State of Knowledge: Community Mediation at a Crossroads

• Date: 01 April 2015
• Author: Lorig Charkoudian,Michal Bilick
• Published date: 01 April 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21112

C R Q, vol. 32, no. 3, Spring 2015 233

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21112

ARTICLES

State of Knowledge: Community Mediation at a

Crossroads

Lorig Charkoudian

Michal Bilick

 is article reviews the experience of community mediation centers over

the last ten years, including a review of the literature and national sur-

veys of centers and volunteers. From this literature review, a new survey

was created to examine how eff ectively community mediation centers

are meeting the social change vision and the needs of their communities.

 e results show success and creativity in some areas and struggles in

others.  e article concludes with a discussion of community mediation

values and emerging areas of practice, as well as a recommendation for

a research agenda.

In 2004, Tim Hedeen wrote an article on the state of community

mediation to assess the successes and challenges of the fi eld and high-

light potential future directions. Ten years later, we look back on Hedeen’s

assessment, examine articles and studies that have been published since

2004, and conduct and analyze a survey of community mediation cen-

ters.  is article explores what it means to be a community mediation

center (CMC), how eff ectively community mediation centers are meet-

ing the original vision, and emerging areas of practice for community

mediation.

Where We Were: Community Mediation in 2004

In his 2004 work, Hedeen highlights the potential of community media-

tion and the challenges that must be addressed in order to meet that poten-

tial. He indicates that most programs are nonprofi t agencies or housed in

234 CHARKOUDIAN, BILICK

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

nonprofi t agencies, but a considerable number are in the justice system or

within a public agency. Hedeen fi nds that while centers protect their inde-

pendence and neutrality, the vast majority of cases mediated by CMCs are

referred from courts. He writes, “Such close ties have led some to question

whether this arrangement risks the neutrality and integrity of mediation

(Hedeen and Coy 2000), while others view this level of coordination and

institutionalization as the fi eld’s greatest promise” (Hedeen 2003, 109).

 is has implications for funding and for the timing of interventions in

confl ict. With the acknowledgment that “form follows funding” (111),

Hedeen (2003) highlights the concern that as community mediation cen-

ters receive larger portions of their funding from the court system, they

tend to adopt the values of that system rather than act as an independent

organization focused on self-determination.  e question about the high

percentage of referrals from the court system also raises concerns about the

timing of mediation. Hedeen (2003) writes,

 e timing of community mediation services varies considerably, and

is diffi cult to track. While NAFCM [National Association for Com-

munity Mediation] member centers are committed to “providing a

forum for dispute resolution at the earliest stages of confl ict,” the court-

referral fi gures already presented clearly demonstrate another commit-

ment: “to provide an alternative to the judicial system at any stage of a

confl ict” (National Association for Community Mediation, 2003).  e

high proportion of court referrals refl ects that many cases have esca-

lated to the point of court action, even prior to reaching community

mediation centers. (116–17)

Hedeen discusses the types of broader support for CMCs, comprising

state court offi ces of dispute resolution, nonprofi t state associations of

CMCs, and national organizations such as the National Association for

Community Mediation.

Two unique features of community mediation, according to Hedeen

(2003), are the range of types of mediation as well as services beyond medi-

ation they conduct:

 e range of services varies by center, but a national survey turns up

centers providing confl ict resolution and communication skills training,

meeting facilitation, public policy mediation, organizational consulting

including dispute system design and strategic planning, conciliation . . .

State of Knowledge 235

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

arbitration, restorative justice processes such as conferencing and circles,

and in Cleveland, a homeless prevention program. (113)

One signifi cant challenge for community mediation according

to Hedeen (2004) is the narrow and limited research on impact. Most

evaluations of community mediation highlight resolution rates; partici-

pant-reported satisfaction with the process, outcome, and mediator; and

participant-reported sense of fairness. A few studies have tested the dura-

bility of resolutions, and even fewer have measured the cost and time effi -

ciency of community mediation. At the time of his writing, there were no

studies capturing the impact on the broader social goals of community

mediation. Hedeen (2003) highlights the need for analysis on three lev-

els: “individual, organizational, and societal” (125). He goes on to write,

“ e most diffi cult level of research is, predictably, that which has received

the least attention: the eff ects of community mediation on society. Does

community mediation democratize justice? Does it lead to greater self-

suffi ciency?” (127).

In her commentary in response to Hedeen’s 2004 article, Baron (2004)

highlights the fi ve areas on which she suggests the community mediation

movement needs to focus in subsequent years.  e fi rst is data collec-

tion and research. She discusses NAFCM’s attempt to support centers

to collect standard data that could be analyzed at a national level and

the fact that this attempt did not meet its potential because of limited

staff resources in CMCs. Second, she articulates the need for training and

leadership development, including in areas such as program management

and government relations.  ird, she articulates the need for funding for

centers, statewide associations (ideally independent and outside of state

administrative offi ces), and national organizations to support centers. She

identifi es leaders in the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) fi eld who

got their start in community mediation as potential donors, and com-

munity foundations and state government as possible funding sources to

pursue. Fourth, she highlights the need for CMCs to participate in policy

development on issues such as mediator quality assurance and credential-

ing, as well as state-level policies such as funding for mediation. Finally,

she highlights the need for eff ective communication and public relations

strategies, with tailored messages for the “general public, consumers,

referring agencies, funders, and policy makers” (140).  is includes work

to develop partnerships within federal agencies and alliances with other

national organizations.