Measuring Community Mediation Success: A Realistic Approach

Community Mediation Phase Four

Measuring Community Mediation Success: A Realistic Approach

            The success, or failure, of the community mediation project is subjective. Small wins for one stakeholder may be a monumental accomplishment for another. Mediation participants may even see their original resolution objective evolve during the process.  This is good news because it demonstrates the ability to learn and develop one’s opinions and beliefs. The efficacy of community mediation defies a score. Hedeen (2004) notes community mediation success is not a quantitative solid.  Success can and should be measured based on participant and community satisfaction, the sense of fairness, and longevity of resolution. It is difficult, but not impossible, to value these perceptions. 

            However, one outcome that does not qualify as success is a resulting firm decision of right or wrong. In other words, groups who enter, participate, and exit a mediation process should not have the objective of being proven right (or others being proven wrong). Mediations that chase this type of outcome are doomed to fail. So the question looms:  what is successful community mediation? The key to the answer lies in the original objective statement. If the onerous process in phase one and two of identification of all parties and interests is fully completed at the very onset of community mediation, the process will have a valid objective statement on which to build.

            Perhaps most important, mediation objectives may be as multifaceted as the emotions that surround the dispute. Mediators and administrators seeking efficiency by grouping complaints or dispute topics may easily torpedo a potential positive outcome. Mediator neutrality is a noble goal, but may prevent preliminary planning that might uncover attitudes and beliefs that cross the isle (Mulcahy, 2001). In addition, given the history of the dispute, time and circumstance may deem it impossible to label two sides (Walters, 2012). Overtime, roles and attitudes may change. For example, in the community statue debate, an efficiency vs. comprehensive might be:

 

Efficiency Goal:  Remove or Retain Statue

Comprehensive Goal: To be Heard,

Understood and Considered;

To Create Community Dialogue

Group Representation:

Group Representation:

  Retain Statue – Sons of Italy, Historical

        Society (partial representation)

Cultural: Italian, Hispanic, Indigenous, Slovenian,

         Unknown

  Against Statue – Coalition Ethnic Rights Group

Business: Adjacent Business, Business Network(s)

 

Economic: Chamber of Commerce, Economic

         Development

 

Community: Library, Historical Society

 

Education: Local School Districts, Colleges and

         Universities

 

Local Government: County, City, Planning, Parks

          and Recreation, Roads, Police, Sheriff,

          District Attorney

 

Short Term Success

            Group mediation benefits from the “circling back” process which allows participants to reconnect with initial needs and desires. An additional benefit, which is perhaps more important, is to demonstrate progress towards conflict resolution. Recognition of small moves towards ZOPA (zone of potential agreement) have the ability to support continued work. Every mediation meeting should incorporate review of the original stated objectives, areas of personal discovery, and current discussion status. 

            Short term success is not necessarily a definitive plan of action or a solidified mediation agreement. Success in the short term may be as basic as the ongoing support of meeting and discussion. This small success may be particularly difficult to explain to leadership who wants to know a resolution rather than continuum of meetings.  In community mediation participant interviews, I try to ask questions that will help reveal intent. For example, the statue debate demonstrates the importance of digging below the right-wrong issue to reveal stakeholder descriptions of justice.

Long Term Mediation Success

            Long term community mediation success is best seen through the lens of transformation.  In community cultural disputes, ongoing communication and dialogue may be as important as dispute resolution. Communities who have experienced successful mediation of cultural disputes are sometimes amazed at the emerging cohesive nature of community dialogue. These communities may be inspired to either establish or further support community relations organizations. 

Community Burnout

            One word of warning: burnout. Community mediation is onerous and exhausting for all those involved and it is understandable that participants want nothing more than to resolve a dispute and put the program in their rearview mirror.  Unfortunately, it is all too easy to take a break from the meeting process, or worse, simply “put the issue to bed”. This is where the skilled mediator assists in the community in one last exercise: building a community conflict resolution structure. The time and effort devoted by all stakeholders (government, community, business and education) in successful mediation has resulted in a regional pool of conflict specialists. This is a priceless outcome and one that has the potential to transform a community. 

            In a world of budgets, schedules, elections, and all things related to time and effort, we can be forgiven in wanting a definitive box to mark success or failure in community mediation. The truth is that success is defined by the community. Outside observers may be excused in not being able to grasp the true outcome of a community mediation exercise.  What cannot be excused is the inclination of outside observers to espouse personal (or organizational) opinions on the efficacy of a community mediation exercise.  Stakeholders live, work, and relate in the community, and it is the stakeholder who completes the report card. 

 

References

Hedeen, T. (2004). The evolution and evaluation of community mediation: Limited research suggests unlimited progress. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1), 101-134.

Mulcahy, L. (2001). The Possibilities and Desirability of Mediator Neutrality - Towards an Ethic of Partiality? Social & Legal Studies10(4), 505–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/a020411

Walters, H. (2012). Exploring the everyday world of hate victimization through community mediation. International Review of Victimology18(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269758011422472

 

Views: 16

Comment

You need to be a member of ADRhub - Creighton NCR to add comments!

Join ADRhub - Creighton NCR

@ADRHub Tweets

ADRHub is supported and maintained by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program at Creighton University

Members

© 2021   Created by ADRhub.com - Creighton NCR.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service