-
Benefits of Mediation and Early Intervention: Communities should be educated about the benefits of mediation and the specific value of early intervention. Coordinated efforts should inform decision-makers about the programs that are already available or that could be developed. Examples include the many different innovative programs for youth, restorative justice, police partnerships, etc. Also, the availability of free mediation for those who can’t pay also needs to be publicized more widely. Centers still find that many people are unaware of their sliding-fee scale and policy of providing mediation regardless of ability to pay.
-
Training: Key community individuals and groups need to be provided with low-cost or free conflict management training. This training should focus specifically on getting people to resolve their problems with third-party assistance before the problems escalate to the level of violence or legal disputes. This training will help build the capacity of communities to address conflict in a constructive manner.
The more that decision-makers are made aware (through training) of the potential role of community mediation, the more community mediation will be used and will reach its full potential in Virginia and across the United States.
Cost Savings Evaluation and Measures -
Measurable Benefits: Standardized methods should be developed for measuring the benefits and cost savings provided by Virginia’s community mediation centers. This data would enable communities, state agencies, and private foundations to better understand, in concrete financial terms, the value of early intervention programs.
-
Value-Added Benefits: Additional methods should be developed to measure the full range of benefits provided by community mediation. A neighborhood’s renewed sense of community, a child’s improved performance at school, a resident’s new-found sense of safety and security – these are all examples of the ways that community mediation can help sustainable communities and civil society.
Community mediation centers in many states, including Virginia, collect program statistics like caseloads, client numbers and referral sources. These statistics help illustrate the benefits of mediation and justify centers’ funding requests. However, quantifying the benefits and financial cost-savings of early intervention and prevention programs can prove difficult. Today, standardized methods need to be developed that will change this situation.
Michigan is one of the few states that has implemented such methods and the data are remarkable. In Michigan’s Agricultural Mediation Program (MAMP), for example, the annual estimated cost savings in court appeals alone was $1,895,000 in 1998. For Michigan’s Special Education Mediation Program (MSEMP) over the same period, the annual cost savings in court appeals was $670,000.
Using their own set of standardized methods, Virginia’s community mediation centers will effectively quantify and justify their court-related and early intervention programs.
STUDY FINDINGS: CONCLUSIONS
Since its inception in the late 1960s, the community mediation field has grown substantially and mediation programs have branched out into a remarkable number of new areas. As Daniel McGillis notes in the Community Mediation Programs Report:
Community mediation programs represent, in tangible form, the embodiment
of many of the core principles favored by many citizens, including local
initiative, volunteerism, combating violence, private/public partnerships, cooperation
among people representative of the full diversity of the community, problem-solving
of the type embodied in community policing, and national collaboration so that
communities can learn from one another. 9
As the 21st century begins, the community mediation field faces some tough decisions and a series of enduring and new challenges. This study has found that, over the past two decades, community mediation centers have established themselves as the backbone of mediation services of all kinds throughout the nation. They have been the primary training ground for mediators in both private and community sectors and have been the prime innovators in conflict resolution programs for communities. Centers are also the largest providers of mediation services to the working poor and the economically disadvantaged.
However, this stability has come at a price. Community mediation centers in Virginia and across the United States are typically closely tied to local and state court systems. As Scott Bradley and Melinda Smith note, “community mediation centers have had a long and significant relationship with state and local court systems. Nearly half of the member centers of the National Association for Community Mediation receive more than 50 percent of their case referrals from their court systems.” 10 This situation has definite benefits and substantial drawbacks for the community mediation field, as discussed earlier in the study.
The study’s central findings are that current funding levels for court-related mediation programs in most states are insufficient to cover program management costs and that the close ties between community mediation centers and the courts limit centers’ ability to provide early intervention and conflict prevention services.
Recent research indicates that precisely these services are most needed to meet the changing, diverse needs of America’s communities. As the Maryland ADR Report Join the Resolution notes:
most community mediation centers in Maryland operate under severe resource
constraints … community mediation is a valuable service to Maryland citizens and
community mediation services should be encouraged, expanded and financially
supported … the court[s] should take a leading role in supporting community
mediation services, largely because of their potential to prevent conflicts from
reaching a level at which court intervention is necessary.11
This study also has found that the states approach these concerns in different ways, developing funding models, legislation and umbrella organizations to meet funding and coordination needs in an attempt to establish long-term financial and programmatic stability for their centers. However, there remains a massive gap between states like Maryland and North Carolina, with their extensive funding programs and active umbrella organizations, and many other states, some of whom lack a community mediation presence all together. Two-thirds of the community mediation programs included in the National Association for Community Mediation Directory (168 of the 267 programs), for example, are located in only 12 states. In rank order, these states are California, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Massachusetts, Texas, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Nebraska.
Virginia has a strong network of nine community mediation centers, a mediation coalition (the Virginia Association of Community Conflict Resolution), a mediation membership organization (the Virginia Mediation Network), and the sustained support of the state’s courts, through the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES) of the Supreme Court. Since 1994, the OES has managed state funds to pay for mediation contracts. Clearly, Virginia has a strong infrastructure for mediation and a strong track record of support for the provision of mediation to the courts.
This study recognizes that Virginia has the opportunity to serve as a national leader in the community mediation field by funding early intervention and conflict prevention mediation. While court-related program funding and priorities remain important, and will continue to be a constant presence in the community, community mediation centers must increasingly provide early intervention and prevention solutions in order to most effectively serve the needs of their communities. In Virginia, new funding mechanisms, standards, educational efforts and community programs represent a range of powerful new possibilities. VACCR, the coalition of community mediation centers, represents a clear vehicle for implementing many of these recommendations, but it will first need to address the key issue of funding. With these options, Virginia’s towns and counties will have greater opportunities to effectively prevent and manage conflict, build new community-wide strengths, and develop into the flexible, sustainable communities they envision.
Share with your friends: |
