Alternative Dispute Resolution Participant Evaluation: Fill & Download for Free

When I pursued my law degree, I also picked up an additional certificate in alternative dispute resolution. I’ve put in hundreds of hours as a mediator and community peacebuilder.One of the things I’ve found as I see ADR applied in the world is that very often, it is implemented by people who have no training in it and only a minimal level of understanding of the concepts involved.Many mediators, for example, are untrained retired litigators and judges who have decided that ADR sounds like a good retirement hobby. These people often don’t understand the basic principles of mediation, and proceed from a deep well of ignorance about what they think mediation is like.I spoke with one retired judge who had a mediation practice once about his mediation style. I asked if he was more facilitative, or preferred something like transformative mediation. He said, “I don’t know what that means. I let the parties tell me their story and then tell them what agreement to write.” This wildly violates some of the core ethical rules of mediation as a process.And so it is with restorative justice.The way I’ve heard it described, even in some of the answers here, is to just dump the participants in the room with a moderator, everyone shares their feelings, and then something something the offender realizes their wrong and everyone goes home happy, which of course, they usually don’t because this is not even remotely what restorative justice is.Traditional forms of discipline focus on punishment, which usually just breeds resentment. I sat through plenty of detentions as a kid. They taught me nothing other than to resent the authority figures who imposed these punishments. They did nothing to repair any harm caused or prevent more harm in the future.Restorative justice approaches are more holistic.The idea is to get all of the affected stakeholders together, determine what the harm caused was, why the offender caused that harm (was it because they were inconsiderate of others? Actively bullying? Lashing out?), addressing that reason for having caused the harm, and developing a plan that includes the input of the offender to make amends to those who were impacted by the offense.That’s a complicated and nuanced process that takes a lot of time and thought, and absolutely requires extremely well-trained leaders.When implemented correctly and effectively, this does create a peaceful and safe environment, because everyone involved, not just offenders, quickly learn how actions have consequences on others, and why those things need to be considered.When implemented correctly and effectively, punishments aren’t just a meaningless infliction of return pain setting up a power struggle between the powerless and the authority anymore. They instead serve as a means of repairing the relationships and community environment that were harmed in the process. In order to figure out how to make things right, the offender has to understand why the actions were wrong in the first place.When implemented poorly, you get the example that Matthew Bates described with Timmy the Bully, who realizes it’s all just a big waste of time and he has to say the right words to sound a little remorseful before everyone gets let go. Five minutes later, I have no doubt that Timmy in this example has already made James’ life five times more miserable because there were no consequences and it just pissed him off and wasted his time.That’s not restorative or justice.Timmy needs to face actual consequences, and ones that are meaningful to him and work towards reparation of the harm. Timmy needs to be involved in those consequences, and they need to be tied to the action at hand. A circle mediator would need to help the group evaluate those consequences.It’s pretty common that the first rounds of consequence negotiations don’t address the behavior. Timmy might suggest eye for an eye; let James hit him back. All right… that doesn’t address the concept here: hitting people isn’t something that’s part of the community standards.James, looking for some sort of retribution, might suggest that Timmy gets punished somehow - detention, community service, or public flogging. That’s not really effective either; while Jimmy might feel a little schadenfreude, it doesn’t really make any sort of reparation.Everyone involved has to think about this until the stakeholders can come up with a plan that involves appropriate consequences. Jimmy might decide he’s all right with a letter of apology if he thinks it’ll be sincere and he believes Timmy is remorseful. Or, he might need something more to convince him there won’t be a next time.Those consequences should also address what happens if there is a next time. What comes next? If Timmy thinks that he can get off easy here, he’d have to convince everyone else to go along with it. A good circle leader is going to point that out.I was also a teacher for more than half a decade before I went into the law. Using up class time on this is a terrible idea, and that’s almost always what administrators end up doing with this because they don’t want to have to sit there after hours to figure all this out.Yes, this is time consuming. And difficult. And requires a lot of input from everyone. You can’t do it over a lunch and let everyone walk away. That will just make everyone miserable and inhibit learning.But, the good news is that when it’s done really effectively, it also tends to prevent a lot of disciplinary problems down the road.

Mediation is effective when the parties have a good, well-trained mediator and are not wholly hell-bent over high water to litigate something.I stress a good, well-trained mediator, because a great many mediators are retired litigators or judges who think that mediation is something they can do in their spare time and resting on their name recognition. This is unfortunate and often ends up with mediation not being seen as a strong alternative dispute resolution strategy because it ends up just being positional bargaining guided by a “neutral” that doesn’t lead to conflict resolution.A good, well-trained mediator, whether that mediator practices facilitative mediation, transformative mediation, narrative mediation, or other schools of mediative practice, will understand how to help the parties establish better communication strategies, identify and help the parties understand their interests and needs in the conflict and not just their positions, assist the parties in brainstorming creative solutions, and then in evaluating those solutions with their interests and needs to determine which solutions will best satisfy their needs.Sometimes mediation is not the right process for parties. When it is actually important for a court to legally adjudicate an answer, such as for precedential purposes, mediation is not the best process for the litigants.I reject the idea that mediation is only effective when the parties go in willing to compromise or make a deal. Many of the litigants I’ve mediated with were wholly set on their position when they started. It was only after establishing positive communication with the other litigant and identifying their needs and underlying interests, and most importantly making each party feel heard and empowered to make decisions, that the parties themselves began to generate better solutions.A personal example of a good mediation I participated in involved a breakup of a business partnership, which was really the breakup of a fifty-plus-year-old friendship.The head business guy, the brains of the business, was into real estate and property management. He was a sophisticated businessman type. He talked some friends of his, who had recently retired from their professions, to become property managers for one of his apartment complexes. They didn’t have any experience, and they made mistakes that cost him a fair amount of money. That was the nature of the lawsuit that brought them in that day.It took over an hour just to get to the point where they could really talk to each other effectively, rather than just leveling accusations and complaints and dissents to all of those. All three were extremely angry with each other.As my co-mediator and I began to dig deeper into the nature of the relationship, we discovered that these litigants had known each other and been best friends literally since kindergarten. They were in each others’ wills. They were each others’ best men at their weddings. They were godparents of each others’ children.This was not a business dispute. This was a divorce.It became apparent that what was really driving this whole thing was feelings of betrayal, of disappointment, of disillusionment with their longtime friends. The businessman thought he was trying to be kind in pushing out his friends rather than firing them for messing up. His friends thought he had betrayed them and abused their friendship to get another business venture off the ground.It took nearly three hours, but there I was, sitting in a room with these men in their early sixties, crying with each other. They were trying very, very hard not to, but they finally realized the underlying pain and conflict, and how badly they felt the loss of this deeply close friendship.I don’t actually remember how they chose to resolve the lawsuit itself. I don’t think we ended up actually writing up an agreement. I’m not sure if they actually reconciled afterwards or not.But I remember keenly those men sitting around a table, remembering fifty years of the most important events of their lives together, and mourning how they could throw all of that away over some money.That’s what an effective mediation can do. Not just reach some compromise that both parties equally hate, but to really help the parties map out of the scope of their own conflict, the effects of it on themselves, and their needs and interests underlying their wants. In the best of mediations, the parties walk away with conflict transformation: not just a resolution of the conflict mechanisms, but a fundamentally changed relationship that gives them the tools and skills to prevent conflict in the future.These litigants didn’t come in looking to make a deal. They were ready to take this all the way to the Supreme Court if they had to. They only did mediation because the court thought it would be a good idea and they were convinced that they would just go in, yell for a little bit, declare it a failure, and go right back to court.But an effective process allowed them to really explore their conflict and decide what to do about it.That’s when you know mediation works.Thanks for the A2A.

My country is the United States. The following information is from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).The Combating Autism Act of 2006 (CAA - P.L. 109-416) and Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011 (CARA - P.L. 112-32) authorize autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research and services activities across HHS.They also authorize the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) – a federal advisory committee that coordinates ASD-related efforts across HHS, partner federal agencies and private stakeholder groups.At the State LevelState Protection and Advocacy AgenciesThe State Protection and Advocacy Agencies (P&As) provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities based on the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000. These efforts include the protection and advocacy of legal and human rights; information and referral; investigation of complaints of violation of rights of individuals with developmental disabilities, including autism; working to resolve complaints through mediation, alternative dispute resolution, and litigation.State Councils on Developmental DisabilitiesThe State Councils on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) are charged with identifying the most pressing needs of people with developmental disabilities in their state or territory. Councils work to address these needs through systems change and capacity building efforts that promote self-determination, integration and inclusion for people with developmental disabilities. SCDD efforts include training; technical assistance; barrier elimination; coalition development and citizen participation; informing policymakers; advocacy, capacity building, and systems change; demonstration of new approaches to services and supports.Medicare & Medicaid and Autism and Related ConditionsThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) provides many health-related services to beneficiaries with autism and related conditions enrolled in Medicaid, Medicare, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.The Medicaid program, in particular, supports children, youth, and adults with autism and related conditions who have limited income and resources, and meet certain eligibility criteria. Because Medicaid is a State-based program, available care and services may vary from State to State, and according to age. In addition to physical health services, Medicaid programs provide strong support for community living through a home and community-based services such as respite care and employment supports.GOOD ADVICE FOR U.S. PARENTS/GUARDIANSI am posting the following information that is useful for any parent or guardian who suspects their child might have an ASD or there could be a problem with the way their child plays, learns, speaks, or acts, –the HHS advises to contact the child’s doctor, and share one’s concerns.If the parent or guardian or the doctor is still concerned, ask the doctor for a referral to a specialist who can do a more in-depth evaluation of the child. Specialists who can evaluate and make a diagnosis include:Developmental Pediatricians (doctors who have special training in child development and children with special needs)Child Neurologists (doctors who work on the brain, spine, and nerves)Child Psychologists or Psychiatrists (doctors who know about the human mind)At the same time, call one’s state’s public early childhood system to request a free evaluation to find out if the child qualifies for intervention services. This is sometimes called a Child Find evaluation. One does not need to wait for a doctor’s referral or a medical diagnosis to make this call.Ages birth to 3:Contact one’s local early intervention system:Call the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA) at 919-962-2001Or visit the ECTA website.Ages 3+:Contact the local public school system:Even if a child is not yet old enough for kindergarten or enrolled in a public school, call the local elementary school or board of education and ask to speak with someone who can help you have the child evaluated.If not sure who to contact, call the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA) at 919-962-2001.Or visit the ECTA website.If the child is 3 years old or older, contact the local public school system.Even if the child is not yet old enough for kindergarten or enrolled in a public school, call the local elementary school or board of education and ask to speak with someone who can help have the child evaluated.If not sure who to contact, call the Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center (ECTA) at 919-962-2001.Or visit the ECTA website.