the community mediator - mediate.com - find mediators final version.pdf · thus began my...

The Community MediatorTheme: Quality Assurance Spring 2005

This edition of the Community Mediatoraddresses the hot (some might say burning) issueof mediator credentialing from a variety of per-spectives.

Whether you know the issue as credential-ing, quality assurance, certification, accredita-tion or professionalization (or if like me, youthink these are ALL separate issues) the way youpractice mediation in the future will be affectedby the decisions made today about how themediation community regulates itself. With theneed for mediation services ever growing in oursociety, we will become less and less an “alter-native” form of dispute resolution and more of afront-line choice for parties. As this happens, wewill certainly experience pressure from clients,courts and hopefully ourselves to develop reli-able means of guaranteeing the quality of ourservices. Indeed, this process has already begun,but frankly, folks, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”

Years ago, when asked about credentialingintercultural relations trainers, a friend of minein that emergent field told me, “The best creden-tialing system is an adequately informed con-sumer population,” and I agreed with him – thenand now. But realistically, only practitioners of afield have the knowledge base to pick competentservice providers in that field without referenceto some kind of credential – and I’d prefer not tohave to go to medical school to be able to choosemy physician.

So for me the question is no longer “Do weneed or want credentials,” but “What kind ofcredentials are best for our field?”

“Best” of course, is a highly loaded andsubjective word – best for the field, the client,the practitioner…? Does best translate to themost inclusive or most exclusive? The ques-tions can (and have) been discussed for hoursat a time.

This newsletter makes no claims aboutresolving the issue or definitively answeringthese questions. Instead, we hope to present you,our readers, with snapshots of systems andapproaches to addressing credentialing and qual-ity assurance, as well as some of the deep think-ing that inspired and underlies these systems. Wealso hope to inspire still more discussion aboutthese issues so that we, as a field, can movetowards the best possible resolution of this (dareI say) conflict.

Note: Several articles in this issue make ref-erence to the current ACR/ABA Certification proj-ect. To read more about this joint initiative, go tohttp://www.acrnet.org/about/taskforces/certifi-cation.htm on the web.

As always, we welcome feedback. NAFCMmembers are encouraged to post opinions, ques-tions, reports and findings on our listserv,NAFCM-Network. For more information con-tact the NAFCM office.

Inside This Issue - Guest Editor, Daniel JoyceQuality...Craig Coletta............................................................................................................1Time for Certification?...Daniel Joyce ..................................................................................2NAFCM’s Work on Mediation Quality Assurance...Craig Coletta........................................3What’s Going on in that Room? Safeguarding Mediation Quality in Maryland...Lou Gieszl....5New York State’s Work on Mediation Quality Assurance...Mark Collins ............................6Maryland Program for Mediator Ecellence...MACRO..........................................................7Certification: Values and Options...Barbara E. Raye, VOMA ..............................................9Institute for the Study of Conflict Resolution FAQs on Mediatior Evaluation and

Certification Process...ISCT............................................................................................12Quality and Community Mediation...Ben Carroll ....................................................16NAFCM Publications and Videos ........................................................................................19NAFCM News Updates........................................................................................................20

Qualityby Craig Coletta

1527 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20036

(202) 667-9700FAX (202) 667-8629

[email protected]

Linda Baron, Executive DirectorJoanne Galindo, Associate Director

Erika Acerra, Membership and Program ManagerPhyllis Lawrence, Development Director

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

*Hasshan Batts Hickory, NC

*Connie Bear KingNebraska Justice Center

Standing Rock TribeSioux City, IA

Mary Ellen Bowen Mid South Mediation Services

Hohenwald, TN

*Lori Burkey CASA Colorado

Denver, CO

Steve Chang, TreasurerCTC Consulting

Pasadena, CA

Mark Collins, Co-ChairCDR Centers Program

NYS Unified Court SystemCohoes, NY

Matthew FairbankDRC of Yakima and Kittitas Counties

Yakima, WA

*Irvin P. Foster, Vice ChairDayton Mediation Center

Dayton, OH

Caroline HarmonCommunity Mediation Program, Inc.

Baltimore, MD

Michele Gullickson MooreMinneapolis Mediation Program

Minneapolis, MN

Joyce JonesDispute Mediation Service, Inc.

Dallas, TX

Mark KleimanCommunity Mediation Services, Inc.

Jamaica, NY

*Najeeba Syeed-MillerWestern Justice Center Foundation

Pasadena, CA

Barbara Timmons Strahl, Co-ChairClark County Neighborhood Justice

CenterLas Vegas, NV

Thomas J. Wahlrab, SecretaryDayton Mediation Center

Dayton, OH

*indicates volunteer affiliationwith community mediation centers

The Community MediatorFOR

N AT I O N A LASSOCIATION

COMMUNITYMEDIATION

The Community Mediator Spring 2005

My attorney friend mediates at a community mediation center inAtlanta. He told me that they even let people who can barelyread and write mediate--- how can you justify that? YoungAttorney, Alcazar Hotel, Cleveland Ohio 1994

We don’t want people from other communities just cominginto our schools. When a mediator comes from the ClevelandMediation Center we know that they are culturally competent,respectful and know how to mediate. Cleveland Public SchoolOfficial, Cleveland Ohio, 2005

In 1994 I was taking Robert Benjamin’s 40 hour--- AFMapproved--- divorce mediation course. I wanted to get my ticketpunched so that I could institute a divorce and family mediationprogram at the Cleveland Mediation Center (CMC). I figuredthat I could also make some contacts with other trainees and doa little quid pro quo by providing these professionals the oppor-tunity to gain experience by providing family mediation servic-es to the low income population the center was committed toserve. While the attitude expressed above by a very young attor-ney was not universally shared by those in the room, byBenjamin or the field in general, the AFM was promoting amovement to set mediator credentials.

Thus began my exploration into the thorny issue of media-tor ----licensure, credentialing, accreditation, certification, qual-ity assurance---pick your poison. My first reaction and one thatlasted for several years was that the movement of credentialingwas anathema to the principles of community mediation.Supported by CMC’s board, I took a positional stand and active-ly trashed the notion in every venue that was available. With theguidance of Maire Dugan I spent a year researching and writinga master’s thesis on the subject. She called it the bull in the chinashop approach but acknowledged that the conclusions werevalid. Those were:• Credentialing and licensure did not improve the service being

offered

• The price of the service increased• Entry to the profession was restricted by artificial barriers.• The intent of licensure/credentials/certification was to control

the market and had nothing to do with ensuring quality serv-ice to the consumer

• Government agencies supported licensure and credentialsbecause it increased the size of the bureaucracy

Armed with statistical support and a freshly minted M.A.from the prestigious McGregor School of Antioch University, Ibecame almost insufferably zealous in my positional behavior. Iwas then elected to serve on the National Association forCommunity Mediation Board of Directors and introduced to thenotion of Quality Assurance.

When I first joined the Quality Assurance Committee I sus-pected that the term quality assurance was just a clever reframeand that the negative effects of any accreditation program wereuniversal. Other committee members included Ben Carroll,Terry Amsler, Melissa Broderick, Barbara Hart and MelindaSmith. It was working with this group that my thinking on qual-ity assurance broadened and expanded. These folks were theheavy hitters of the field. Their commitment to the growth andexpansion of community mediation was beyond reproach and Ilearned that they would not support a purely positional stand. Iwas reminded by some that my views were not exactly consid-ered main stream, and that NAFCM represented a multitude oforganizations, some of which were requesting certification. Thegroup also struggled with the idea that NAFCM’s opposition totraditional standards or certification could be used to marginal-ize community mediation. The irony that community mediationpreceded most if not all mediation efforts and had a track recordof providing excellent service galvanized the group to provide acomprehensive and accessible quality assurance effort.

Some overarching principles needed to be established.Using the characteristics of community mediation as the litmustest for the integrity of the work the group formulated the quali-ty assurance plan and agreed that these principles would beadhered to. Some of them were:1. The autonomy of each member center needed to be respected.2. The richness of the diversity of the member centers needed

to be embraced and reflected in any approach to quality assurance.

3. The approach toward approving or accrediting centers would be one of capacity building versus exclusion.

4. Mediator’s competence cannot be measured by paper and pencil testing, academic degrees or hours of training.There are some compelling reasons for NAFCM to pursue a

credentialing, licensure, accreditation path. The most compellingis that all mediation consumers deserve quality service. The otherreason that is hard to ignore is that societal culture is used to hav-ing service providers---from auto mechanics to dental hygienists--- display their credentials on the wall. Finally, an eminent threat

Time for Certification?by Dan Joyce

The National Association for Community Mediation(NAFCM) is a membership organization comprised of com-munity mediation centers, their staff and volunteer media-tors, as well as individuals and organizations interested inthe community mediation movement.

There’s a place for you in the NAFCM membership!Membership benefits include funding possibilities, network-ing, research, publications, a membership directory, andmore. From coast to coast and beyond, NAFCM enjoys aunique position as the only national non-profit organizationdedicated solely to community-based mediation programs.

To learn more about NAFCM and its members, visitwww.NAFCM.org, write us at [email protected] or call202-667-9700.

The Community MediatorSpring 2005

exists by other organizations’ plans for certification. The aggres-sive, exclusionary efforts for credentialing by ACR and the ABAlooks like the final drive for control or certainly major influenceover the process of defining who can mediate.

I wish a more inclusive consumer friendly and true media-tion practitioner process was in place. My Irish grandmotherused to say that if wishes were horses beggars would ride.Given the present climate and lack of collaboration betweenABA-ACR and the rest of the field I think it’s time for commu-nity centers to take care of themselves. CMC launched anadvanced mediation practitioner certification program mid-March. The focus is performance based, utilizing mentoring and

reflective practice. Our plan is that by the time the ABA-ACRpeddles their wares to the Ohio legislature our quality assuranceprogram will have been in place for two years.

We’ll be happy to share our progress then and would like tohear about how other community mediation programs are man-aging this credentialing crisis.

Dan Joyce is the executive director of the Cleveland Mediation Center.In addition to his duties of leading the oldest community-based media-tion program in the state, Dan served as an elected member of theboard of the National Association for Community Mediation(NAFCM), where he chaired the Quality Assurance Committee. Heserved as co-chair of the NAFCM Board of Directors from 2002-2004.

In 2000, thanks to a grant from the William and Flora HewlettFoundation, the National Association for Community Mediation(NAFCM) embarked on a two-year project to develop a newapproach to mediation quality assurance focusing on ways thatcommunity mediation centers improve and assure the quality oftheir services. This project led to the publication in January 2003of NAFCM’s Quality Assurance Guide for Community MediationCenters. While the full details of this quality assurance system aredetailed in the Guide and are outlined in the attached Introduction,certain basic statements summarize NAFCM’s positions on thisissue.

NAFCM s quality assurance guide assumes the existence of acommunity-based organization which reflects the diversity of itscommunity and which has an on-going interactive relationshipwith its community. NAFCM believes that community mediationcenters are intended to be a reflection of each community includ-ing the multitude of traditions, customs, and values. NAFCM fur-ther believes that an effective community mediation center is acollaboration between mediators, staff, boards of directors, sup-porters (including those agencies referring cases to mediation),and community.

The keystone of quality service is a consistent effort to devel-op training, services, systems, and protocols that align the mostfundamental ethics and underpinnings of mediation with theneeds and values of the community being served. NAFCMbelieves that quality assurance is a process rather than an end andis best supported through organizational self-reflection, carefulsystems design, collaboration with the community, and continu-ous improvement.

The most crucial assumptions of the NAFCM QA approachcan be summarized as follows:

1. NAFCM believes that the most crucial skill of mediators isfound in their ability to apply theoretical knowledge in a vari-ety of diverse, live, real-world situations.

While NAFCM firmly believes that a mediator's competence

and abilities should be observed, evaluated and constantlyenhanced, we equally firmly believe that a mediator's competencecannot be accurately measured by paper and pencil testing, aca-demic degrees or hours of training, and other static forms of cre-dentialing. These are ineffective means of assuring quality serv-ice. Many of these sorts of tests would exclude skilled mediatorsfrom approval for reasons unrelated to their competence (e.g. aca-demic degree requirements, written tests, assumptions about liter-acy and competence, cultural difference, language, mediationmethodology).

2. NAFCM believes that a whole-systems approach to qualityassurance is the best possible method.

Community mediation centers provide this approach through:(a) The center's on-going relationship with the trained volunteermediators, the community, and referral sources; (b) A commit-ment to a continuous growth and learning process for the volun-teers, centers and the community; and (c) The translation of cur-rent mediation theory and methodology into quality practice thatis congruent with the diverse cultures and communities it serves.

Mediators providing direct services to clients within suchquality centers, provide quality mediation services. Note that thisdoes not mean or imply perfect performance in every case –indeed, a quality mediator may make strategic or tactical errors inthe course of a mediation. The existence of a whole-systems qual-ity assurance program within a mediation CENTER, however,provides mediators the opportunity to identify, learn from andavoid repetition of such errors.

3. Quality mediation services neither begin nor end in themediation session

Of equal importance to the actions of a mediator in a givencase are the activities, systems, procedures and policies of themediation center offering services. A center’s commitment to self-assessment and improvement, community service and awareness,

NAFCM’s Work on Mediation Quality Assurance by Craig Coletta

Continued on Page 4


mediator development and effective operations greatly improveany individual mediator’s chances of providing quality (and effec-tive) services.

FUTURE STEPSThere seems to be a growing consensus in the mediation

field that quality assurance programs can better serve the publicand the field itself if translated into formal credentialing sys-tems. There are two major forms of credentialing: certificationand accreditation. As a general rule, certification is granted toindividuals and accreditation to organizations (e.g. accountantsare certified, schools of accounting are accredited). NAFCM iscurrently developing an accreditation program for communitymediation centers.

Accreditation is the granting of approval from a reputable expertin a field to a service-providing organization in that field. Inother words, the accrediting organization endorses the work ofthe accredited organization to the general public. As NAFCM isthe only organization dedicated solely to the advancement ofcommunity mediation, we believe that we have the knowledgeand standing to be a credible accrediting body. Accreditation ofcommunity mediation centers provides a number of advantagesto those centers, their clients, and the field of community medi-ation as a whole:• Clients can refer to a center’s accreditation to be certain that

they are receiving services that are up to or above the stan-dard of the field

• Centers can use the fact that they are accredited as a market-ing tool when approaching potential partner organizations

• Community mediation will be enriched and strengthened byself-monitoring and lessons learned about how to improve and guarantee quality of services.Of course, accreditation is only as valuable as the strength

of the accrediting organization’s reputation for expertise in thefield. NAFCM will work to ensure that its endorsement haslegitimate value for and to CMCs and potential clients and/orpartner organizations.

Accreditation will be granted to centers upon successfulcompletion of a center-developed, NAFCM-approved qualityimprovement plan. The basic process is as follows:

This is a pilot program with the following goals:• To provide consumers of mediation service with a reliable

guide to the quality of services provided by community medi-ation centers

• To provide community mediation centers with a credential touse when promoting themselves and their services to poten-tial clients

• To collect information about the current practices of commu-nity mediation centers

• To develop an inventory of quality improvement practices fordistribution to and use by community mediation centers

• To improve the quality of services provided by communitymediation centers The process of applying for quality improvement accredita-

tion is as follows:1. Community mediation center (“the applicant”) designs a

quality improvement plan (QIP) using the NAFCM manualand the accreditation form included with these instructions.

2. The NAFCM accreditation committee (“the committee”)reviews center application, assigns a point value to the plan,and approves or rejects the proposal

a. If the proposal is accepted, see step 3. below.b. If the proposal is rejected, the committee will contact the

center and will provide assistance in redesigning the pro-posal until it is approved.

3. The applicant carries out its quality improvement plan overthe course of 6 months.

4. The applicant writes a completion report at the end of 6months and submits it to the committee for review.

5. The committee reviews the completion report against theobjectives set out in the plan and scores the report accordingto the point value assigned in step 2.

6. The committee awards or denies accreditation as follows:a. If the report scores 90% or greater than its point value,

the applicant is accredited.b. If the report scores less than 90% of its point value, the

application for accreditation is denied. NAFCM will contact centers to explain the committee’s reasons for denying accreditation and will provide assistance in designing the center’s next application.

Documentation of quality improvement plans and comple-tion reports will be made available to all NAFCM member cen-ters for their own future quality improvement plans.

Complete details of the point system and scoring criteriawill be made available to all NAFCM centers before they decideto apply for accreditation. Non-NAFCM members can requestthis information as well.

NAFCM hopes that this program will support the growth ofknowledge and reputation of the community mediation field,protect the interests of clients and serve as a model for other cre-dentialing efforts within the field.

Craig Coletta is the former Coordinator of NAFCM and is now con-sulting. He is the editor of The Community Mediator.

NAFCM’s Work...Continued from page 3


What if we get a bad mediator?Answering this question is among the most difficult for medi-

ation advocates. It’s a concern raised by prospective participantsas well as by individuals who are skeptical about the future ofmediation. In part, the problem stems from the fact that manymediation programs rely primarily on paper-based credentialing,with the number of training hours, co-mediations and experiencecreating what is often a low standard. Outside of the world ofcommunity mediation, few if any resources are devoted to per-formance reviews or other avenues for watching mediators inaction. The question becomes more complicated depending uponwho’s asking it and what they might consider “bad” mediation.

ADVANCING MEDIATION INCREASES DEMAND FORQUALITY ASSURANCE

Mediation advocates in Maryland have struggled with thisquestion ever since 1998 when the Honorable Robert M. Bell,Chief Judge of the state’s highest appellate court, created a high-level Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Commission andcharged it with advancing the appropriate use of ADR statewide.The ADR Commission conducted a statewide consensus-buildingprocess on the future of mediation and other conflict resolutionprocesses in virtually every area of society. Although initiatedand funded by the Judiciary, the ADR Commission set out todevelop and implement a plan to move mediation forward incourts as well as in communities, schools, criminal and juvenilejustice programs, state and local government agencies, and busi-nesses. After almost two years of collaborative work, theCommission released an ambitious action plan, titled Join theResolution, and secured resources for its implementation.

The ADR Commission’s action plan included a major com-mitment to providing ongoing performance-based funding forcommunity mediation in Maryland, along with significant supportfor creating and expanding court-based ADR programs. In addi-tion, resources were made available for innovative ADR demon-stration projects in government, model school-based conflict res-olution initiatives, and a wide variety of dispute resolution effortsthroughout the criminal and juvenile justice systems. The finalchapter of the Commission’s action plan called for ensuring con-tinued progress by creating a permanent state office of dispute res-olution, which is now known as MACRO, the MarylandMediation and Conflict Resolution Office.

The one issue for which a consensus could not be achievedduring the ADR Commission process was quality assurance.While everyone agreed that safeguarding quality practice was ofthe highest priority, and while the “what if I get a bad mediator”question was ever present, there was no agreement about how toproceed. Commission members and other stakeholders bothpraised and highly criticized virtually every mediator certifica-tion, credentialing or other quality control program in our field.People argued that our efforts to advance ADR use would backfireunless the highest standards for Maryland mediators were adopt-ed. Others cautioned that regulatory approaches would necessar-

ily hamper diversity and limit the pool of available mediators at atime when entry to the field was most critical.

CREATING A CONSENSUS Acknowledging the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders,

the Commission stressed the importance of the quality assuranceissue and identified the need for further consensus-buildingefforts. MACRO picked up the issue and engaged mediators fromevery practitioner group in the state, including the MarylandAssociation of Community Mediation Centers (MACMC), to cre-ate a committee on mediator quality assurance (MQA). The com-mittee hired an expert consultant to research the effectiveness ofmediation quality control programs in the U.S. and Canada and tointerview leaders in the field on how best to safeguard qualitypractice. The committee also organized many regional publicforums along with open meetings for practitioners, attorneys,judges, and mediation consumers to share their views on the sub-ject. Finally, an intensive three-day Future Search conference washeld to involve all stakeholders in developing a mediation qualityassurance strategy for Maryland.

Throughout this process, we found that mediators reallyappreciated the opportunity to come together and talk about whatmakes for good practice. Mediators raised ethical issues for theconsideration of their peers and a few informal mediator “guilds”formed in various regions of the state. Many practitionersexplained that ever since their initial training they were “out therealone” learning on the job.

Community mediators, it seemed, were the farthest aheadwhen it came to learning from one another. Relying on a co-medi-ation model creates an opportunity for mediators at the communi-ty-level to process every mediation session, zeroing in on whatthey did well and what they could have done differently. In-serv-ice trainings create further opportunity for peer-to-peer exchangeamong mediators at every center in Maryland. In addition,MACMC serves as a mediation training resource as well as avehicle for statewide collaboration among community mediationleaders.

As the MQA committee traveled across the state, a consensusemerged supporting performance-based approaches to qualityassurance. Knowing that quality practice is “what is really goingon in that room,” requires watching people conduct mediation, notjust counting how many mediations they have done or how manyhours they have spent in training. In Maryland, a practitionergroup called the Maryland Council on Dispute Resolution(MCDR) embraces this view with its performance-based certifica-tion program, one that involves video taping mediators in a roleplay situation. A team of reviewers watches the videotape andthen either issues an MCDR certification or offers assistance tohelp the mediator improve his/her skills. MCDR’s performance-based test is based on the Family Mediation Canada model andhas been refined into an excellent tool over the past eight years.Maryland mediators report on the MCDR certification process as

What’s Going On In That Room?Safeguarding Mediation Quality In Maryland

by Lou Gieszl

Continued on Page 6


a learning experience, whether they earn certification or not.Mediators list this certification, along with any other approvalthey might have, on their resumes as a signifier of their skills.

MEDIATOR EXCELLENCEAs the MQA committee heard from mediators statewide

about the importance of continued learning, the need for interper-sonal connections, and the challenges associated with marketingmediation services, a plan gradually emerged. Instead of creat-ing a quality assurance system of hurdles and standards for medi-ators, our goal was to set up a quality assistance program thatwould help mediators continually improve their skills and wouldprovide recognition for their achievements.

The result is the Maryland Program on Mediator Excellence(MPME), a voluntary program for mediators at all levels. To par-ticipate in the MPME, mediators with basic training commit to aphilosophy of continued learning, agree to adhere to ethical stan-dards, and be subject to a grievance/ombuds process in the eventof a complaint. In exchange, mediators are offered a wide rangeof peer learning opportunities including a mentoring program,coaching, specialty training, advanced mediation training, ethicsdiscussion groups, regional networks, and a performance-basedcertification program. Although still in its developmental stage,at full maturity the MPME program will be like a tree with many

branches, growing and expanding as the mediation fieldadvances.

Mediators can note their participation in the MPME via anonline searchable directory of Maryland mediators, www.peo-ples-law.info, as well as through their own marketing. Mediatorswill also be able to note their achievements in the MPME,increasing their prominence in the field.

SEEING THE FOREST AND THE TREESOur hope in Maryland is that MPME participation will even-

tually become the “seal of approval” for Maryland mediators. Asthe program evolves, we anticipate that mediation program man-agers will encourage, or perhaps require, that anyone mediatingfor their program be involved in the MPME.

At the same time, we anticipate that the program will thrivewhere there is energy for it. As the number of community medi-ators involved increases, for instance, they will make sure the pro-gram meets community mediation’s needs. The program will beopen, adaptable, and always collaborative. Now several years inthe making, and based on the best thinking of hundreds of media-tors in Maryland and beyond, we expect “mediator excellence” tobe the new standard for our field.

Lou Gieszl is deputy executive director of the Mediation andConflict Resolution Office (MACRO) in Annapolis, MD. Formore information, visit MACRO online atwww.courts.state.md.us/macro or call 410-841-2260.

What’s Going On... Continued from page 5

New York State’s Work on Mediation Quality Assurance

by Mark Collins

The New York State Unified Court System’s Office of ADRPrograms (ADR Office) financially supports community medi-ation in all 62 counties of New York State. This article willdescribe how the ADR Office collaborated with local commu-nity dispute resolution centers to enhance the quality of servic-es those centers provide.

The ADR Office subscribes to the principles contained inNAFCM’s Quality Assurance Statement, namely that qualityassurance is a process rather than an end, and it is best support-ed through organizational self-reflection. This emphasis onprocess over outcome is analogous to our approach to the medi-ation process itself, and is reflected in the standards we haveestablished that are described below. At the same time, weunderstand that the general public and referring organizationsmust have confidence in the quality of dispute resolution serv-ices. Given that our primary goal is to assure that centers pro-vide dispute resolution services of the highest quality, we havefocused on improving the quality of mediator training andenhancing mediator assessment. Because each local center isbest able to provide an assessment of its mediators’ perform-ance, the ADR Office has focused its energy on restructuring

the application and review process for prospective trainers andaugmenting the recertification guidelines for previously certi-fied trainers. Both of these efforts—enhancing mediatorassessment at the center level and improving mediation trainingpolicies at the statewide level—contribute to the overall quali-ty of community mediation practice in New York State.

MEDIATOR ASSESSMENTThe first assessment of mediator practice begins at the

screening and recruitment stage by a local center. It usuallyincludes an application and often a follow-up interview with theprospective mediator. The second assessment occurs at the ini-tial training when the certified trainer decides if a prospectivemediator is ready to enter the apprenticeship phase of the train-ing. During the apprenticeship phase, the Program Director,with input from the trainees’ coach or mentor, decides whetherthe individual is ready to mediate alone or as a lead mediator.Similar assessments are made for mediators who are interestedin advanced mediation training. These performance assess-ments are conducted in the context of minimum statewide stan-

Continued on Page 8


Basic Requirements to Participate

1. Basic mediation training

2. Comply with ethics program,

including complaint/ombuds

program

3. Commitment to on-going

quality improvement

Regional

Networks

Grievance/

Ombuds

Practice Standards Ethics/Case/Skills

Discussions

Videotape/

Improvement

/Certification

Ethical

Standards

Mentoring

Training Standards

Substantive Skills

and

Continuing Education

Maryland Program for MediatorExcellence

This mediator quality assistance concept was created collaboratively by dispute resolution practition-ers and the Maryland Judiciary’s Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office (MACRO). MACRO isincubating the system, collaboratively, through a stakeholders’ Mediator Excellence Council. Formore information, call MACRO at 410-841-2260 or visit www.courts.state.md.us/macro.© 2003, 2004


dards of training and apprenticeship, which are describedbelow.

INITIAL TRAINING REQUIREMENTSTo obtain certification by a local center, every mediator

must complete an initial mediation training that is at least 30hours in duration and conducted by a trainer who has been cer-tified by the ADR Office. Centers have the option of acceptingmediators who were trained by noncertified trainers providedthat they interview the mediator and assess the curriculumunder which the mediator was trained, provide supplementarytraining as needed, and obtain a waiver from the ADR Office.

While CDRC staff oversee the training and performanceassessments of mediators, the State ADR Office concentrates onensuring that training content meets acceptable standards andthat individual trainers are proficient at delivering training con-tent. This has been accomplished by working in partnershipwith local CDRC staff on developing minimum requirementsfor mediators and trainers alike.

APPRENTICESHIP REQUIREMENTSEvery mediator must complete an apprenticeship that is

developed by the center and approved by the ADR Office.Apprenticeships encourage center staff to monitor the develop-ment of the newest mediators and ensure that mediators are pro-viding effective mediation services that are consistent with thelocal center’s performance standards. Although some rural cen-ters have adopted less rigorous apprenticeship plans in light oftheir relatively smaller caseloads, the majority of centers haveadopted apprenticeship plans that require mediators to observeat least one mediation session involving an actual controversybetween actual parties; mediate or co-mediate at least five casesinvolving actual controversies between actual parties under thedirect supervision of a coach; and mediate or co-mediate at leastone case and either debrief with staff or complete a self-evalu-ation instrument at the conclusion of the case.

Furthermore, centers must establish performance standardsfor mediators that delineate each center’s apprenticeship planand that include locally adopted standards of conduct. Localcenters are also encouraged to adopt a minimum number ofcases mediated or years’ experience as a certified mediator thateach mediator must attain before the center will assign themediator to a Special Case Type mediation.

ADVANCED TRAINING REQUIREMENTSMediators assigned to one of the following Special Case

Types must have been certified by the local center after com-pleting the Initial Training and must complete additional train-ing as outlined below:• Parenting Disputes Involving Child Custody and

Visitation—minimum 12 hours additional training;• Child Support Matters—must have completed the 12 hours

of training for Parenting Disputes Involving Child Custodyand Visitation and additional training as approved by theOffice of ADR Programs;

• Parent / Child or PINS (Persons In Need of Supervision)Matters—minimum 12 hours additional training;

• Child Permanency Matters—minimum 12 hours additionaltraining; or

• Cases Referred from a City, Civil or District Court—sixhours of additional training are required to mediate casesreferred from that court.

Mediators must annually complete at least six hours of con-tinuing education in order to maintain their certification. Inaddition, mediators must conduct—as lead or co-mediators—aminimum of three mediation sessions per year.

CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDIATIONTRAINERS

The Office of ADR Programs only certifies trainers whoconduct initial trainings or advanced parenting mediation train-ings. Certification is awarded after an Office of ADR Programsstaff person approves a prospective trainer’s agenda and manu-al, observes the training, reviews the trainees’ evaluation forms,and concludes that the trainer has competently and successfullyconveyed the necessary skills and knowledge to trainees. Everycertified trainer must conduct at least 12 hours of training everytwo years; receive a minimum of 21 hours of continuing educa-tion every three years; and participate in a minimum of threemediations per year as lead or co-mediator. Furthermore, atleast once every five years, staff from the Office of ADRPrograms will schedule an observation of the certified trainer.

THE FUTUREAs stated in the beginning of this article, quality assurance

is a process rather than an outcome. Therefore, it is critical thatour efforts at ensuring quality assurance are always at the fore-front of our approach to ADR. We can enhance these efforts inthe future by examining the impact of our existing standardsand performance assessments. For instance, are the trainingrequirements set by our office sufficient to ensure quality medi-ation practice? Can we improve our coaching and mentoringcapacities? Are our performance assessments adequate toimprove mediator self reflection? How can we use technologyto achieve our goals? Finally, what new ways are or will beavailable to meet our goals of ensuring quality mediation serv-ices?

Mark Collins is coordinator of the New York State Office of CourtAdministration’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs, locatedin Albany, NY. Mark currently serves as co-chair of NationalAssociation for Community Medication’s (NAFCM) Board ofDirectors.

New York State’s Work... Continued from page 6


INTRODUCTIONThe field of alternative dispute/conflict resolution is looking

at the development of a certification program for our professionalmediators and organizational practitioners. This is not a new topic,but is a current and critical issue for all of us. My discussioncomes from the perspective of a trained mediator, working in anational association, and advocating for restorative dialogue as away to reduce conflict, address harm, and create peaceful commu-nities.

It is important to acknowledge that these are multiple per-spectives. Many can work for peace in communities and relation-ships from many motivators and philosophies. Many can embracethe philosophy of restorative justice, seeing its application in allthey do, and yet never identify as a practitioner. And, many qual-ified mediators do not inform or influence their practice and lifework from a philosophy of restorative justice/dialogue. My per-spective combines all three.

When the current issue of certification came up in my con-versations with colleagues I had several reactions. One includedthe fact that I had recently been in a conversation with a couple ofour international members about creating a program that wouldmeet the needs of a growing profession in Europe and Africa.Other reactions came from my own history in grass-roots move-ments that experienced the “professionalizing” of a field of prac-tice a) to further alienate communities of color, b) lay and giftedpeople feeling marginalized, and c) something we hoped everyonewould embrace becoming a “specialty” thought to be the provinceof only a few.

My personal reactions included both head and heart respons-es. “Yes”, it might be beneficial to have more “chips” or lettersbehind my name, and “No”, I didn’t want to go through any has-sle to be “recognized” by strangers for work and skills I havedeveloped and used over the past 20 years.

REASONSThere are several reasons today that a certification program

could bring value to our work, our profession, and our clients. Ican identify several reasons that a field might seek to create itsown certification process and brand.1. One is if we are in a highly competitive battle with others for

the work and feel a need to ratchet up our reputation or “cre-dentials” to better compete. Certification becomes a “salestool” or “proof of worth” to consumers or potential funders. Itmight also create a “brand” that garners market position andreputation.

2. A second is if there have been problems with practitioners andcomplaints about the skills or effectiveness of our members orothers who claim to be mediators. Certification could poten-tially then be used to “weed out” poor or incompetent serviceproviders.

3. A third is to provide value as a membership organization and toensure ongoing need for (and participation) in training andprofessional development. This third reason has both a busi-ness side and an altruistic element. (Who can oppose continued

and life long learning?)4. A fourth is the desire to professionalize the field and create a

new employment path. Why shouldn’t people whose work pro-duces greater success at lower cost be able to make a livablewage?

5. A fifth is a concern that if we don’t do it ourselves someone isgoing to “do it to us”. As more legislation and privileges coverthe role of mediator/mediation, we may want to be proactive indetermining credentials rather than having them be externallydefined.

6. A sixth is habit and/or precedence in how other fields havedeveloped and sustained themselves.

7. A seventh is that we’ve been asked to do so by colleagues whofind value in the USA’s history and reputation as they attemptto build the practice in their own countries.

Reason number seven (7) is why VOMA is having discus-sions with European and African friends. I don’t know all themotivating factors for the current discussions in the United States.When I asked a few colleagues about the ACR/ABA-lead initia-tive, the answer was “all of the above”.

CONFLICTSMy conflict about the majority of the above reasons is relat-

ed to our mission. We strive to foster and expand restorative jus-tice dialogue, principles and practices. Over the past few years wehave wanted teachers, law enforcement officers, attorneys, affir-mative action and personnel professionals, community mediators,judges, supervisors, public officials, young people, family mem-bers, and community leaders all to understand and embrace thevalue of restorative justice principles and the practice of princi-pled dialogue.

We have a vision of a transformation of our culture frombeing an environment of competition and retribution based onwin/lose to becoming a culture of peace and harmony . . . • where differences are embraced and talked about• where a win/win solution is the primary and automatic focus• where family and community members are actively involved in

meeting the needs of victims and offenders and preventing vio-lence in their families, institutions and public places

• where people are skilled at addressing conflict on their ownIf we approach the issue from the perspective hoping that

everyone embraces the principles of restorative and social justicein all parts of society, we might be at odds with most of the rea-sons to create a certification program.

On the other hand, if we interpret our mission from the per-spective of developing practitioners we have other interests. Wecannot (and should not) presume to heal others or over promisewhat facilitated dialogue can offer, but we must attempt to ensurethat the practice of facilitation and/or mediation is done with care,skill, and ethics.

VOMA and its members a) care about quality work, b) areadamant that people working with victims do not re-victimizethem, c) are adamant that both the dialogue process and its facili-

Certification: Values and Optionsby Barbara E. Raye

Continued on Page 10


tators must not cause further harm in the name of restorative dia-logue.

Many of us are also trainers and have seen people attend ourtrainings that we would not want to be doing mediations in all sit-uations. We also earn our livelihood as mediators, run programswith both paid and volunteer staff, manage contracts for service,and seek funding to sustain our work on both individual and orga-nizational levels.

Today’s young professionals are indeed seeking ways tobring recognition to their skills and to be successful in the work-place. But all of us have been required to be better consumers ofour own health care, legal counsel, financial management andother services where we once relied on the degree or certificationhanging on the wall. The same requirement exists in the field ofmediation. Young people are asking professionals not just whatdegree or credentials they have, but where have they practiced,what skills have they acquired, what contexts and communitiesthey understand, and who are their references/teachers. Where isthe balance between a recognition of skills/knowledge on onehand and expanded and ever growing opportunities for practiceand new practitioners on the other?

VOMA believes that it is in the practice that expertise isdeveloped, nuances learned, and cultural competence acquired.Our programs are under attack both by a suspect public that wor-ries about being soft on crime as well as financial crises in all 50states. What priorities do we have for limited resources when pro-grams where people can practice are struggling for survival? If welimit opportunities for much needed experience in practice andfocus on credentials, do we do a disservice to both individualpractitioners as well as to those they serve?

COSTSThere are also costs associated with a program that purports

to certify or sponsor an individual’s skills or actions. How muchis the cost of people’s time to prepare materials for even a modestcertification program? How much does it cost to operate a nation-al database, issue updates and reminders, handle complaintsand/or suspension of credentials? How much must the certifica-tion program cost its participants in order to sustain the infrastruc-ture to administer the program? Is it worth that cost?

I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced that we won’t dis-sent quietly and will require processes of reconciliation and/ormediation on every point. We will spin our list serves and net-works either by being a part of the decision-making or recoilingand “advocating” about it once it is in place. Who pays the directcost of such process? VOMA members are struggling forresources to do the direct work that is so needed in their commu-nities. Who has the time and financial resources to fully partici-pate in the certification development process?

But, more important is, what are the opportunity costs of suchprocess? What will we not do in order to focus time, money, andenergy on certification? Can we spend significant time focusingon our internal needs and personal/professional issues without our

clients, communities, and victims of crime ultimately paying forit in lack of services, volunteer time, and focus on much neededprogram development?

We have made a commitment to hold diversity as core to ourwork and our values. How does (or can) a certification processinclude diversity of opinion, practice, model, values, process, lan-guage, and role? How do communities historically not included inour work experience the introduction of a certification programjust as they begin to enter the field and practice? I suspect that itwill often be experienced as a change of rules and/or one morebarrier to participation – regardless of our words to the contrary.What is the cost of another experience that might feel like thesame old exclusive, racist and classist system we are supposed tobe trying to address?

QUESTIONSWe’ve often heard “the devil is in the details” and it surely is

in this case. What role do trainers and supervisors play in certifi-cation? Shouldn’t we be the ones held accountable for the practiceof those we train and supervise? Aren’t we the most present tospeak to demonstrated skills?

Do you have to be a certified mediator to train? Are they dif-ferent skills? What about specialties of practice? I’ve heard sever-al VOMA members talk about the need to “un-train” some peoplewho were trained as mediators when it comes to teaching aboutrestorative dialogue and VOM. Can we “reject” someone who hasbeen certified by the field? On the other hand, I have also heardVOMA members express concern that some people think thatafter a three-day basic training they can just “go mediate” any-thing. I’ve also heard concern about the two-day basic trainingintroduced by a colleague organization as being inadequate.

What about the people of color and lay people with learnedskills and natural talents who are looking to mediation/dialogue asa profession and source of income for work they have been doingin their communities for a lifetime? Does certification help or hin-der their opportunities to acquire paying jobs? Does certificationhelp or hinder the likelihood that we will better integrate andembrace indigenous and international processes and practitionersinto the field and the knowledge they bring into our own practice?How do we safeguard a certification program from establishingrequirements and evaluation measures that measure things onpaper rather than in real life, or standards that are too mainstream,academic, or otherwise narrow?

Can we both tell everyone they can learn and practice restora-tive dialogue yet also hold it up as a specialty that needs to be wit-nessed and certified by others? First we must indeed come toaccount for our own knowledge. Not everyone can be a mediator.Not everyone is equally qualified and effective–regardless of theamount of training they receive. But we must also voice theknowledge that often a lay, sensitive, trained person who under-stands and facilitates dialogue is more effective that the besttrained mediator/arbitrator.

If certification is thought to be a necessity in order to ensurean elevated standard of practice, how then does one explain ourillustrious history of a quarter of a century of healthy practice ofserving victims, communities, systems and offenders? We have

Certification...Continued from Page 9


enjoyed this history due to the dedication of all those who per-formed services as mediators–as paid professionals and as volun-teers. And what would not being certified say to those we haveserved all these years? That they, the most vulnerable, poor, andoppressed don't rate a certified mediator? We could, in ourattempt to make something better, create unintended conse-quences that create even more problems.

I found it difficult to answer some of the survey questionsposed by ACR/ABA about this issue. I tend to be suspect of sys-tems that lay the label of “expert” onto community practitioners.But I don’t want to reject out of hand an idea that might well servethe field and our members. And I am also obligated to act on theethical questions: “How does certification better meet the needs ofvictims? How does certification better embrace diversity andracial, cultural and class inclusion? How does certificationaddress our mission?” It is in the details that address these ques-tions that the answer to the question “should we?” can only beanswered.

PERSPECTIVEWhile some VOMA members compete with attorneys for

payment to settle cases, most do not. Most are working in smallnonprofit organizations or working as professionals in the crimi-nal justice (or other) system trying to make systems change–try-ing to bring a peaceful alternative to the adversarial and punitivejudicial process. Most of us are not in “private practice” seekingto have VOM be a paid part of a legal settlement in major cases.We are mostly about a movement. A movement of peace, of com-munity based dialogue, of restorative processes facilitated by laypeople guided by a powerful set of professional ethics.

Those ethics require us to . . .• be trained before we practice and then to practice often, seek-

ing feedback and guidance• continue to learn and update our skills• train others and give feedback when someone is not qualified• assess the situation at all stages including necessary pre-medi-

ation sessions and to conduct mediation/dialogue only whenpeople are ready and able to participate.

Our ethical obligations also require us to . . . • use our power to make a positive difference in the world• identify and address systems of oppression• open up opportunities for people who have skills and have

earned the respect of others as a mediator/facilitator.VOMA members see the path to certification as fraught with

problems and consequences. Some are financial, some are details,and some are values. When we get into value conflicts we havelearned to step back, look at self-interest in relationship to valuesand mission. We have learned to operate out of a place of healing,inclusion, and love rather than an analysis based on scarcity andfear. We should embrace the ethics and principles that guide ourwork and their implications for the current issues that face us.Only then can we with clear head and open heart co-create orreject a national certification program.

CONCLUSIONS AND OPTIONSConclusion A: Some very good service providers will be exclud-

ed from the certification process because it will be set up to meas-ure competencies reflective of dominant professional culture.Some will be excluded because of costs or access to informationor tools.

If we want to ensure access to the profession and to the serv-ices we provide, we will care about open, inclusive, easy points ofaccess, diversity of practice, and multiple venues for programdelivery.

We should study and evaluate new models of practice thataddress historical barriers to obtaining service or to obtainingtraining and practice experience.

Shuttle mediation, on-line education, video conferencing,more stable program funding, writing and reporting by practition-ers whose experience we haven’t yet integrated into our collectiveunderstanding , cross-professional training and application of dia-logue/mediation processes, and stronger expectation of culturalcompetence are just a few investments we should be making.These investments might take precedence over individual creden-tialing.

Conclusion B: Certification does not prohibit incompetent orinsensitive practitioners from practicing. It may steer consumerstoward “certified” service providers, but most won’t know whatthat certification means and still not be empowered consumers ofmediator services.

If we care about helping people be good consumers of ourservices and to demand that alternatives be made available to them,we might work together on a massive consumer education initia-tive and publish/promote the stories and evaluations of our work.

We should publicize the training and practice experiencewe believe are essential and issue guides for referral agenciesas well as consumers on what questions to ask and how toselect a mediator that meets their needs.

Conclusion C: It is essential in these times, to ensure the qualityof practice and to be able to compete (or advance broader use ofmediation/dialogue) based on competence and results.

If we care about the quality of practice and want to make thecase based on the results of our work, we have options that maybe just as effective, cost less, and receive greater overall supportthan trying to ensure outcomes through advance credentialing ofthe provider.

We should use evaluation tools to document outcomesinformed by clients and communities. (VOMA has one.) Weshould use self-evaluation instruments for program qualityassurance (NAFCM has one.) and develop the capacity andcompetency of supervisors and trainers.

Making sure that we have collective expertise in adult educa-tion, program quality assurance, effective oversight, feedback anddevelopment of human resources, and outcome based evaluationmight be a better investment than credentialing.

Conclusion D: We need greater awareness and “branding” for ourwork and organizations to have the legitimacy they deserve andattract the investment of resources they need.



If we care about broad public awareness of alternative dis-pute/conflict resolution processes and practitioners, we might col-laborate as a field to change public opinion and public policy,

We should invest in collective media and strategic com-munication efforts, shared marketing, and joint developmentefforts. We might also share resources to advance legislationor to build the capacity of our members to do so in their ownstates.

Conclusion E: We must do what we can to ensure that our field isa source of ethical, professional, and responsible practitioners.

If we care about principled work, we will want to ensure thatprofessional standards of ethics are published and adhered to byour members.

We should develop a shared set of standards of ethicalpractice , peer review, and guidelines for both individual prac-titioners and programs. These standards should be developednot only by us, but in dialogue with our customers, funders,and publics.

There might be equal market value to each of us claiming thatwe comply with such a collaboratively developed and broadly dis-tributed set of international standards of ethics and that we aretrained by certain professional organizations than that we werecertified by those organizations.

The reasons for certification are legitimate. However, in clas-sic mediation practice, we should move from the position of cer-tification to the interests of our mission and values. Perhaps thereare more effective answers to the challenging questions we face.

Barbara Raye is executive administrator at Victim Offender MediationAssociation (VOMA). For more information about VOMA, please visitwww.voma.org.

Certification...Continued from Page 11

Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation(ISCT) Frequently Asked Questions

WHAT DOES CERTIFICATION MEAN FOR ME?A mediator who has successfully completed the ISCT sum-

mative assessment process may use the designation CertifiedTransformative Mediator™ on all professional correspondenceand advertising materials. This mediator may also be listed on theISCT website as a Certified Transformative Mediator™, whichmakes the mediator accessible to people throughout the country(and the world) who are looking for competent transformativemediators. Finally, certification is a prerequisite for mediatorswho wish to join any mediator rosters sponsored by the ISCT forcorporate or governmental clients.

WHAT IS "SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT?"“Summative assessment” is a term used for an evaluation con-

ducted at a specific point in time by people who need to draw specif-ic conclusions about competence. “Summative assessment” is gen-erally distinguished from “formative assessment,” a process that isoriented to supporting learning and development.

We use the term “summative assessment” to describe the evalu-ation process that is used for purposes of certification. However, our“summative assessment” process has both summative and formativedimensions. Summatively, the process allows the ISCT to draw spe-cific conclusions about a mediator’s competence in the transforma-tive framework at a specific point in time. At the same time, theprocess provides targeted developmental feedback to the mediator,which many mediators find extremely valuable in itself. The forma-tive value of the process is comparable to that of an individualizedcoaching session with an expert in the transformative framework. WHY IS SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT IMPORTANT TOTHE ISCT?

Although the ISCT remains committed to supporting ongoingmediator development through the production of educational

materials and the sponsorship of mediator training programs,among other things, we also see a need for a summative assess-ment process. There are many reasons for this:1. We want to be responsive to, and support, the many program

administrators who have consistently voiced a need for sum-mative assessment approaches to support their own local qual-ity control efforts.

2. We want to protect the integrity of the transformative model,and minimize the potential for confusion among various mod-els, by providing a means for assessing whether practitionersand programs going by the name “transformative” are trulyengaged in transformative practice.

3. We want to support the possibility of valid and reliableresearch into the effects of transformative mediation, by pro-viding a way to assess whether the mediators who are researchsubjects actually are engaged in transformative practice.

4. We want to protect the ability of mediators to use the transfor-mative model, by offering an assessment alternative for thoseprograms that are currently using assessment processes basedsolely on the problem-solving model. While the developersand administrators of such programs may not intend to excludetransformative mediators from their ranks, they sometimesexclude transformative mediators nonetheless because theyadopt assessment processes that capture only problem-solvingcompetencies.

5. The ISCT has been approached by organizations that seekaccess to a roster of mediators who are competent in the trans-formative approach. It is within the ISCT mission of support-ing the field, and supporting mediators who wish to engage intransformative practice, to develop such rosters, and thisrequires a thoughtful process for determining practice compe-tence.


HOW DOES SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT RELATE TO CERTI-FICATION?

The ISCT summative assessment process is a rigorousmethod for determining the competence of mediators in the trans-formative framework. Because of its rigor, we believe that a medi-ator who undertakes this process, and completes it successfully,should be designated a Certified Transformative Mediator™. Thissignals to the mediator, and to the public, that this mediator hasmet a high standard of achievement in understanding, applying,and demonstrating competence in the transformative framework.

WHAT IS “TRANSFORMATIVE MEDIATION”?Transformative mediation is a particular approach to practice

that was described and explained in detail by Robert A. BaruchBush and Joseph P. Folger, in their 1994 book, The Promise ofMediation. Since 1994, numerous scholars and practitioners, inassociation with Bush and Folger, have continued to elaborate thetheory and the practice of transformative mediation.

The goal of transformative mediation is conflict transforma-tion, that is, to help parties in conflict change the quality of theirconflict interaction, by supporting the parties’ own efforts atempowerment and recognition, as those efforts appear in theunfolding conversation during the mediation session. This meansthat a transformative mediator practices with a microfocus. Simply put, the mediator • closely follows the parties’ unfolding conversation in the

mediation session,• identifies opportunities for empowerment and recognition as

those opportunities appear in the parties’ own conversation,and

• responds in ways that allow the parties to act on those oppor-tunities, if and how they choose to do so. Transformative practice has transformative effects --- visible

shifts in each party’s personal clarity, decision-making capacity,and responsiveness to the other --- that are apparent in the unfold-ing conversation.

WHAT IS A “COMPETENT” TRANSFORMATIVE MEDI-ATOR?

Competence in transformative mediation --- the ability to actconsistently and reflectively in a way that supports the parties’efforts at conflict transformation --- is a function of the mediator’sunderstanding of the theoretical foundations of the process(including its underlying premises, principles, and purpose), andhis or her ability to enact that understanding in the context ofunfolding conflict interaction.

Therefore, the necessary competencies of transformativemediators are as follows:

Competency #1Mediators should understand the theoretical foundations of

the transformative framework (including its underlying principles,premises, and purpose).

Competency #2 Mediators should be able to apply their understanding of the

theoretical foundations of the transformative framework (includ-ing its underlying principles, premises, and purpose) to specificmediation situations.

Competency #3 Mediators should be able to demonstrate with some consis-

tency the moves and strategies associated with competent trans-formative practice.

WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR THE ISCT SUMMATIVEASSESSMENT PROCESS?

This process is based on research and applied work on thetransformative framework that has been conducted by ISCT mem-bers for over a decade, beginning with Bush and Folger’s land-mark book on transformative mediation, The Promise ofMediation (1994, Second Edition 2004).

That work has included: developing clear “pictures of prac-tice” through close analysis of transformative mediation video-tapes and transcripts; studying approaches to mediator develop-ment and assessment, in order to build mediator competence inthe transformative model; incorporating assessment methods intomediator training, especially through close analysis of mediators’interactions in mediation simulations; developing an advancedcoaching process based on close analysis, with mediators, ofvideotaped interactions of those mediators in mediation simula-tions; and conducting research on the in-session practices of com-petent transformative mediators. .

All of this work has led to the development of a summativeassessment process that is based on:1. close analysis of a mediator’s practices (verbal and non-verbal

communication) in the course of a video-taped mediation ses-sion, and

2. discussion with the mediator about the “how” and “why” of hisor her practice. At the 2002 Symposium of the Institute for the Study of

Conflict Transformation, entitled “Assuring Mediator Quality:What are the Alternatives?” at the University of Maryland Schoolof Law in Baltimore, Maryland, we presented a ProvisionalSummative Assessment Process and invited public comment.Participants at the Symposium were generous with their comments,insights and suggestions, and many of those were integrated intothis final summative assessment process adopted by the ISCT.

We thank all who have contributed to the development of thisprocess, including our colleagues at the ISCT, the participants atthe 2002 Symposium, and the participants in other projects con-ducted by the ISCT.

WHO CONDUCTS THE ASSESSMENT?Summative assessment is (and should only be) conducted by

a well-trained assessor, who is thoroughly:1. familiar with the theory and practice of transforma-

tive mediation;2. educated in the foundations of this process; and 3. trained by ISCT members in how to recognize, code and ana-

lyze markers of competent transformative practice in the ongo-ing interaction of a mediation session.

HOW IS THE ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED?The Summative Assessment process has two parts:

1. Part 1 is the Performance Assessment, and2. Part 2 is the Interactive Component.

We summarize each of these aspects of the assessment processseparately in the following paragraphs (and separate linked webpages), but note that we consider both essential to thorough assess-ment of the three competencies we set forth earlier in this paper.



Likewise, the mediator must “pass” both Parts 1 and 2 in order to bedeemed competent in the transformative framework.

In Part 1, an assessor observes the performance of a mediator ina videotaped session, codes the mediator’s interventions, and uses arating scale to analyze the quality of the mediator’s performance.The assessor then prepares written feedback for the mediator. First,the assessor prepares a brief narrative keyed to several core mediator“strategies” (see below for discussion of these strategies), noting whatthe mediator did well and what the mediator needs to improve upon.Based upon this narrative summary, the assessor then rates the medi-ator’s competence on each strategy as “outstanding,” “satisfactory,”or “unsatisfactory,” according to a scale he or she has been trained touse. Finally, the assessor reviews the ratings assigned to each strate-gy, in order to make a determination of whether the mediator should“Pass” or be “Deferred” on the Performance Assessment portion. Ifall ratings are “satisfactory” or better, the mediator will “Pass.” If anystrategy is rated as “unsatisfactory,” the mediator will be “Deferred.”

In Part 2, the assessor evaluates the mediator’s understanding ofthe transformative framework, and ability to apply it, by engagingwith the mediator in ways that draw out the mediator’s own descrip-tions and explanations of his or her practice. Here, the mediator’s own“voice” is introduced into the assessment process through both a writ-ten Self-Assessment provided by the mediator and a telephone inter-view between the assessor and the mediator. If the mediator “Passed”the Performance Assessment portion, the goal of the InteractiveComponent is to analyze separately the mediator’s understanding ofthe theoretical foundations of the model and the ability to apply thatunderstanding in practice. This is a key component of assessment,which must be passed independently of the Performance Assessment,because it indicates whether a mediator will be able to engage consis-tently in transformative practice. If the mediator was “Deferred” as aresult of the Performance Assessment, this discussion will take placein the context of developmental, personalized coaching, rather thansummative assessment per se.

At the conclusion of this interactive process, the assessor willdiscuss his or her overall impressions with the mediator, particularlyimpressions related to areas of strength and areas in need of furtherdevelopment. The assessor will also rate his or her overall assessmentof the mediator’s understanding of the model and ability to apply it,as “Satisfactory” or “Unsatisfactory.” A “Satisfactory” rating on theInteractive Component, coupled with a “Pass” on the PerformanceAssessment, indicates that the mediator should be “Approved” as acompetent transformative mediator. An “Unsatisfactory” rating onthe Interactive Component would require the assessor to reach a deci-sion of “Deferred” on the overall application of the mediator, despitea “Pass” on the Performance Assessment.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO KNOW TO BE SUCCESSFUL INATTAINING CERTIFICATION?

To successfully complete the summative assessment process, amediator must understand the theoretical foundations of transforma-tive mediation, be able to apply those concepts to specific mediationsituations, and be able to demonstrate competent practice in a consis-tent manner. Said another way, a mediator should know what to do,how to do it, and why.

Mediation practice is always more than a simple matter of“skills.” Mediators’ interventions are guided by what the mediatorbelieves about people, about conflict, and about the purpose of con-flict intervention. An understanding of “good” practice begins withan understanding of these fundamental beliefs and how they shapepractice.

Transformative mediators believe that people have the inherentcapacity --- and the need --- to act with both strength of self (empow-erment) and quality connection with others (recognition). Conflict isunderstood as a crisis in human interaction that interferes with thisneed to act with compassionate strength. It causes people tobecome both relatively weak and relatively self-absorbed, thusdiminishing their capacity to act with personal clarity, make deci-sions, or consider other perspectives. Processes that promoteempowerment and recognition provide the opportunity for peopleto restore or rebuild their capacity to act with compassionate strength.Hence, the purpose of conflict intervention, in transformative media-tion, is to support the parties’own efforts at empowerment and recog-nition, as those efforts emerge in the parties’ unfolding conversationin the mediation session.

These beliefs suggest certain assumptions about “good” media-tor conduct --- principles that shape a particular way of being presentin the midst of unfolding conflict. A mediator who practices from atransformative perspective is comfortable with conflict, includingstrong emotion and interactions between the parties that appear hos-tile or negatively charged. The mediator respects the parties and theirchoices. The mediator is patient with the parties, and is comfortablewith a limited understanding of the parties’ conflict. The mediatorfocuses on the parties’ moment-by-moment interactions, attending toempowerment and recognition opportunities that appear. And, themediator is willing to relinquish problem solving and control of theprocess.

In addition to understanding these fundamental beliefs and prin-ciples for mediator conduct, the mediator should also understand howthese beliefs and principles shape appropriate mediator behavior. Ingeneral, this means that the mediator should know how to recognizeopportunities for empowerment and recognition in the course of anunfolding conversation, and how to respond in ways that support theparties’ own efforts at empowerment and recognition in the midst ofconflict.

WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO ON THE VIDEOTAPE TO BESUCCESSFUL IN ATTAINING CERTIFICATION?

The successful mediator will demonstrate competent trans-formative practice during the Performance Assessment. That is,he or she will support party efforts at conflict transformation byattending to opportunities for empowerment and recognition asthey arise in the parties’ conversation and responding to thoseopportunities in ways that highlight them for the parties and allowthem to choose what, if anything, to do about them.

This is obviously not the proper medium for teaching trans-formative practice. Competent transformative practice is devel-oped through study, training, practice, and self-reflection.However, we do want to highlight here the types of interventionsthat the assessors will be looking for as they analyze the video-tapes.

Generally, as we noted above, the appropriate goal of media-tor intervention in the transformative framework is to supportparty efforts at empowerment and recognition. Mediator “moves”

ISCT FAQs...Continued from Page 13

The Community MediatorSummer 2004

and “strategies” are concepts that provide a way for the assessorto closely and carefully analyze the communication of the media-tion session and determine if the mediator is actually supportingparty efforts at empowerment and recognition. Research showsthat certain communication strategies support empowerment andrecognition:• Framing mediation as a constructive conversation• Supporting the parties’ sense of their own agency• Supporting the parties’ orientation to each other• Supporting the parties’ “conflict talk”• Supporting the parties’ decision making process

Brief descriptions of each strategy follow. In addition, we haveattached to this FAQ paper a copy of An Assessor’s Guide to Movesand Strategies, in order to illustrate the types of moves that support,or are contrary to, each strategy. We caution, however, that thesedescriptions and charts are not a substitute for thorough training andeducation in the transformative framework. ● Framing mediation as a constructive conversation Transformative mediators use the metaphor of “constructive conver-sation” as a way to describe the mediation process. This metaphorcan be heard in many different ways as mediators work with the par-ties, and it functions to support party efforts at both empowermentand recognition. It is an empowering metaphor, because conversa-tion is something that people know how to do. Conversation alsoimplies dialogue and participation, reinforcing parties’ connection toeach other. In addition, because there are many successful outcomesto a conversation, the metaphor allows for definitions of success thatgo beyond reaching an agreement. Finally, mediators who concen-trate on helping the parties have a constructive conversation are bet-ter able to keep a microfocus on opportunities for empowerment andrecognition. ● Supporting the parties’ sense of their own agency In the transformative framework, mediators support the parties’sense of their own agency --- that is, their own potential ability toexert power or achieve certain goals in the mediation session.Directly tied to empowerment, this strategy keeps the parties’ rolecentral to the mediation process, rather than the mediator’s role. Itis characterized by language that signals the parties’ ability to actand to decide, if they so choose. A mediator is utilizing this strate-gy when he or she conveys to the parties that “this is all about you,”rather than “this is all about me.” An important marker is pronounusage, i.e., more “you” talk than “I” talk. In addition, a mediatorusing this strategy tends to use moves that “get out of the parties’way” rather than moves that take control or get in the parties’ way. ● Supporting the parties’ orientation to each otherMediators who practice in the transformative framework also supportthe parties’ orientation to each other --- or, said another way, theirawareness of the presence and connection of both (or all) concernedparties. Through this strategy, mediators provide a foundation for thepossibility of inter-party recognition, without forcing recognition.This strategy provides opportunities for the parties to build interper-sonal understanding should they choose to do so. An example of amove in this strategy is allowing direct party-to-party talk. ● Supporting the parties’ “conflict talk”This strategy marks a key difference between transformative andproblem-solving mediators. “Conflict talk” is oppositional talk --- itmay consist of a series of opposing exchanges between the partiesor a single party describing the other in oppositional terms. Conflicttalk is important, because it is as the conflict unfolds in the room thatparties can learn new information, present themselves in new ways,

create new understandings and make informed decisions. Becausethe capacities for decision-making (empowerment) and interperson-al understanding (recognition) are built through conversation, trans-formative mediators allow conversation to happen, even when itgets hot. The mediator “follows” that unfolding conversation, lis-tening for places of “difference,” “contention,” or “heat,” wherechoices can be highlighted or possibilities for building greater inter-personal understanding emerge. ● Supporting the parties’ decision-making processFor the transformative mediator, the emphasis on party empower-ment requires that the mediator highlight all possible decision-pointsand offer them to the parties. The mediator understands that“process” and “content” are inherently linked and offers decisionsabout both to the parties. Parties are making decisions throughoutmediation --- whether to stay, who should talk when, what to say,what not to say, whether to listen, how to listen, how to talk, what todo, etc. A mediator true to this strategy: (1) avoids making any deci-sion that could be made by the parties, and (2) notes possible deci-sion-points and offers them to the parties, without forcing decisionsupon them.

In summary, to succeed on the Performance Assessment, themediator should submit a tape that demonstrates competent transfor-mative practice. The assessor will assess the tape by closely observ-ing the mediator’s interventions in the session, coding each move,and analyzing whether and how each move either supports, or inter-feres with, each of the above strategies. Through this process, theassessor will be able to determine whether the overall patterns of themediator’s practice support party efforts at empowerment and recog-nition, or work against them.

HOW SHOULD I PREPARE FOR THE ASSESSMENT?The best preparation for the assessment is to practice transforma-

tive mediation regularly, in a self-reflective way. As a foundation forregular transformative practice, most mediators engage in some com-bination of training, mentoring, education, self-guided reading, and/orstudy groups, that meets their own personal needs and situation.

HOW DO I PREPARE A TAPE?The videotape may involve an actual mediation session or it

may be an unscripted, unrehearsed, uncut mediation simulation or“role play.” The ISCT has no preference in this regard. The mostimportant factor to the ISCT is that the assessor has an opportunityto observe the performance of the mediator in the course of real-timeinteraction. We have found that simulations provide an adequate rep-resentation of a mediator’s interactive practices for assessment pur-poses.

If you wish to submit a tape of an actual mediation session, youmust obtain the written permission of your clients to videotape thesession and submit it for evaluation. The ISCT provides a form forthis purpose. You are also advised to check on the confidentialityrequirements in your state and/or for your mediation program. Whileconfidentiality provisions typically apply only to mediator testimo-ny about the substance of the mediation session, and thus would notprevent videotaping of a session for evaluation purposes, provisionsdo vary by locality and it is your responsibility to be sure that youare in compliance with your local provisions.

To find out more about the Institute for the Study of ConflictTransformation, Inc., call 701-777-2022 or visit www.transforma-tivemediation.org.

The Community Mediator Summer 2004

“Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.” HenryFord; “Quality is never an accident. It is always the result ofintelligent effort.” John Ruskin. Meaning that we need to belooking at quality all the time, even if others are not. However,these days, everyone is.

IDENTIFYING QUALITYAs always, the devil is in the definitions. As many know,

NAFCM spent considerable time (even blood, sweat and tears)before becoming reasonably satisfied with its definition of medi-ation. Incidentally, this definition has been adopted by theAssociation for Conflict Resolution (ACR) in its certificationwork. [see ACR web address below].

As you might expect, quality is defined differently in manyarenas, though perhaps a reasonably well-accepted overall defini-tion would be “serving the needs and expectations ofcustomers/users.” In mediation, we can all agree that there are cer-tain elements or characteristics that we expect will be present: vol-untary participation and self determination; impartiality and/orneutrality; confidentiality; absence of conflict of interest; basiccompetence (albeit various formulations). Community mediatorscan also usually agree that there are certain things we don’t feelare necessary: a particular academic degree (i.e., alphabet soupafter your name); a particular occupation or background, etc. Aswill be discussed below, NAFCM has been cautious in “one-size-fits-all” definitions and struggles to be inclusive. Others also rec-ognize this challenge. Charles Pou, Jr., Mediator QualityAssurance [cited below]:

“Numerous people expressed a strong belief that definitionsof "mediator quality" will vary depending on a particular pro-gram's goals. Indeed, some thought that initially defining "media-tion" is critical to discussing quality intelligently, and that effortsto define and measure quality mediation must recognize andaddress these variations.”

There is a considerable body of work on what individual char-acteristics a mediator needs and much of the current efforts arelooking at certification of individuals [see reports noted below].While NAFCM and NAFCM centers are involved in this to vary-ing degrees, NAFCM’s main efforts have been directed at howcenters can develop and maintain (consistently deliver) qualityservice.

WORK IN THE FIELDThe early “quality” efforts of conflict resolution organizations

understandably centered on the performance of individual media-tors – beginning logically with the required minimums such asethical conduct. Thus, the Society of Professionals in DisputeResolution (SPIDR) adopted Ethical Standards of ProfessionalResponsibility (1986) and consistently worked in this area withgroups such as 3CQ (Committee on Credentials, Competenciesand Qualifications). SPIDR also joined with the American BarAssociation and American Arbitration Association to produceModel Standards of Conduct for Mediators (1994). This work iscurrently under review by the Association for Conflict Resolution.ACR has also established a Mediator Certification Task Force thathas issued a report available on the ACR website [http://www.acr-

net.org/about/taskforces/certification.htm]. The Academy of Family Mediators [before its merger into

ACR] established certain levels of training, experience and peerreview for higher level, “practitioner” membership. AFM alsodeveloped criteria for trainers and training and recognized train-ing as AFM-approved when it met these standards. This AFM-approval of training was frequently recognized as desirable bygovernment and private bodies.

NAFCM has been involved with other organizations in thefield in some of these efforts to identify what makes a good medi-ator. This collaboration included participation in the VoluntaryMediator Certification Project, (University of Georgia CarlVinson Institute & Academy of Family Mediators, 1998-2000).This project produced and tested a bank of multiple-choice ques-tions pertaining to mediator knowledge and skills that has notbeen publicly released. This may be due in part to concerns abouta written examination in general – one of NAFCM’s issues.

NAFCM’S APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCENAFCM has oftentimes served as (and/or considered itself

as) the advocate or “watchdog” for maintaining the diversity ofthe field while seeking relevant and useable standards and prac-tices. Because NAFCM represents community mediators, andcommunity mediators work through centers (as opposed to inde-pendently), NAFCM views the center as the basis for qualityassurance. Many of the techniques and processes that appear tofoster “good” mediation (interactive training, mentoring, etc.)were developed by community mediation centers. Communitymediators, more than any other part of the field, naturally feelattuned to a systems approach because we generally believe thatif the process is well done, the result (outcome, etc) will take careof itself. Because of the way centers operate, however, regularassessment both of volunteers and services are critical in devel-oping consistency – a hallmark of quality.

Systems Approach: Soon after NAFCM’s formation, itbecame clear that community mediators were concerned withvarious certification schemes but also very diverse in their feel-ings about this as a way of maintaining quality. As a result,NAFCM took the approach of reframing the debate from thepros and cons of certification to a broader view of what consti-tutes and how to ensure quality. This was circulated as a paperwithin NAFCM and subsequently published: Brodrick, Carroll& Hart, “Quality Assurance and Qualifications, NIDR News,National Institute for Dispute Resolution, Vol. V, No. 2(April/May/June 1998) 3, 6, 13 [nafcm.org]. In this wayNAFCM hoped to expand the discussion by highlighting andstudying how centers produce quality service through the totali-ty of how they operate. These factors include screening andrecruitment, training; training evaluation, apprenticeship andmentoring, co-mediation, continuing education, etc.

NAFCM continues to emphasize the dynamic nature ofquality assurance in more recent statement: “NAFCM believesthat quality assurance is a process rather than an end and is bestsupported through organizational self-reflection, careful systemsdesign, collaboration with the community, and continuousimprovement.”

Quality and Community Mediation by Ben Carroll

The Community MediatorSummer 2004

Assessment: Viewing quality as a process or system logical-ly leads NAFCM and its centers to the conclusion that everythinga center does impacts its ability to produce quality mediation. Afirst step in assuring quality then is identifying current status andfor this reason, NAFCM developed the Community MediationCenter Quality Assurance Self-Assessment Manual: NAFCM(2002) [www.nafcm.org].

A number of centers are now using this manual and this feed-back will inform how the manual can be best utilized. This typeof assessment can easily be adapted to peer review by other cen-ters and could also be the basis for review and/or accrediting byNAFCM.

ACCREDITING CENTERSMediation UK [www.mediationuk.org.uk] is an organization

in the United Kingdom that serves a similar function to NAFCMin the United States, representing over 200 mediation services.Several years ago Mediation UK developed a mediation centeraccrediting scheme and is now involved in administering a nation-ally approved training course and mediator assessment. In coop-eration with Community Legal Services (U.K.’s Legal Aid),Mediation UK awards a Quality Mark for mediation services.CLS also awards Quality Marks for solicitors (lawyers)[www.legalservices.gov.uk].

Mediation UK’s earlier accrediting scheme for centers is notavailable online but will be useful in NAFCM’s review of thispossibility through its Quality Assurance Committee. There isalso considerable downloadable information on Mediation UK’scurrent quality program, although the government connection andother features may make this less attractive.

QUALITY TOOLSA key factor in improving center operations is the collection

and analysis of information. In this vein, NAFCM assisted centersseveral years ago in securing case management software. Oncecollected, however, the challenge is always how to analyze andpresent information so it is useful. As one quality guru states:

“Quality measurement is effective only when it is donein a manner that produces information that people canunderstand and use.” Philip B. Crosby

Various tools and visual methods can be useful in displayinginformation [see, for example, Maryland’s Quality Tree in thisissue]. While some of these tools may appear simplistic, they areparticularly useful for explaining efforts to various stakeholders inthe center. Many centers already use a variety of tools in theirstrategic planning efforts, such as SWOT analysis (strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) or the PDCA wheel (plan-do-check-act). The authors and websites in the next section are astarting point for finding useful tools and techniques such ascause-and-effect diagrams, flow-charting, logic models, etc. [Seealso: www.mindtools.com; http://erc.msh.org/quality].

SOME THOUGHTS ON QUALITY✔ Learning Despite the Lingo A lot of what is written aboutquality assurance has its roots in manufacturing and this can bedistracting to practitioners in the human services arena. However,

an increasing number of books are translating this material intolanguage more palatable to non-business practitioners. As in otherareas, jargon and acronyms are plentiful (e.g., TQM – total quali-ty management). Just as many non-profits adapt what is usefulfrom business despite the language, a center can find tools andtechniques despite daunting titles, and buzzwords.✔ Quality People A center that decides to delve into quality lit-erature may run across several names since most of what has beensubsequently written owes something to one or more of these pio-neers.Edward Deming [http://deming.org/] is considered the architectof the phenomenal Japanese manufacturing revolution that shookDetroit automakers and established a Japanese reputation for qual-ity. After his success in Japan, Americans took notice and nowthere are Deming study groups in many cities. His work has beenapplied in many contexts outside manufacturing such as educationand government and he popularized the use of “quality tools” togauge improvements.Philip Crosby [www.philipcrosby.com] took a human resourcesoriented approach based on culture change in an organization:identifying areas for improvement, improving awareness, institut-ing teams, setting goals, etc. His popular, non-technical workssuch as Quality is Free (1979) and Running Things: The Art ofMaking Things Happen (1986) were some of the first booksdirected at managers rather than quality control engineers.Joseph. M. Juran [www.juran.com] was an early proponent ofstatistical quality control and his Quality Control Handbook hasbeen in use through fifty years and five editions; his work evolvedinto a now popular business process known as Six Sigma. He isknown for conceptualizing the Pareto principle (separating the"vital few" from the "useful many") -- commonly referred to asthe 80-20 principle.Tom Peters is often added to this group based on his popularbooks, In Search of Excellence (1982) and A Passion forExcellence (1985) that stress leadership as the key to qualityimprovement. Although perhaps broader in focus, the work ofPeter Drucker [http://pfdf.org] is important for non-profits, partic-ularly his assessment tools. He authored Managing the Non-ProfitOrganization: Practices and Principles (1992). ✔ Baldrige National Quality Award [www.quality.nist.gov;www.baldrige.gov/Criteria.htm] The Malcolm Baldrige awardwas created in 1987 to identify organization’s key strengths andkey opportunities for improvement. It is given by the President tobusinesses and to education and health care organizations thatapply and are judged to be outstanding in seven areas: leadership;strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement,analysis, and knowledge management; human resource focus;process management; and results. The award will soon be expand-ed to specifically include non-profit and government organiza-tions; many of the past education recipients already fit these cate-gories. The instruments (checklists, etc.) used in applying for theaward are available for organizations to use in their own self-assessment of organizational strength.

Nearly every state has a quality award; you can find these bysearching: www.networkforexcellence.org. Many state awardsalready include non-profit categories and/ user-friendly language.Other work in English: British Quality Foundation[http://www.quality-foundation.co.uk] and Canada’s NationalQuality Institute [http://www.nqi.ca].

Quality Mediation...Continued from Page 15


The Community Mediator Summer 2004

✔ United Way The United Way [http://national.unitedway.org/out-comes/] has developed considerable resources useful for organiza-tions interested in measuring the effects of their work – i.e., theirprogram outcomes. An example is a 170 page manual,“Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach.” Thismaterial is free or low cost and may also be available from yourlocal United Way. These resources introduce tools such as flow-charting and logic models.✔ Mediator Quality Monographs (1) ABA Section of DisputeResolution Task Force on Credentialing, Report On MediatorCredentialing and Quality Assurance (Discussion Draft, October2002) [www.abanet.org/dispute/taksforce_report_2003.pdf] –largely based on (2) Charles Pou, Jr., Mediator Quality Assurance:Report to the Maryland Mediator Quality Assurance OversightCommittee (2002) [www.policyconsensus.org/pci/policiestools/QA_MD_Report.pdf]; (3) Judy Filner, An Introduction toMediator Credentialing (2000) [www.keybridge.org/med_info/credentialing.htm]; (4) Ellen Waldman, CredentialingApproaches: The Slow Movement Toward Skills-Based TestingContinues [www.convenor.com/madison/waldman.htm].

WHAT OTHERS SAY ABOUT QUALITYPhilip B. Crosby, author of “Quality is Free,”[http://www.philipcrosby.com] (March 2000):

The problem with the quality business has always been thelurking impression that we're talking about varying degrees of"goodness." In the secular world, people refer to "high-quality"restaurants and "low-quality" products and everyone pretends toknow what that means. It's OK for anyone to use words any waythey wish. That's their privilege. But those of us who have to makequality happen must have a definition that's manageable andmeasurable. "Goodness" is neither. I have always defined qualityas "conformance to requirements"; the ISO 9000 procedures usethat definition also. This lets us measure the price of nonconfor-mance … . Then we can see progress or lack of it; we can seewhere the problems originate and can contribute to the organiza-tion's … success. … [I]t's not based on feeling good or knowingquality when you see it or exceeding customer's expectations orbeing excellent. None of those have meaning that can be commu-nicated, and they aren't measurable. This is not some intellectualexercise. This is about real life and being useful as a quality pro-fessional.

ACR Mediator Certification Task Force, Report andRecommendations to the ACR Board of DirectorsMarch 31, 2004 [http://www.acrnet.org/about/taskforces/cer-tification.htm]:

The Task Force has identified the following as the core set ofvalues that must be reflected in any mediator certification processto be established:1. Self determination by the parties2. Impartiality of the mediator3. Disclosure of conflicts of interest

4. Competence of the mediator5. Confidentiality of the mediation process6. Ensuring the quality of the process7. Appropriate advertising and solicitation8. Charging appropriate fees9. Obligation to improve the mediation process10.Ability to manage diversity in the mediation process

Forrest S. Mosten, The Complete Guide to MediationChicago, IL: American Bar Association (1997) 183:

Since mediators are currently not licensed in any state –unlike lawyers, therapists, and accountants – the public cannotrely on state-sanctioned standards and examiners to screen outincompetent or unscrupulous mediators. Anyone can hang up ashingle and call himself a mediator! … [T]he issues of objectivecompetency and civil immunity are increasingly being tiedtogether in public policy debates within the professional commu-nity and in state legislatures. If unlicensed people (perhaps alsountrained, unskilled, and unscrupulous) are able to charge thepublic for their services and yet are not accountable for mistakesor malfeasance, perhaps the public needs greater protection.Therefore, lawmakers and state officials are viewing standards(possibly leading to licensure or at least certification) as a condi-tion for continued immunity, if not the right to practice mediationin the public marketplace. Since courts too are using mediation aspart of the public dispute resolution scheme, judges and local pub-lic officials are also placing trust in the skill and integrity of staffand volunteer court mediators and have a right to be assured thatthe mediators are competent.

Homer La Rue, “Symposium: Standards of ProfessionalConduct in Alternative Dispute Resolution,” 195 Journal ofDispute Resolution 95 (1994) 116:

One of the things that we’ve been concerned with as we movetoward this notion of professionalization is the notion of maintain-ing diversity. … There are lots of people who have been doingmediation, been doing it effectively, who do not have formalpaper qualifications. And I think that we ought to be very carefulas we begin to move toward professionalization because as we doit, we’re going to exclude, and if we do that I think we’re going tolose some very important expertise … I really do want to empha-size the importance for us to keep in mind that we want to main-tain the diversity that is now, or has been historically within themediation ranks.

Ben Carroll is a former NAFCM secretary and community mediationcenter director. He currently teaches, mediates, arbitrates, and prac-tices disability rights law in Honolulu.

If you have comments, questions or suggestions concerning diversi-ty or related topics, please contact Ben Carroll [email protected] the National Association for Community Mediation, 1527 NewHampshire Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20036-1206, Tel: 202-667-9700, Fax: 202-667-8629, E-mail: [email protected]. NOTE:web sites change without notice; those herein were functional at thetime of writing.

Quality MediationContinued from Page 17


NAFCM PUBLICATIONS

NEW Release! Community DisputeResolution, Empowerment, and Social Justice:The Origin, History and Future of aMovement by Paul Wahrhaftig"I wrote this book from a concern that the pri-mary goal of many of the CDR founders - usingCDR programs to promote social change - isbecoming lost as the field matures. I hope torevitalize the vision" - Paul Wahrhaftig Copyright 2004, 99 pp.

Price: NAFCM Members: $16.95. Non-members: $19.95.

Community Mediation Center Self-Assessment Manual The NAFCM Quality Assurance Committeelooked at mediation quality as an ongoing projectof self-reflection and analysis on the part of com-munity mediation centers. This manual presentsa range of questions, items for discussion, andresources intended to help centers determine forthemselves what quality services really mean intheir communities and contexts. Copyright, 2002,209 pp.

Price: $25.00

More publications and videos are available onthe NAFCM website www.nafcm.org. Order andpay for your purchase on-line.

1527 New Hampshire Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20036

(202) 667-9700FAX (202) 667-8629

www.nafcm.org

Community Mediation Center Self Assessment Manual

Developed by the Quality Assurance Committee of:

1527 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20036

FOR

N AT I O N A LASSOCIATION

COMMUNITYMEDIATION

NAFCM NEWS UPDATESNEW FROM NAFCM PRESS: Purchase your copy of “Community Dispute Resolution, Empowerment and Social Justice: TheOrigins, History and Future of a Movement” by Paul Wahrhaftig, on-line at www.nafcm.org “…a page turner! Full of interestingstories! I highly recommend it for anyone who wants to better understand the history and development of community based disputeresolution and the challenges that these programs face.” - Rosemarie Schmidt, Co-Executive Director, Network for ConflictResolution, Canada.

REGIONAL TRAINING INSTITUTES: In March, in connection with Association of Missouri Mediators' Heartland RegionalConference, NAFCM conducted its specialized training, Developing and Managing Community Mediation Centers. NAFCM flewto Golden, CO in May, for its second RTI of the year, in connection with Colorado Community Mediation Coalition and DenverUniversity. “What a joyous realization that there is support of our work and recognition of the benefits that will impact many with-in our vast community.” – S. Gabrielle Frey, Face to Face Mediation, Aurora, CO and RTI participant.

GET OUT THE CALENDAR: Please make arrangements to join us for our next Regional Training Institute to be held in conjunc-tion with a Maryland Association for Community Mediation Centers gathering, September 16-17 in where else? Maryland! Thistraining is open to all NAFCM members from anywhere in the world. More details will be made available on the NAFCM website.

NAFCM MINIGRANTS: For those of you who submitted proposals for our March 2nd deadline, the Minigrants ReviewCommittee is scheduled to meet July 22-23 in Washington, DC. Results of the committee review will be announced the last week inJuly. Our next minigrant deadline is September 1, 2005.

Return Service Requested

the community mediator - mediate.com - find mediators final version.pdf · thus began my...

Documents