U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Dispute Resolution Centers, Part 1 - Major Features and Processes

NCJ Number
70583
Journal
Criminal Justice Abstracts Volume: 12 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1980) Pages: 416-439
Author(s)
J Garofalo; K J Connelly
Date Published
1980
Length
24 pages
Annotation
Important features and processes of dispute resolutions centers, including program sponsorship, mediator and disputant characteristics, and referral sources, are reviewed in detail in the first of two articles that evaluate case outcomes and assess future prospects for dispute resolution mechanisms.
Abstract
The following common features are ascribed to most dispute resolution centers, or neighborhood justice centers: (1) cases are usually between individuals, (2) mediation is the primary technique used for dispute resolution, (3) volunteers are used as mediators, (4) dispute resolution centers are voluntary, noncoercive alternatives to the courts, and (5) hearings are conducted in a relatively informal atmosphere. A comparison between dispute resolution centers, court-annexed programs, using arbitration of civil claims, and small claims courts notes the differences between each method of handling disputes. Major features of dispute resolution centers are delineated in the following areas: (1) sponsors, (2) mediators, (3) sources of referrals, (4) types of cases, (5) demographic characteristics of disputants, and (6) size of caseload. Most of the cases received by the centers are referred from some point in the criminal justice system and reflect conflicts and strains in ongoing personal relationships. Demographic characteristics of disputants depend strongly on the population traits of the area in which the dispute resolution center is located. A discussion of process issues identifies sources of case attrition and describes the elements in a typical hearing procedure, as well as possible variations in the hearing process, such as the number of mediators, mode of communication, and degree of formality. Three sources of case attrition are (1) the decision of legal justice system personnel not to refer the case, (2) settlement of disputes before the mediation hearing is held, and (3) failure to achieve the cooperation from one of the parties to a dispute. The description of hearing procedures notes that the use of several mediators instead of one in a dispute usually occurs in centers that emphasize community-based problem solving, where the actual mediation process itself is viewed as more important than the expeditious settlement of disputes. About 50 references are provided in footnotes. Five data tables on case referrals and case attrition are provided.