Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:24 pm
Time: 9:24 pm
Results for dispute settlement
8 results foundAuthor: Victoria. Office of Police Integrity Title: Improving Victorian Policing Services Through Effective Complaint Handling Summary: This report examined Victoria Police's alternative dispute resolution system, known as the Management Intervention Model, utilised in up to 30 per cent of police complaints. The report details a number of recommendations to improve the complaints handling process. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2008. 53p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 115365 Keywords: Complaints Against PoliceDispute SettlementPolice IntegrityPolice Misconduct |
Author: Brown, Alison P. Title: The Role of Mediation in Tackling Neighbour Disputes and Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: The aims of the study are to provide evidence about mediation and alternative approaches to the resolution of neighbour disputes, and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and costs of mediation compared to legal remedies such as actions for repossession and anti-social behaviour orders. An additional objective was to investigate the reasons for refusing to take part in mediation. In the study, the main research methods used were analysis of 100 cases from two community mediation services and two local authority mediation services, and 50 legal proceedings cases (eviction, anti-social behaviour order and interdict) from local authorities. In addition, parties to mediation were interviewed to compare their view of outcomes with those recorded by mediation services. Housing officers who make referrals to mediation, and a small number of people who had opted not to take part in mediation, were also interviewed. The main methodological challenges were the difficulty in obtaining data from environmental health, police and housing services, and to a lesser extent from mediation services; the reasons for this included data protection considerations, and lack of time recording. Specialist investigation teams provided the most robust data, but few areas of Scotland have such teams therefore these costs may not be typical. In general, the mediation cases examined involved mildly anti-social behaviour or serious personality or lifestyle clashes. In most cases, the main presenting issue was noise, either noise of domestic appliances, children, dogs, and other 'normal' living, or noise of parties and loud music. A smaller number of disputes originated in disputes between children, with which parents had become involved, or disputes over boundaries and upkeep of common areas. Cases remained live in mediation services generally for between two weeks and two months. Half of the cases included at least one non-council-tenant party. In 61 percent of cases, the outcome recorded by the mediation service was either full or partial agreement or some improvement in the situation. In just under half of these cases (in 28 percent of all cases), the mediation service recorded an agreement on all presenting issues. Mediators themselves, however, suggest that there are likely to be positive outcomes in terms of changed awareness, which cannot easily be measured, even in 'unsuccessful' cases. The profile of interventions, outcomes and costs varied significantly between mediation services. From the perspective of participants, however, outcomes recorded at the close of a case are not necessarily a reliable guide to the longer-term outcomes. Although outcomes are not always worse than those recorded, the proportion of positive outcomes recorded by some mediation services appears not necessarily to reflect the experience of participants. Participants' views demonstrate some of the challenges facing mediation, but show a generally positive view of the process, even where it does not bring the desired outcome. A number of participants, however, have found the mediation process more traumatic than might be expected. All legal action cases studied involved serious and protracted anti-social behaviour, often including fighting, verbal abuse, swearing and damage to property. In most cases, it involved the perpetrator and visitors or family members, and in all cases it affected more than one neighbour. In many cases, there was a history of criminal convictions and/or mental health and/or alcohol-related problems. These cases in general were quite different to those found in mediation services. The seriousness of the behaviour was reflected in the length of time from decision to take legal proceedings to an outcome; this was usually several months and often one or two years. The majority of perpetrators were local authority tenants. In terms of outcomes of legal cases, it is particularly difficult to assess the long-term outcomes of evictions and transfers, which were the short-term outcome in half of the cases. In the short term, several cases were 'solved' by the perpetrator moving away, being imprisoned, or being offered a community care package. In only two cases were proceedings dropped due to evidence of improvement in the situation. The majority of anti-social behaviour orders examined were breached, some of which breaches were then prosecuted. From the 100 mediation cases studied, the average cost of handling a case was 121, which rose to 204 when face-to-face or shuttle mediation was involved; and the maximum case cost was 484. Costs for local authority mediation services were, on average, slightly lower, but this reflects a higher proportion of cases where no contact was made with parties to the dispute. From the 50 legal cases, the average cost was 3,546, with a range from 339 to 13,692 for a very complex eviction case. These are net costs, however, and would be considerably higher if overheads were included. Average costs of ASBOs and repossession actions were approximately 2,250 and 9,000 respectively. These figures should be read in the context of the diverse organisational arrangements found; that is, the costs depend on the proportion of work carried out by a specialist team with its own budget, or by housing managers, where costs are likely to be absorbed. In terms of unwillingness to take part in mediation, or to see the process through to a conclusion, the main reasons given by refusers themselves were: unwillingness to engage with the other party; fear of reprisals; belief that the other party did or would manipulate the process or the mediators; fear of an escalation of the dispute; and the desire for a definitive judgement on their case. Lack of knowledge about mediation or of confidence in mediation services did not appear to be a significant factor. Legal action costs far more than mediation, due to the seriousness of disputes, but also to the procedures required in order to prepare a case for possible court action. There are local variations in the amount of evidence generally thought to be necessary for a strong case. Although mediation will not be sufficient to deal with serious anti-social behaviour, which is associated with alcohol and drug abuse, mental health problems or criminal activity, its cost effectiveness suggests that there is considerable scope to extend mediation in the area of neighbour disputes. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research, 2003. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0025566.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0025566.pdf Shelf Number: 120837 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (Scotland)Dispute SettlementMediationNuisance Behavior and Disorder |
Author: Uwazie, Ernest E. Title: Alternative Dispute Resolution in Africa: Preventing Conflict and Enhancing Stability Summary: Backlogged court dockets in Africa, often requiring claimants to wait years, are common. The resulting perception that justice cannot be attained through official channels is a potential catalyst for intergroup violence and political instability. Alternative Dispute Resolution is an increasingly popular complement to official legal channels to resolve less serious disputes in a timely manner through mediation while enhancing claimants’ sense of justice. Establishing legislation supporting Alternative Dispute Resolution as well as broadening the number and caliber of mediators can expedite the adoption of this mechanism. Details: Washington, DC: Africa Center for Strategic Studies, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Africa Security Brief, No. 16: Accessed November 22, 2011 at: http://africacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AfricaBriefFinal_16.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Africa URL: http://africacenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/AfricaBriefFinal_16.pdf Shelf Number: 123419 Keywords: Courts (Africa)Dispute ResolutionDispute Settlement |
Author: Kralstein, Dana Title: A Comprehensive Community Justice Model: An Evaluation of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative Summary: This report evaluates an ambitious and comprehensive new community justice initiative implemented in two communities of Baltimore, Maryland beginning in late 2004. The initiative, funded by the Crane Family Foundation, aims to reach adults and youth alike, and seeks to incorporate a broad array of justice system agencies and community-based organizations. An important question is whether such a comprehensive model can produce a large and sustainable impact, both within its target communities and in the Baltimore City justice system as a whole. There were three principal components of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative: focus on the justice system; school conflict resolution; and youth advocacy. Community Justice – Prosecution, Capacity-Building, and Collaboration This component encompassed three goals. The first goal was to develop a community prosecution project in the Hargrove District Court servicing the communities of Cherry Hill and Pigtown – and perhaps to lay the groundwork for a community court at some point in the future. The second goal was to strengthen the capacity of community organizations to become significant contributors to the ongoing discussion about justice in Baltimore. Lastly, the initiative intended to create a network of justice system and community stakeholders. During the evaluation period, from January of 2006 through August of 2007, the initiative team established a citywide network of almost 200 contacts throughout the criminal justice system as well as in the communities of Pigtown and Cherry Hill. This network met on a quarterly basis as a Task Force to discuss common issues. The team made inroads in the criminal justice community in Baltimore regarding support for the idea of a community court and gained the commitment of a State Senator to sponsor any legislation that might be required. Perhaps most significantly, the initiative helped to foster an environment that enabled other community justice projects to emerge throughout the city, including a prostitution task force, a community prosecution project, a community defense program, and the creation of the Office of Problem-Solving Courts within the Maryland judiciary. Lastly, a national symposium was held in March of 2007 at the University of Maryland School of Law to discuss community justice, engaging both local and national participants. The School of Law established itself as an effective convener. School Conflict Resolution As part of the community justice initiative, the Center for Dispute Resolution at the University of Maryland School of Law (C-DRUM) proposed to implement a demonstration project in conflict resolution at one specific school, the Southside Academy of Cherry Hill. The program was to consist of a peer mediation program, coupled with efforts to spread the philosophy and practice of alternative conflict resolution throughout the school. Beginning in the fall of 2005, C-DRUM staff began to implement the peer mediation model in Southside. The first mediation session took place in February of 2006, and a small number of other sessions were held in the course of the spring semester. Despite the efforts of C-DRUM staff, however, the peer mediation program never received the level of institutional support that was necessary from Southside Academy. In the spring of 2007, C-DRUM broke away from the Southside Academy and turned its attention to the Baltimore Freedom Academy (BFA), a high school that seemed more receptive to conflict resolution efforts. In March 2007, C-DRUM staff held a training for 13 students at the Baltimore Freedom Academy to become peer mediators. The mediation sessions began almost immediately, and 18 mediation sessions took place the first month of implementation. The students who participated in mediation sessions were surveyed at the end of the school year, and the results were mostly encouraging. In addition, a teacher survey was distributed in the spring of 2007, and teacher feedback was positive about the use of conflict management techniques within their classrooms. C-DRUM currently has plans to continue the peer mediation program as well as implement a more comprehensive conflict resolution program in the Baltimore Freedom Academy during the 2007-08 school year that would incorporate teacher training in classroom management techniques. Youth Advocacy The final component of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative involved the piloting of a youth advocacy program within a school environment. The Community Law in Action Center (CLIA) at the University of Maryland School of Law planned to recruit a small number of teenagers to be trained in advocacy. This group of teenagers would then accompany CLIA into the Cherry Hill community to identify a specific youth safety concern on which to focus their advocacy project. Concurrent with the youth advocacy piece, CLIA would help the Southside Academy set up a youth court and a student government. However, late in the spring of 2006, the entire youth advocacy plan was rebuffed by the administration at the Southside Academy. In January of 2007, CLIA staff put together a new plan with three components: • The Youth Media Showcase was hosted by CLIA at the National Symposium on community justice at the University of Maryland School of Law. Youth from around the country were invited to send in video tapes of their vision of violence and self in the community. The youth media showcase was the opening event for Beginning in the fall of 2005, C-DRUM staff began to implement the peer mediation model in Southside. The first mediation session took place in February of 2006, and a small number of other sessions were held in the course of the spring semester. Despite the efforts of C-DRUM staff, however, the peer mediation program never received the level of institutional support that was necessary from Southside Academy. In the spring of 2007, C-DRUM broke away from the Southside Academy and turned its attention to the Baltimore Freedom Academy (BFA), a high school that seemed more receptive to conflict resolution efforts. In March 2007, C-DRUM staff held a training for 13 students at the Baltimore Freedom Academy to become peer mediators. The mediation sessions began almost immediately, and 18 mediation sessions took place the first month of implementation. The students who participated in mediation sessions were surveyed at the end of the school year, and the results were mostly encouraging. In addition, a teacher survey was distributed in the spring of 2007, and teacher feedback was positive about the use of conflict management techniques within their classrooms. C-DRUM currently has plans to continue the peer mediation program as well as implement a more comprehensive conflict resolution program in the Baltimore Freedom Academy during the 2007-08 school year that would incorporate teacher training in classroom management techniques. Youth Advocacy The final component of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative involved the piloting of a youth advocacy program within a school environment. The Community Law in Action Center (CLIA) at the University of Maryland School of Law planned to recruit a small number of teenagers to be trained in advocacy. This group of teenagers would then accompany CLIA into the Cherry Hill community to identify a specific youth safety concern on which to focus their advocacy project. Concurrent with the youth advocacy piece, CLIA would help the Southside Academy set up a youth court and a student government. However, late in the spring of 2006, the entire youth advocacy plan was rebuffed by the administration at the Southside Academy. In January of 2007, CLIA staff put together a new plan with three components: • The Youth Media Showcase was hosted by CLIA at the National Symposium on community justice at the University of Maryland School of Law. Youth from around the country were invited to send in video tapes of their vision of violence and self in the community. The youth media showcase was the opening event for Beginning in the fall of 2005, C-DRUM staff began to implement the peer mediation model in Southside. The first mediation session took place in February of 2006, and a small number of other sessions were held in the course of the spring semester. Despite the efforts of C-DRUM staff, however, the peer mediation program never received the level of institutional support that was necessary from Southside Academy. In the spring of 2007, C-DRUM broke away from the Southside Academy and turned its attention to the Baltimore Freedom Academy (BFA), a high school that seemed more receptive to conflict resolution efforts. In March 2007, C-DRUM staff held a training for 13 students at the Baltimore Freedom Academy to become peer mediators. The mediation sessions began almost immediately, and 18 mediation sessions took place the first month of implementation. The students who participated in mediation sessions were surveyed at the end of the school year, and the results were mostly encouraging. In addition, a teacher survey was distributed in the spring of 2007, and teacher feedback was positive about the use of conflict management techniques within their classrooms. C-DRUM currently has plans to continue the peer mediation program as well as implement a more comprehensive conflict resolution program in the Baltimore Freedom Academy during the 2007-08 school year that would incorporate teacher training in classroom management techniques. Youth Advocacy The final component of the Baltimore Community Justice Initiative involved the piloting of a youth advocacy program within a school environment. The Community Law in Action Center (CLIA) at the University of Maryland School of Law planned to recruit a small number of teenagers to be trained in advocacy. This group of teenagers would then accompany CLIA into the Cherry Hill community to identify a specific youth safety concern on which to focus their advocacy project. Concurrent with the youth advocacy piece, CLIA would help the Southside Academy set up a youth court and a student government. However, late in the spring of 2006, the entire youth advocacy plan was rebuffed by the administration at the Southside Academy. In January of 2007, CLIA staff put together a new plan with three components: • The Youth Media Showcase was hosted by CLIA at the National Symposium on community justice at the University of Maryland School of Law. Youth from around the country were invited to send in video tapes of their vision of violence and self in the community. The youth media showcase was the opening event for the Symposium and was attended by more than 100 people. • Teen Leaders for Change was created in Cherry Hill by recruiting five to ten high school seniors from a different school, the New Era Academy, training them in advocacy, and then paying them to work in the community. CLIA taught the teens mapping skills and sent them out to survey the Cherry Hill neighborhood. They also linked the youth to a community-based mentoring program for kids at risk for gang involvement. • CLIA also recruited a group of youth for Pigtown advocacy. The youth were charged with walking the community streets to identify code violations, writing up their work into a report and giving a public presentation of their findings. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2007. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2012 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Baltimore_Eval.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/Baltimore_Eval.pdf Shelf Number: 125670 Keywords: Community Justice (Baltimore)Community ParticipationCommunity ProsecutionCommunity-Based ProgramsCriminal Justice SystemsDispute SettlementYouth Advocacy Programs |
Author: Kaspiew, Rae Title: Evaluation of a Pilot of Legally Assisted and Supported Family Dispute Resolution in Family Violence Cases. Final report Summary: Evidence of the prevalence of a history of past and/or current family violence among separated parents, and the presence of ongoing safety concerns for themselves and their children as a result of ongoing contact with the other parent, has created an impetus for the family law system to find more effective ways of dealing with families affected by family violence. In July 2009, the Federal Government announced funding for a pilot program to provide assistance, including family dispute resolution (FDR), to such families. Subsequently, Women’s Legal Service Brisbane (and other consultants) were funded by the Attorney- General’s Department (AGD) to develop a model for coordinated family dispute resolution (CFDR). CFDR is a service for separated families who need assistance to resolve parenting disputes where there has been a history of past and/or current family violence. It is being implemented in five sites/lead agencies across Australia: Perth (Legal Aid Western Australia), Brisbane (Telephone Dispute Resolution Service [TDRS], run by Relationships Australia Queensland), Newcastle (Interrelate), Western Sydney (Unifam) and Hobart (Relationships Australia Tasmania). TDRS made adaptions to the model to accommodate its telephone-based service. The pilot commenced operation at most sites in the final quarter of 2010. Implementation in one location (Brisbane) was delayed until mid-2011 to allow time to finalise the composition of the partnership. CFDR is a process where parents are assisted with post-separation parenting arrangements where family violence has occurred in the relationship. The process involves a case manager/family dispute resolution practitioner (FDRP), a specialist family violence professional (SFVP) for the person assessed to be the “predominant victim” in the language of the model, a men’s support professional (MSP) for the person assessed to be the “predominant aggressor” (when they are male),a a legal advisor for each party and a second FDRP. Child consultants are part of the professional team and may be called upon to feed into case management decisions. Child-inclusive practice may be applied in particular cases, but only one location applied it frequently and a second infrequently. Specialised risk assessment and management takes place throughout the process, which unfolds over several steps involving screening, intake and assessment, preparation for mediation, mediation (up to four or more sessions) and post-mediation follow-up. The process is applied in a multi-agency, multidisciplinary setting and it aims to provide a safe, non-adversarial and child-sensitive means for parents to sort out their postseparation parenting disputes. The level of support provided to parents is intensive, and this is a key means by which the process attempts to keep children and parties safe and ensure that power imbalances resulting from family violence do not impede parents’ ability to participate effectively. This report sets out the findings of an evaluation of the CFDR process that has been funded by the Attorney-General’s Department. The evaluation was based on a mixed-method approach involving several different data collections. These were: a study based on case file data from the entire cohort of CFDR files up to 30 June 2012 (n = 126), and a sample of comparison group files (n = 247) drawn from services run by each of the lead partners where CFDR services were not offered; a qualitative study based on interviews with professionals working in the pilot (n = 37) in the early stages of implementation, and a second study comprising interviews with professionals (n = 33) near the end of the evaluation data collection period (April–June 2012); mixed-profession focus groups (participants: n = 37), conducted between August and November 2011; an online survey of professionals, conducted in June–July 2012 (n = 88, with a response rate of 68%); interviews with parents who received the CFDR services and progressed to mediation, conducted as eligible parents became available (n = 29). An online survey was also available to parents; however, the smaller-than-expected number of pilot cases meant very small numbers of people were eligible to complete the survey. Therefore, the evaluation team focused on conducting interviews with as many parents as possible and incorporated data from the seven completed online surveys in the analysis of the qualitative data; and requests for information (conducted via discussions with location coordinators) that examined how the model was adapted and implemented in each location. Details: Barton, ACT: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2012. 165p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2013 at: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyLawSystem/Documents/CFDR%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20December%202012.PDF Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Families/FamilyLawSystem/Documents/CFDR%20Evaluation%20Final%20Report%20December%202012.PDF Shelf Number: 128180 Keywords: Dispute SettlementDivorceFamily InterventionsFamily MediationFamily Violence (Australia)Intimate Partner Violence |
Author: Coburn, Noah Title: Informal Justice and the International Community in Afghanistan Summary: This report analyzes the array of programs that dealt with the so-called informal justice sector in Afghanistan from 2008 to 2011. It focuses on a series of pilot projects sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace that engaged local Afghan organizations at the district and provincial levels to observe and record how informal justice systems resolve (or fail to resolve) people’s disputes, and how informal and formal justice actors relate to each other in practice. It also examines the expanding role of international actors in local dispute resolution and the impact that such interventions have had on local practices and perceptions of justice. The report finds that the informal justice sector provides a pervasive and effective, if sometimes flawed, venue for the majority of the Afghan population to access justice and argues that the international community should commit more fully to supporting local informal justice mechanisms. Details: Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2013. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2013 at: http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PW84-Informal%20Justice%20and%20the%20International%20Community%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Afghanistan URL: http://www.usip.org/files/resources/PW84-Informal%20Justice%20and%20the%20International%20Community%20in%20Afghanistan.pdf Shelf Number: 128424 Keywords: Dispute ResolutionDispute SettlementInformal Justice System (Afghanistan)Rule of Law |
Author: Maguire, Edward R. Title: Reducing Disputes in Spartanburg, SC: An Evaluation of a Problem Solving Partnership Summary: In 1999, the City of Spartanburg, South Carolina received a School-Based Partnerships grant for $137,989 from the COPS Office. The grant enabled the Spartanburg Public Safety Department to implement problem-solving strategies in George Washington Carver Junior High School. Although Spartanburg as a whole suffers from poverty-related problems, the area served by Carver represents an even more concentrated level of economic disadvantage. The school represents an ideal area in which to focus community energies such as the problem-solving approach used in the School Based Partnership project. The focus of the problem solving efforts was disputes, including those between students, between ethnic groups, and between students and teachers. This report highlights the findings from a process and impact evaluation of the School Based Partnership project. A variety of qualitative and quantitative methods were used to conduct an intensive case study detailing the implementation of school-based problem-solving efforts, together with a multi-part quasi-experiment designed to determine whether the project resulted in a reduction in the number or severity of disputes. Details: Silver Spring, MD: 21st Century Solutions, 2003. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2015 at: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/school_based/Spartanburg_SC.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/school_based/Spartanburg_SC.pdf Shelf Number: 136082 Keywords: Dispute SettlementProblem-Oriented Policing School Crimes |
Author: Maryland. Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Impact of Mediation on Criminal Misdemeanor Cases Summary: In several counties in Maryland, the State's Attorney's Office (SAO) refers misdemeanor criminal cases to mediation prior to the scheduled court date. Generally, cases which are referred to mediation are those in which there is an ongoing relationships between the participants which lead to the alleged crime and the SAO believes that these underlying issues could be better resolved in mediation rather than through the standard court process. In those counties where such a referral process exists, SAO staff screen cases to consider if they are appropriate for mediation, including screening out cases in which participants may not be able to speak for themselves without fear of retaliation (such as in some domestic violence situations). The SAO may refer the case to an independent community mediation center or, in two counties, in-house mediators may mediate the dispute. Generally, if participants are both satisfied with the results of the mediation, the SAO will either nolle prosequi (formally not prosecute) or put the case on the inactive docket (stet) from which it will close within a year if there is no additional action. Often, the participants do not need to show up again for their court hearing if they resolve the case in mediation. This report explores the impact in terms of the cost to the court system for cases which are referred to mediation compared to cases which are not referred to mediation, in the short and long term. This report also explores the impact on the participants report regarding how the situation has worked out for them. In order to compare the impact, it is necessary to have both a group of cases that were mediated (the Mediation Group) and a group of cases that are similar but that were never offered mediation (the comparison group). It is also important to have significant information about those cases so that a legitimate comparison can be done, which controls for the many factors which could result in the differences in the outcomes. Details: Annapolis, MD: Administrative Office of the Courts, 2016. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2017 at: http://mdcourts.gov/courtoperations/pdfs/criminalcourtimpactreport.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://mdcourts.gov/courtoperations/pdfs/criminalcourtimpactreport.pdf Shelf Number: 147512 Keywords: Dispute ResolutionDispute SettlementMediation |