difficult to understand how to fill out court forms and to understand the steps of their cases. The latter finding held true across demographic groups, including age, education level and income level, and regardless of whether the respondent was a plaintiff or defendant.
Most people also said courts should focus on making processes easier to navigate rather than making them faster. The same Pew study found that 71% of survey respondents with court experience and 68% of survey respondents without court experience said courts should make it easier for people to navigate the system rather than diverting their resources to speed up cases and reduce costs.
Why We Designed the Workshops
RSI’s OPEN research demonstrates that simple and easy-to-understand communications can meaningfully address some of the biggest challenges facing court users. Through usability testing, we found that our accessibly designed OPEN communication models boosted people’s confidence in navigating their case and enabled them to more capably follow the steps required to participate in ADR programs.
Easy-to-understand court communications are especially important for SRLs, people with low literacy and people with low digital literacy. Courts can make important inroads to improving court experience and building trust by addressing barriers in their communication materials. Our OPEN research also highlights scaffolding as an effective strategy for making the steps within court programs easy to follow.
Yet RSI recognizes that courts may not have sufficient resources for a full consultation to improve their materials. We developed these workshops to be low-cost opportunities for court staff to begin addressing these issues. By participating in our workshops, participants can take the first step to improving their existing communication materials or creating new materials that better serve their communities.
What the Workshops Will Cover
We are offering four workshops over the next few months. Each workshop will be 3 hours long and cost $350.Each will take place 12-3 pm Central/1-4 pm Eastern,via Zoom. Below are descriptions of each workshop:
Wednesday, February 25 — Workshop 1: Public-Facing Documents. Bring the documents you would like to modify or thoughts on what you want to create. You will leave with documents that are written and formatted so that SRLs will understand and act on any instructions. Register & pay now for Workshop 1, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 1. Please register by February 18.
Wednesday, April 22 —Workshop 3: Videos. We will help you take your ideas for a video and turn them into a storyboard to provide your communications department or consultant, or ready for you to create your own video. Register & pay now for Workshop 3, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 3. Please register by April 15.
Wednesday, May 20 —Workshop 4: Putting it All Together. Learn how to take your different communication methods and turn them into a workflow that enhances SRL trust and confidence in navigating an unfamiliar process. Register & pay now for Workshop 4, or Register & receive an invoice for Workshop 4. Please register by May 13.
We are excited to use what we have learned through the OPEN Project to help you with your communication needs. Please reach out to research@aboutrsi.org for any questions you may have about the workshops.
Last year, RSI began the pilot phase of a research project to examine how mediator behaviors might affect parties’ trust during mediation. During this exploration phase, our research team has been observing small claims and eviction mediations and marking down mediators’ communication behaviors, in a process referred to as coding, for the Trust Project. We gathered pre- and post-mediation surveys from the parties, and we interviewed the mediators involved.
From left, Rackham Foundation’s Ava Abramowitz, RSI Director of Research Jennifer Shack and Behavior Analysis Trainer Kenneth Webb gave a presentation on the early findings of RSI’s Trust Project at the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution 2024 Spring Conference in April 2024.
After coding 22 mediations and completing a thorough review of our piloted data collection instruments, RSI has successfully completed our pilot phase. We are excited to share that we will soon be expanding the project and are looking for mediation organizations and/or individual mediators who would like to partner with us.
Method Adapted for Mediation
The Trust Project is based on behavior analysis (BA), a research method that codes for particular communication behaviors and connects them to desired outcomes. This method has been used successfully in negotiations and sales. BA examines the particular behaviors used as well as the sequences of behaviors that occur, to determine their effects on specific desired outcomes. In this instance, RSI is interested in changes in trust between the parties and changes in trust in the mediator. We are also interested in mediation results and participant perceptions of the mediation and the other party.
Over the course of five years, Ava Abramowitz and Ken Webb worked to modify communication behaviors used in the contexts of negotiations and sales for use in mediation — with a lot of input from mediators and researchers. Ava is a former assistant U.S. attorney, longtime mediator and secretary of the Rackham Foundation. Ken is an expert in behavior analysis, coding and training negotiators to improve their practice. He trained RSI’s researchers in behavior analysis. Thanks to generous support from the Rackham Foundation, RSI has the opportunity to conduct this innovative research into the effects of mediator behaviors on party trust.
Watch Michael Lang’s 2021 In Their Voices interviewwith Ava Abramowitz and Ken Webb for more insight into the idea of applying behavioral analysis to mediation — the concept behind the Trust Project!
Mediator Partners Sought
For the next phase of the Trust Project, RSI will observe mediations of small claims, family and larger civil cases, both in person and online. We are looking for partners in this endeavor. Interested organizations and mediators would work with RSI to determine how to effectively recruit parties. Mediators will be asked to complete an initial survey about their background and approach to mediation, to facilitate observations of their mediations, and to complete a survey after each observed mediation. We will preserve confidentiality of the mediations, the mediators and the parties by removing any identifying information from the data.
If you are interested in participating in this impactful research, please contact RSI Director of Research Jennifer Shack at jshack@aboutrsi.org.
