THE PASSAGE OF THE 1980 DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT REFLECTED THE INTERESTS OF DIVERSE CONSTITUENCIES WHO SOUGHT TO IMPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF SO-CALLED MINOR OR ECONOMICALLY SMALL DISPUTES. IT PROVIDES $1 MILLION ANNUALLY FOR 5 YEARS TO CREATE A CLEARINGHOUSE TO DEVELOP NEW INFORMATION, COLLECT EXISTING STUDIES, AND SERVE AS A RESOURCE TO INDIVIDUALS AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS INVOLVED IN DISPUTE RESOLUTION. AN ADDITIONAL $10 MILLION WILL BE PROVIDED ANNUALLY TO FUND EXPERIMENTS AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS. STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE ACT CAME FROM PRACTITIONERS, ACADEMICS, COURT SYSTEMS REPRESENTATIVES, COURT ALTERNATIVES DIRECTORS, THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN THE MEDIATION-BASED NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTERS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE MOST COMMON CASES ARE INTRAFAMILY, NEIGHBORHOOD, LANDLORD-TENANT, AND MERCHANT-CUSTOMER. MEDIATORS ARE OFTEN OF THE SAME RACIAL OR ETHNIC BACKGROUND AS THE DISPUTANTS, AND HAVE DIVERSE OCCUPATIONS. COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROGRAMS STRESS MEDIATION OR CONCILIATION RATHER THAN AN ADVERSARY PROCESS, AND THEY ARE LESS COSTLY, MORE PRIVATE, AND SOMETIMES MORE INFORMAL THAN THE COURTS. AT THE SAME TIME, COURTS IN THE LAST TWO DECADES HAVE IMPROVED THE SELECTION, REMOVAL, AND DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES AND HAVE ESTABLISHED MORE AND BETTER PROFESSIONAL COURT ADMINISTRATION. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE SYSTEMS AND THE POSSIBLE DANGERS OF COERCION NEED TO BE ANSWERED. ALSO, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT JUDGES AND LAWYERS PLAY SOME ROLE IN THE CONTROL OF THESE CENTERS BY HELPING SET GUIDELINES, MONITORING PERFORMANCE, AND PARTICIPATING IN DECISIONS ABOUT CREATION OR CONTINUANCE. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED.