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.
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.
