Assuring Quality in ADR Practice & Programs

Principles

The growing use of ADR processes has led some to argue that standards related to competence and the selection of neutrals are needed to protect consumers and the integrity of dispute resolution processes. The topic has been controversial for years because the competence a neutral needs varies so much from one context or setting to another. And measuring competence cannot be done based alone on paper credentials. Several professional membership organizations and others have developed policies, principles, or qualification standards regarding who can serve as neutrals in various settings.

In 1989, the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (SPIDR) Commission on Qualifications was formed to investigate and report on basic principles that could be used to influence policy for setting qualifications for mediators, arbitrators and other dispute resolution professionals. In its 1989 Report, the Commission put forth three fundamental recommendations:

That no single entity, (rather a variety of organizations) should establish qualifications for neutrals;
That the greater the degree of choice the parties have over the dispute resolution process, program or neutral, the less mandatory the qualification requirements should be; and
That qualifications criteria should be based on performance, rather than paper credentials.

Another effort by the Center for Dispute Settlement and Institute for Judicial Administration at New York University produced the National Standards for Court-Connected Mediation Programs, which reached conclusions similar to those of the first SPIDR Commission report.

In 1995, a second SPIDR Commission on Qualifications developed a report that set forth a 7-step framework for analyzing how to assess quality. (Read more about the report and recommendations in the section on "Next Steps.")

TABLE OF CONTENTS