County of Santa Clara Office of Human Relations
2015
Dispute
Resolution
Program Annual
Report
Fiscal Year 2015 Dispute Resolution Program
Dispute
Resolution
Program Act
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………………………3
DRPA Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 5
Program Overview………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
Community Mediation ................................................................................................................... .9
Superior Court Mediation Programs ............................................................................................. 14
Small Claims Court Mediation……………………………………………………………….….15
Civil Harassment Court Mediation…………………………………………..………….……….18
Elder/Family Special Needs Mediation…………………………………… …………...……….19
Victim-offender (VOM) Mediation…....………………………………………………………...20
CREST .......................................................................................................................................... 28
Training Institute ........................................................................................................................... 29
Staff ................................................................................................................................................ 31
Community Volunteers ................................................................................................................. 32
Budget…………………………………………………………………………………………... 33
Goals for Next Year ...................................................................................................................... 34
2
Executive Summary
The Office of Human Relations Mediation center serves as the primary trainers of mediators in
the private and public sectors and as the prime innovator in conflict resolution programs for
communities. The purpose of the Office of Human Relations Mediation Program is to broaden
access to dispute resolution for all Santa Clara county residents by promoting community
mediation as an affordable public service. The goal of a community mediation center is clearly
defined by the statue as “a community-based program of a private nonprofit or public agency
organized for the resolution of disputes or for a public service, charitable or educational
purpose, that provides direct access to free or low-cost mediation services at any stage of a
conflict through trained community volunteers and involves community members in the
governance of the center.” The Office prides itself as a community mediation program with
proven conflict resolution and prevention mechanism that increases access to justice for lowincome and marginalized populations and builds community capacity, relationships and social
capital for all Santa Clara county residents.
Access to justice for all has emerged in the past thirty years as an important goal within the
American justice system. The delivery of legal services to individuals with limited financial
resources is challenging work. Legal service and pro bono agencies across the United States
never have adequate funding and staff to respond to the needs of their local communities. This
situation requires them to set restrictions on the types of cases they can accept, and necessitates
adhering to strict financial resource rules. Frequently, individuals who have a problem that has
not yet become a bona fide legal issue or whom have incomes slightly above the limits set by the
agency are left without assistance of any kind. While workshops and classes may provide
generalized help, many potential clients are turned away and left feeling unheard, discounted and
helpless without any opportunity to tell their side of the story.
To demonstrate the large number of requests for legal services from the working and nonworking
poor in this country, one need only look at the largest county by population in the United States.
Los Angeles County in Southern California has over 355,000 community members who meet the
financial eligibility requirements of the local legal service agency. This agency receives over
2,000 telephone and walk-in requests for help each week. The limited financial resources of the
agency have made it necessary to turn away the vast majority of applicants for service. In
addition, California has a poverty rate of 23.4%, the highest of any state in the country. Nearly a
quarter of the state’s 38 million residents (8.9 million) live in poverty, according to the Census
Bureau report. Keeping this in mind those residents in poverty residing in Santa Clara county
will have unmet basic living needs and concerns which leads to higher conflicts,
misunderstanding and a more populated courtroom. Mediation programs have the potential to
alleviate this problem and to secure the human rights of people afflicted by poverty and other
disadvantages in this country by giving them the ability to be heard and not left feeling unheard,
discounted and helpless without any opportunity to tell their side of the story.
3
Every jurisdiction in this country and state has witnessed growth in the use of what has come to
be called alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Alternative dispute resolution is a term that refers
to a number of processes that can be used to resolve a claim or dispute. Dispute resolution
processes are alternatives to having a state or federal judge or jury decide the dispute in a trial.
Dispute resolution processes can be used to resolve any type of dispute including family, elderly,
neighborhood, landlord-tenant, parent/teen, discrimination, harassment, business, housing,
personal injury, consumer/merchant, youth and environmental disputes. The Office of Human
Relations takes great pride in the handling of all these types of mediation cases.
The Office of Human Relations, Dispute Resolution Program (DRP) is the most complex
division within the County of Santa Clara, Office of Human Relations (SCCGOV-OHR). This
program has the longest history within the Office, spanning over the course of four decades. The
FY 2015 report outlines the dispute resolution highlights for the entire program and by specific
subdivisions. It includes the volume and categories of service hours provided by certified staff
and trained volunteers, activities by the subprograms, outreach, and client evaluation of the
program impacts.
The benefits of the Dispute Resolution Program are best measured in quantifiable and qualitative
outcomes accomplished in the fiscal year 2015. The quantifiable outcomes are based on the case
volume and the estimated savings achieved in the County. The savings in County resources are
measurable for County agencies such as the Office of Juvenile Probation, the Office of the
District Attorney, County Sheriffs, local municipal agencies-- such as the Police Departments-and countywide school districts. For this purpose, DRP utilizes the California Code of Civil
Procedure method for determining cost savings.1 The qualitative benefits include the
transformational effects of mediation, learning of communication and dispute resolution skills,
and overall community empowerment. Some of these effects are captured by client evaluation
surveys and some are included in mediation stories. A small sample of mediation stories is also
presented in this report.
The objective is to increase the public awareness of ADR, specifically those residents in the
community and in court. We have increased the public’s awareness of mediation each year by a
set goal of 20%. We measure our success in the collection of quantifiable and qualitative data by
case input into our state of the art VistaShare Web-based case management system. This is
further exemplified in our records of facilitation of effective dialogue and case convening. The
Dispute Resolution Program directly engaged in facilitation of the effective dialogue of 758
mediated and conciliated cases during the FY15. The California Code of Civil Procedure
(Section 1775f) estimates that the minimum monetary savings per court day is $3,943, thereby
resulting in a savings to the County of $2,988,794. This figure represents only mediated,
1
For each case, the monetary savings is an estimated minimum $3943 (estimate of daily costs of superior court
judicial position, including judge, court reporter, bailiff, support personnel, services, and supplies, according to the
Code of Civil Procedure section 1775(f)).
4
facilitated and conciliated cases and does not include those parties who received general
assistance by participating in some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process through
the program, such as: A total of 30,320 volunteer hours at $40 hourly rate of pay equal to an
additional $1,212,800 in staff costs savings for a total of $4,201,594. The average case whether
mediated, and or conciliated takes five full working 8 hour days to process, including scheduling,
telephone intake, coaching, case convening and the mediation sessions. Additionally, 1,750
hours were contributed by interns, for a total number of volunteer/intern contributed hours
equivalent to 32,070 hours, or 15.42 FTE coded employees. Another indicator that demonstrates the importance of the program comes from an analysis of
qualitative data collected from program participants. In addition to verbal feedback, DRP
received a total of 200 surveys. Of those responses, 92.5% of the participants expressed their
satisfaction with the mediation process and 97.2% said that they would use DRP services in the
future. This report also describes the exceptional level of completion of DRPA Goals in the past
fiscal year, program structure, staffing, different subprogram activities, program budget, and the
main goals for FY 2016.
DRPA Objectives:
All the DRPA goals and objectives were meet or exceeded in FY15, except for one area that needs
improvement. Outlined in the report are the results of DRP activities.
OHR will provide the following services to the community:
 Conduct a minimum of 100 mediations, per year, from community referrals including, but not
limited to: family, neighborhood, business/consumer, tenant/landlord and employee/employer.
 Accomplished. The total number of all community-referred mediations conducted in
FY15 was 287.
 Conduct a minimum of 50 conciliations, per year, based on community referrals including family,
neighborhood, business/consumer, tenant-landlord and employee-employer cases.
 Accomplished. The total number of conciliations conducted in FY15 was 60.
 Conduct a minimum of two multi-party facilitations, per year.
 Accomplished. 5 multi-party facilitations were conducted in FY15.
 Maintain contact with key staff from the Law Enforcement agencies to strengthen ties and
improve referral criteria and procedures in an effort to maintain appropriate referrals.
 Accomplished. This efforts was accomplished through a variety of meetings such as the
Juvenile Justice Systems Collaborative and continuous meetings and presentations with a
number of law enforcement agencies in there debrief meetings.
 Presentations and sharing of materials on benefits of mediation for their distribution to
community members that are encountered during the course of conducting law
enforcement activities.
5
 Make 10 presentations to the public on ADR per year based on an outreach plan to make the
benefits of dispute resolution known more in the community; targeting community-based
organizations, colleges, universities, government agencies, and local businesses.
 Accomplished. 27 presentations were conducted this year. Presentations included:
Silicon Valley Bar Association
Project Sentinel
Santa Clara County, Probate Court Division Commissioners
CREST (Conflict Resolution Essentials for School Transformation) MEADOWS
University of Santa Clara First Year Law School Students
Santa Clara County Public Guardians, Public Defenders Office
Santa Clara County Probate Task Force
San Jose Mayor's Gang Prevention Task Force
Community Mediation Introduction Seminar, Campbell Community Center
Magic Sands Trailer Home Park, Home Owners Association
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Mandela Performance Promoting Community Mediation as a Tool for Peace
De Anza College First Year Paralegal Students
Black Kitchen Cabinet Community Organization
SCCGOV 101 Class Presentation to Concerned Citizens in the Community
ADR Presentation to Door 2 Door Realty Brokers
Santa Clara Police Department, DRP 415 calls presentations to Peace Officers
Anti-Bully ADR Presentation Franklin McKinley Elementary School
Dispute Resolution Social Justice education to local Universities
Silicon Valley Minority Business Consortium (SBC)
A Conversation about unarmed African-American Men dying in Police Encounters
Santa Clara County Equal Opportunity Division Outreach Forum for Healing
Claiming our Beloved Community at Emanuel Baptist Church East San Jose
County-wide Movement for Peace, Healing, and Equity
Youth Mediation Training Provided to Recreationplus.org, CBO Santa Clara County
DRP 415 Presentation West Valley Patrol Division
United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District Annual Training Presentation
 Receive 1,500 referrals from community organizations, law enforcement agencies, Superior
Court, calls or walk-in’s, etc. Provide individuals with information regarding mediation, its
benefits and the mediation process.
 Accomplished. A total of 5,201 referrals were received this year.
 Maintain a pool of 80 qualified volunteer mediators to mediate cases referred to the Dispute
Resolution Program (DRP).
 Accomplished. DRP has 180 trained, active mediators.
OHR will obtain a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara to provide mediation and conciliation services.
 Arrange and conduct 50 mediations and 50 conciliations per year.
 Accomplished. Total court mediations and conciliations were 758.
6
 Meet with Superior Court staff to evaluate and modify the program as needed.
 Accomplished. DRP meets with Superior Court staff to review all the Court programs,
programs committees include, Probate Oversight team, Small Claims Committee and
DRP Oversight Committee. The majority of the committees meet on a monthly to
quarterly basis.
 Maintain a pool of 10 specialized mediators for Superior Court.
 Accomplished. Over the course of the year DRP had 40 court-specialized mediators who
were trained in civil harassment, small claims, probate, unlawful detainer, and domestic
violence issues. In FY 15, we had 17 small claims mediators and an additional 20
mediating civil harassment cases.
OHR will provide the following services, with respect to criminal referrals: Meet with the Criminal
Justice System staff including, District Attorney, Probation, Law Enforcements agencies to strengthen ties
and improve referral criteria and procedures.
 Accomplished. DRP staff is part of the Juvenile Justice System Collaborative, which
meets on a monthly basis. DRP staff meets with partners as needed to do outreach and
discuss process.
 Receive 25 criminal referrals from the District Attorney’s Office (DA) and other criminal justice
agencies.
 Accomplished. 57 cases were referred to DRP this year.
 Mediate a minimum of 35 cases referred from criminal justice agencies.
 Area that needs improvement. The total number of mediations resulting from referrals by
the criminal justice agencies was 10. The number of DA referrals decreased in FY 15 for
reasons unknown to DRP. Additionally, many parties were not willing to mediate face-toface. Other types of dispute resolution services were provided to them. We had dialogue
with all 57 cases referred but unfortunately only 10 resulted in apologies and restitution
to the victims of crimes.
OHR will provide the following services in order to promote ADR benefits and services in the County’s
schools and other community settings:
 Provide at least three presentations per year to new agencies/schools to promote ADR programs.
 Accomplished. DRP conducted 7 presentations to new partners/schools and universities
to promote ADR programs.
 Provide training to two new schools regarding conflict resolution programs per year.
 Accomplished. DRP staff provided trainings at the Meadows Middle School in East San
Jose. Crittenden School requested the whole school approach to training and the DRP
continues to work with the school in FY 16 to train more staff and students as conflict
managers.
 Develop and conduct one “Train the Trainer” course for students.
 Accomplished. DRP conducted one “train the trainer” session with ten CBO staff
members from Recreationplus.org who selected students to participate in the after school
program at Meadows Elementary School in East San Jose.
7
OHR will provide the following trainings of ADR specialists, staff and mediators:
 Develop and implement a plan for recruiting and training multi-cultural and multi-lingual
mediators.
 Accomplished. DRP staff has developed Spanish 40 hour basic mediation training in
addition to incorporating multi-cultural components into the basic mediation training.
 Conduct (one) forty-hour mediation training course per year in basic mediation skills.
 Accomplished. DRP conducted (4) four basic mediation-training programs (3 forty-hour
and one 32-hour basic mediation training). Other specialized trainings such as Civil
Harassment, VOM and Elder/Special Needs Mediation were also conducted during the
FY 15. A Public Guardian curriculum was also prepared for a future training date.
 Maintain a pool of at least 80 trained volunteer mediators.
 Accomplished. DRP has 180 trained and active mediators.
 Conduct four “Skills Enhancements’’ trainings for mediators, interns, and volunteers.
 Accomplished. DRP conducted four skill enhancements.
 Conduct at least 20 on-the-job performance assessments (apprentice forms) of volunteer
mediators in action, per contract year. These assessments will be made available at the request of
the DA Project Manager.
 Accomplished.
Program Overview
The goal of Dispute Resolution Program (DRP) is to empower individuals, groups and the
community as a whole by providing education and tools needed to practice effective
communication and incorporate conflict resolution principles into the daily lives of County
residents. DRP was conceived by the Office of Human Relations and the Human Relations
Commission in September of 1977 and has been in continuous operation since then. The
Program provides specific services tailored to meet the needs of those involved in local disputes
or disputes that emanate from global and national events that have a local impact on the county’s
diverse population. By being proactive and responsive, DRP supports diverse communities in
unique ways that ensure respect for differences in languages, religions, values, beliefs and other
characteristics. It also supports the empowerment of the community at large to engage in
effective dialogues and take responsibility for interpersonal and intergroup conflict. DRP
provides outreach and services to diverse communities stratified by their socioeconomic status,
ethnic identity, disability, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, age and other factors.
The Dispute Resolution Program consists of 5 main foci: individual and community conflicts,
Restorative Justice (Law Enforcement, District Attorney, and Juvenile Probation); Superior
Court (Small Claims, Probate, and Civil Harassment) referrals, the Dispute Resolution Training
Institute; and the Conflict Resolution Essentials for School Transformation Program (CREST).
Via these areas of specialization DRP is prepared to address a broad spectrum of conflict
8
resolution needs. Below is a graph that outlines the continuum of services provided by DRP
based on referrals from the community, government agencies, courts and individuals.
• Conflict
Referred
• Mediationfollowup
• Community
Referrals
• SuperiorCourt
• Otheragences
• SelfReferral
Resolved/Unresolved
Resolved
In setting objectives for the year, we align them with the strategies and goals of the Office of
Human Relations and the County of Santa Clara. Our objectives in 2015 were to:
1. Provide dispute resolution services to diverse groups of clients with an excellent
customer satisfaction rating.
2. Enhance our mediator training based on the issues important for the low-income and
marginalized populations in the community.
3. Evaluate and improve systems that advance efficiency of services.
4. Improve DRP’s sustainability through diversified funding sources.
Community Mediation Objectives: Provide conflict resolution services to county
residents in synergy with countywide efforts to build positive interpersonal and intergroup
relations. The Dispute Resolution Program (DRP) strives to replace and transform common
conflict interventions provided by high cost government services.
The Dispute Resolution Program (DRP) receives referrals from 3 streams of sources: (1)
Individuals, groups, neighborhood associations, religious and secular institutions, labor unions,
attorneys, small businesses and varied professionals from within the community may refer cases
directly to the Program. (2) Government, such as the County policy makers, Department of
Environmental Health, Department of Juvenile Probation, Department of Family and Children’s
Services, Office of the District Attorney, and the Superior Court of Santa Clara County also refer
cases. (3) Lastly, DRP has Interagency Agreements and MOUs guiding relationships with other
County Departments, community based organizations, educational institutions and private non-
9
profit groups.2 These partnerships provide significant opportunities to promote and facilitate
dispute resolution in a variety of settings.3
Table 1: Community Referral Sources
Referral Source
Total Number
General community
300
All CJ agencies
57
Superior Court
5,200
Other
50
Total
5,607
Table 2: Total number of Community Cases by Type, FY15
Case Type Cases Percent General 26
10%
Neighbor Dispute 79
31%
Tenant/Landlord 88
35%
Consumer/Merchant 75
29%
Domestic/Household 11
4%
HOA 5
2%
School 1
0%
2
Specific Memoranda of Understanding and Interagency Agreements exist with the: Administrative Office of the Courts, the County of Santa Clara’s Juvenile Probation Division, the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara, and
other agencies.
Examples of referring agencies include: the County of Santa Clara’s Juvenile Probation Division, the District Attorney’s Office, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors, the County of Santa Clara Department of
Environmental Health, the Sheriff’s Department, the San Jose City Police Department, the City of San Jose Code Enforcement, the Superior Court of California Family Court Division, Superior Court of California (limited jurisdiction
cases), City Animal Control Agencies, the City Attorney’s Office, the South County Collaborative, Project Sentinel, Community Youth Intervention Workers, Neighborhood Accountability Boards, various schools and universities,
and the Peninsula Conflict Resource Center.
3
10
Workplace 10
4%
5
2%
Parent/Youth Total 300
Chart 1: Total number of Community Cases by Type
School
0%
Workplace
4%
HOA
2%
Cases
General
10%
Parent/Youth
2%
Domestic/Household 4%
Neighbor Dispute
31%
Consumer/Merchant
29%
Tenant/Landlord
35%
General
Neighbor Dispute
Tenant/Landlord
Consumer/Merchant
Domestic/Household
HOA
School
Workplace
Parent/Youth
Table 3: Community cases that resulted in office mediation per type
Case Type Cases Percent Neighbor Dispute 79
34%
Tenant/Landlord 88
38%
Consumer/Merchant 30
13%
HOA 5
2%
School 4
2%
Workplace 3
1%
11
Small Claims Pre‐Day of Court 12
5%
9
4%
Parent/Youth Total 230
A case referred to DRP is screened for its suitability and logistical compliance with DRP referral
criteria. These criteria include at least two willing parties to engage in an effective dialogue,
consideration given to emotional and mental capabilities of the parties, and external factors (such
as court other legal circumstances that could work against DRP’s involvement given the time
needed to convene a mediation). The average length of a mediated session is approximately three
(3) hours. In May of 2013, DRP implemented a sliding fee for service model described in the
previous report. In April of 2014, the DRP fee structure was modified by the SCC Board of
Supervisors to only include a flat $40 “administrative case opening fee.” All other fees (based on
the sliding scale) for mediation and facilitation services were suspended.
The following chart outlines the sequence and outcomes of the mediation process.
Refer to
other
sources
Parties
have a
conflict
Intake
Agencies or court provide
no alternative
Parties
take next
step
One or both
parties
decline to
mediate
Parties
agree to
dispute
resolution
process
Agencies or court refer case
back to dispute resolution
process
Mediation
Dispute resolution process
without agreement
Facilitation
12
Dispute resolution process
results in an agreement
Conciliation
Table 4: Total number and types of ADR services
ADR Service Type Cases Percent Conciliation 32
4% Mediation 547
72% Facilitation 12
2% Conflict Coaching 167
22% Total 758
Chart 2: Total percent of ADR services provided
Total Number of ADR Services
Conflict Coaching
22%
Conciliation
4%
Facilitation
2%
Mediation
72%
Conciliation
Mediation
Facilitation
Conflict Coaching
Table 5: Mediation Sessions by Referral Source FY15
Case Type Small Claims Civil Elderly/Probate Community/General Criminal Multiparty Victim Offender/Juvenile Total 13
Mediation Percent 284
156
17
21
2
12
0
55
547
52% 29% 3% 4% 0% 2% 0% 10% Chart 3: Mediation Sessions by Referral Source
Community/General
4%
Multiparty
2%
Mediation
Victim
0%
Offender/Juvenile
10%
Elderly/Probate
3%
Criminal
0%
Civil
29%
SmallClaims
52%
SmallClaims
Civil
Elderly/Probate
Community/General
Criminal
Multiparty
Victim
Offender/Juvenile
Table 6: Community Mediation Client Survey Results
Community Mediation Evaluations (FY 15)
Was satisfied with the mediation process
Would use the program again
Was satisfied with mediators
Total responses
127
124
119
Percent
94%
92%
88%
The total number of surveys collected was 134.
Superior Court Mediation Objectives are to empower litigants to engage in an
effective dialogue about the matter they brought to court and all related issues that contribute to
their disputes.
The Day-of-Court Mediation programs include Small Claims and Civil Harassment matters. All
the programs are structured to achieve the above objective and result in litigant satisfaction with
finding alternatives to litigation by engaging in the mediation process and achieving mutually
agreeable outcomes.
14
Small Claims Day of Court Mediation Program
Small Claims Court Mediation Process
The Superior Court ADR Coordinator informs the DRP staff regarding the number of cases per
session and numbers of cases where defendants were served. This helps DRP staff and
volunteers to gain a better idea about the numbers of mediators needed to cover possibly
contested cases.
Court produced DVD material about mediation is shown at the beginning of each court session.
In addition, court staff also uses this material to emphasize the importance of mediation and how
it can help litigants to regain the sense of empowerment and resolve their own disputes. After the
introductory remarks the court staff directs litigants to the hallway to exchanges documents. DRP
mediators approach litigants in the hallway and often help in the discovery process. Once the
documents are exchanged, mediators assess parties’ interest in mediation. When it is established
that both parties are willing to try mediation, mediators lead them to a space where they can
engage in an effective dialogue. All litigants are advised that they don’t rescind their right to trial
if they decide to engage in mediation.
Depending on the number of cases, 8-12 mediators are present on Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday in both courtrooms, in the morning and afternoon of each court calendar week. In the
Downtown Courthouse mediators have an opportunity to take litigants to an empty jury room,
mediators’ room, or a sheltered hallway space. In such spaces, parties have more privacy to
discuss all relevant issues, needs and feelings. If litigants are ready to discuss possible solutions
for their disputes, they are encouraged to think creatively and consider a win-win approach.
However, if litigants are not ready to negotiate an agreement, they are referred back to the
courtroom and a presiding judge hears their case. All litigants, including those who have reached
agreements transcribed by a DRP mediator are referred back to the courtroom to report the
outcome to the Judge. In many cases parties also request continuance since the bulk of mediated
agreements are either long-term payment plans or not otherwise completed on the spot. If the
agreements are fulfilled immediately in the courthouse, or if both parties determine that based on
their specific situation they want to request dismissal of their cases after mediation, they may
make such a request. A small number of continued cases are mediated in the OHR office or
mediated in court again if additional sessions are needed.
Small Claims trends are similar to those of the community cases which include tenant/landlord
issues including security deposits, tenant rights, and specific housing related bills; homeowner
association fees; loans; credit card dues; and car related disputes—from accidents and damages
to repairs and sales. Other cases included: medical, dental and attorney’s fees, neighbor, friend
and family conflicts, business matters, and various types of contract related issues.
15
Table 7: Small Claims Type of Disputes
Small Claims Case Type Family/Interpersonal General/Organizational Property Damage Business & Contracts 20
257
Auto Accident 66
14
Credit cards & Payments 35
Tenant/Landlord 88
Count 9
Neighbor Conflicts 79
Other and Unknown 98
Medical Services and Bills 11
Car Repair 20
HOA Dues & Issues 17
Car Purchase 12
Personal and Other Loans 32
Grand Total 758
Chart 4: Small Claims Type of Disputes Mediated by OHR
Mediated Small Claims Cases by Case Type FY 2015 Count
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
16
Table 8: Small Claims Mediation Client Survey Results:
Process
Satisfaction
127
94%
Seeing Other
Party's View
115
84.8%
Future Use of DRP
Services
119
88.8%
Neutrality of
Mediation
10
96%
Mediators'
Professionalism
75
99.7%
Total number of surveys received was 200. An evaluation is given to each litigant upon completion of the
mediation process regardless of outcome. Satisfaction scale was measured from 1-5. Additionally, DRP
staff also received 23 incomplete surveys. Based on data included in these surveys 100% of those clients
said that they would use DRP services in the future and 94.4% were satisfied with the mediation process.
Small Claims Mediation: Case Example
(Names and details changed)
Landlord-tenant Conflict, Racial Prejudice and Misunderstanding
In a landlord-tenant matter, the landlord, a psychologist, rented a house to the tenant and his
children. The tenant was a single parent and relied on housing subsidies in order to pay his rent
but believed that it was always paid timely. Suddenly, the landlord gave him a sixty-day notice
that he must move out of the house. Tenant believed that the landlord was motivated by racial
prejudice and other improper reasons for asking him to move out. He also expressed the
hardships of finding another appropriate Section 8 housing unit for himself and his children.
Tenant sued for his entire security deposit plus damages under various non-discrimination
statutes for a claim in excess of $6,500.00.
In mediation, the landlord explained that she had a severe downturn in her income from her
medical practice and that she felt that she must sell the house that she rented to the tenant. She
also told the tenant that she had no prejudices based on race and liked him as a person. The faceto-face explanation was very powerful. She offered to show the tenant her tax return for last
year, which would support her explanation regarding her need to sell the house rented by the
tenant. The fact that the landlord shared such a personal document convinced the tenant that the
motivation was totally different than he had assumed and not racial prejudice.
Following the conversations between the parties, the tenant was willing to drop the claims based
on violation of his civil rights for discrimination. Now, only the security deposit was at issue.
The parties discussed the landlord’s claims for deductions from the original deposit and quickly
agreed on an amount, which would be returned promptly. The landlord listened and
acknowledged how important it was to the tenant to get his deposit refund and also recognized
the hardships involved in relocating the tenant’s family in another subsidized unit. On the other
hand, the tenant let his assumptions of the landlord’s wrongful motives go. He appeared to
regard the landlord with respect again.
17
The parties left with a mutual understanding of each other’s circumstances, and a written
resolution to their immediate problems.
Civil Harassment Day of Court Process
The presiding Judge in the Civil Harassment Court recommends mediation to parties if they are
both present and emphasizes the advantages of mediation. Following this recommendation the
mediators talk to parties. They affirm their neutrality and ensure that party’s participation is
voluntary. The mediators also make sure that the litigants understand that they still have their
right to trial intact if they cannot find a resolution through mediation. Mediators meet with only
one party at the time. If both parties are willing to be in the same space mediation is conducted in
a joint session. Most mediators start with discussions by talking to petitioners since they brought
the case to court. They start with explanations of the entire mediation process and advantages of
mediation. Differences, advantages and limitations of sealed mediated agreements, stipulated
orders, and CLETS restraining orders, are also discussed in detail. Litigants are given more
space, time and guidance to discuss events, feelings and possible solutions then if they
participated in a trial. Most parties feel empowered to search for solutions themselves since
mediators ask questions about the needs, feelings and best interests of both parties.
Most mediated agreements include the NON-CLETS language regarding “no communication by
any means,” avoiding to come near the other parties’ homes, schools, personal property, and
workplaces. They also include civil and polite behavior or no communication in public places if
parties meet by accident. If parties decide to have a private, confidential, agreement, the judge is
only informed that they found their own resolution through a private agreement and he notes that
this is a resolution to their case. Parties may also request continuances or dismissal of their cases.
However, in most cases parties wanted court orders based on their stipulation. When they choose
stipulation and order, the judge reviews their agreements and confirms with parties that they
indeed wanted all the terms and conditions of agreement presented to court. The judge signs this
stipulation, making it a court order.
In FY 15, 156 civil harassment mediations were conducted by the DRP mediators.
Civil Harassment Mediation: Case Example
Four Silicon Valley Roommates
(Names and details changed)
Four Silicon Valley roommates rented a house, and three were seeking a restraining order against
the 4th roommate. The three had moved to a hotel and were seeking the 4th roommate barred
from the rental home so they could return. A temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued. All
four roommates were engineers working for the same software company. The three roommates
alleged that they were afraid of the 4th’s erratic behavior, while the 4th roommate claimed he was
18
bullied, including physically assaulted, by the other three roommates. As the mediation
progressed, the crux of the civil harassment action emerged as the desire of the three roommates
to remove the 4th roommate so that they could have the house to themselves. Roommate number
4 had recently been fired by his employer based on allegations of erratic behavior by his three
roommates and had even had a 5150 hold instigated by a call from one of the three
roommates. The three roommates intended to ask their employer to also seek a permanent
restraining order if they were successful in getting their temporary restraining order made
permanent.
This lengthy community mediation extended through the lunch hour day of court, and an
agreement with mutual terms was reached. Safety, respect and face-saving were central needs of
the parties to this community mediation. Roommate number four agreed to leave the rental
premises after a week and to allow the other three roommates to return and continue with the
rental. The 3 roommates agreed to return the 4th’s security deposit and to assume all of his
remaining rental obligations. The third roommate agreed not to disparage the 4th roommate to his
former employer and to pay his own attorney fees and costs. Roommate number 4 moved out
with no damage to the rental, and or to any property of his three roommates.
Sometime after this tragic circumstance and seemingly unresolvable conflict, Roommate number
four came to the Office of Human Relations to pick up the security deposit that the other three of
his roommates had dropped off at our office for him. During this time of reflection he thanked
the Office of Humans community mediation volunteers and staff profusely for helping him work
out a bad situation that could have affected his entire working engineer career had a permanent
restraining order (RO) been issued upon him by a judge in civil court.
Elder/Special Needs: Mediation Associated with the Probate Court
Probate Task Force
The Probate Task Force was established in August 2011. It is comprised of the Office of Human
Relations’ Dispute Resolution Program, County Counsel, Superior Court, Office of the Court
Investigators, Social Services Adult Protective Services, Private Attorneys, a representative of
the Medical Ethics Board, Public Guardian’s Office, and the Office of the Public Defender. This
group was formed based on the need for dispute resolution services for elders in the Probate
process. This task force has been involved in the development of processes, design of training,
forms, oversight of the program development, evaluation and corrective actions.
19
Probate Process
Mediators who have received Probate training and have experience may conduct this type of
mediation. The Court in conjunction with the Court Investigators’ office refers probate cases for
mediation. The referrals are made based on particular issues to be addressed in the mediation
process. A frequent example of a referral is based on resolving visitation. Even though these
cases are referred to mediation, all parties must voluntarily submit to the mediation. Parties
referred to mediation on the day -of -court may ask for a continuance from the Court and mediate
at the Office of Human Relations, at a date and time which accommodates all parties and their
attorneys. Probate cases often have multiple parties and multiple complex issues having one
party (the elderly or disabled person) that is often represented by an attorney. These cases
usually take more than 3 hours to mediate and often more than 5 sessions. Multiple issues may
be divided among multiple mediation sessions. OHR mediates visitation issues, competing
conservatorships, care of the elderly/disabled including health care, and general long-standing
family conflict issues. In the FY 2015, 18 cases were referred and 6 mediations were conducted
in the OHR’s community mediation office. Fifteen mediators who received specialized probate
training are mediating these cases loaded with multiple elder and special needs issues. Two
additional mediators are probate attorneys. To meet our objectives for the coming year, there is a
need to do more outreach activities with the Public Guardian’s office, Court Investigator’s office,
Catholic Charities, APS, Elderly Care Homes, Ombudsman programs and the National Academy
of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA). This will be a goal to accomplish in FY 2016.
Victim-Offender (VOM) Mediation
Victim Offender Mediation (VOM) is an alternative approach to punitive, settlement-driven
strategies used to treat juvenile delinquency. Whereas traditionally juvenile courts have
determined punishment for a juvenile’s offense, VOM empowers the crime victim and offenders
to resolve their conflict at the community level through mediated face-to-face dialogue.
Dialogue, an essential component of this model, provides both offenders and victims an
opportunity to express their feelings, share their pain (or remorse), ask questions, and dispel
stereotypes about each other during a mediation session. Rehabilitation occurs as the juvenile
develops empathy for the victim when confronted with the human cost of their offense.
VOM is a restorative accountability practice, a framework that views the victim, the broader
community, and the offender as those harmed by the offense. To repair this collective harm,
restorative justice requires the active involvement of all affected parties to make the offender
accountable and to heal the victim. VOM encourages the involved parties to mutually develop
and agree on a plan of restitution. This agreement may involve community service, monetary
20
compensation, direct service to the victim, or a combination of each. An agreement may also
include an assurance by the offender to change the behavior that led to the offense or allow the
offender to formally express remorse. The victim is also the community at large when a crime
occurs. The Office of Human Relations has a strong commitment to the community to have
effective dialogue about the incident and to collect “Community Impact Statements” to inform
the offender how the offense affected the community’s quality of life.
There are also two schools of thought on VOM referral criteria. One believes any case is
appropriate for VOM, regardless of the offense, the offender’s age, and the circumstances of the
case. The other school believes only more serious cases, such as felony property offenses and
some violent offenses, should be referred to VOM so that the program serves as a true
diversionary measure from prosecution or deeper penetration of the criminal justice system. The
first school of thought seem to prevail in the juvenile justice system nationwide since VOM has
been used primarily to address nonviolent property crimes, minor assaults, and domestic violence
offenses. The Office of Human relations current practice in VOM is the first school of thought in
that regardless of the offense there must be effective dialogue about emotional and material
losses.
The Office of Human relations VOM process is typically a four-phase process. At intake,
referrals to VOM are usually initiated by juvenile probation officers (JPOs), prosecutors, judges,
or victim-assistance advocates (non-profits) depending on program referral specifications. The
second phase involves preparation for mediation. During this phase, a trained and impartial
mediator who has no direct association with either the offender or the victim meets with both
parties separately, explains the process, listens to each participant’s description of the offense,
and then secures consent to participate in the actual mediation session. The third phase of the
program is the mediation session where each person tells their version of events, asks questions,
and discusses emotional and material losses. The victim and offender usually have someone
present (a parent or close friend) at the session to provide emotional support. Restitution
agreements are developed at this time. The last phase requires program staff and/or mediator
follow-up and monitoring of the restitution agreement. However, the Office of Human relations
VOM program focus is centered directly on the healing of the community impacted and dialogue
between the parties and receiving “Community Impact Statements (CIS) and “Victim Impact
Statements (VIS).”
Restorative Accountability Practice Definitions

Victim-Offender Mediation and Dialogue. Victim-offender mediation/dialogue is a
process that provides interested victims of property crimes and minor assaults with the
opportunity to meet the juvenile offender in a safe and structured setting. The goal of
victim-offender mediation is to hold the juvenile offender directly accountable for his or
her behavior while providing important assistance to the victim. With the help of a
21




trained mediator (usually a community volunteer), the victim is able to tell the juvenile
offender how the crimes affected him or her, to receive answers to questions, and to be
directly involved in developing a restitution plan. The juvenile offender is able to take
direct responsibility for his or her behavior, to learn of the full impact of the behavior,
and to develop a plan for making amends to those violated. Cases can be referred both
pre/post adjudication. A written restitution agreement or plan is usually generated during
the mediation but is secondary to discussion of the full impact of the crime on those
affected, often in the presence of the juvenile offender’s parents. These types of programs
may be called “victim-offender meeting,” “victim-offender conferencing,” or “victimoffender reconciliation” programs.
Family Group Conferencing. The best definition is based on traditions of the Maori of
New Zealand, a family group conference is a meeting of the community of people who
are most affected by a crime or harmful behavior. The conferences are coordinated by
trained facilitators. The victim, the juvenile offender, and the victim’s and offender’s
families and friends participate. All have the opportunity to speak about how the crime
has affected their lives. Other affected community members may also be involved. The
purpose of the meeting is to decide, as a group, how the harm will be repaired by the
offender. The meeting may occur before or after sentencing or as an alternative to going
through the traditional juvenile justice system.
Peacemaking Circles. A peacemaking circle is a community-directed process, in
partnership with the juvenile justice system, for developing consensus on an appropriate
disposition that addresses the concerns of all interested parties. Peacemaking circles use
traditional circle ritual and structure from Native-American culture. They create a
respectful space in which all interested community members, victim, victim supporters,
offender, offender supporters, judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, police, and court
workers can speak from the heart in a shared search for understanding of the event and to
identify the steps necessary to assist in healing all affected parties and prevent future
occurrences. Circles typically involve a multistep procedure, including application by the
offender to the circle process, a healing circle for the victim, a healing circle for the
offender, a disposition circle to develop consensus on the elements of a disposition
agreement, and follow up circles to monitor progress of the offender. The disposition
plan may incorporate commitments by the system, community, family members, and the
offender.
Financial Restitution to Victims. Restitution is technically the return of goods or money
stolen or the repair of damaged property. Financial restitution is an attempt to repay or
restore to the victim the value of what was lost. Victims must be directly involved in
determining the amount of losses.
Personal Services to Victims. Personal services to victims are services provided directly
to victims, such as house repairs, lawn work, and seasonal chores. Personal services can
strongly reinforce personal accountability for juvenile offenders by making them
22





responsible directly to victims. It is the victim’s right to choose whether a juvenile
offender will perform personal service.
Community Service. Community service is productive work performed by juvenile
offenders that benefits communities, such as equipment repairs in parks, winterizing
homes for the elderly, and other upkeep, repair, and maintenance projects. Often,
community service projects enhance conditions for the less fortunate in communities.
Restorative community service provides an opportunity for the juvenile offender to make
amends to the community in a way that is valued by the community. When the
community work service experience allows youth to create new, positive relationships
with members of the community, the fabric of the community is strengthened. The
process also works to increase the juvenile offender’s investment in the community.
Successful community work service helps to change the juvenile offender’s negative
view of the community to a positive one. Community members and the offenders
recognize the offender’s capacity to contribute to the general well-being of the
community. Community work service must have personal meaning to both the
community and the youth performing it. The best examples are projects that use youth as
mentors, resources, leaders, and interactive community members. Whenever possible,
crime victims should be asked about what specific type of community service the
offender should perform (i.e. their choice of particular charity, church, or agency that is
important to them).
Written or Verbal Apology to Victims and Other Affected Persons. An apology is a
written or verbal communication to the crime victim and the community in which a
juvenile offender accurately describes the behavior and accepts full responsibility for the
actions.
Victim or Community Impact Panels. These panels are forums that offer victims and
other community members the opportunity to describe their experiences with crime to
juvenile offenders. Participants talk with juvenile offenders about their feelings and how
the crime has affected their lives. Panels may be conducted in the community or in
residential facilities and may meet several times to help offenders better understand the
full human impact of crime in communities.
Community or Neighborhood Impact Statements. These statements drafted by
community members provide an opportunity for citizens whose lives are affected by
crime to inform the court, community reparative board, or offender how crimes affect the
community’s quality of life. Community impact statements have been used in crimes that
are thought of as victimless, such as drug offenses.
Victim Empathy Groups or Classes. The victim empathy class is an educational
program designed to teach offenders about the human consequences of crime. Offenders
are taught how crime affects the victim and the victim’s family, friends, and community,
and how it also affects them and their own families, friends, and communities. A key
element of the classes is the direct involvement of victims and victim service providers.
23
They tell their personal stories of being victimized or of helping victims to reconstruct
their lives after traumatic crime.
Probation officers are the primary source of many referrals to VOM programs in all departments
we benchmarked for best practices. Only three juvenile probate departments benchmarked in the
state of Texas with similarities to the Office of Human Relations VOM program served an
average of 100 or more juveniles annually. Victim Services units in juvenile probation
departments throughout the country only refer only a few youth annually to VOM programs.
During FY 2015, 42 juvenile justice cases were referred to the Office of Human Relations
primarily by the Office of the District Attorney and the courts, via the Juvenile Hall Probation
Department’s Victim Services division and juvenile probation officers (JPO’s) for victimoffender mediation. The Hispanic/Latino community had the highest participation in the VOM
program. In addition, most of the VOM juvenile referrals involved juveniles less than sixteen
years of age. VOM mediation typically takes (30) days to complete because the Office of Human
relations doesn’t believe in the “McDonaldization” of VOM. McDonaldization occurs when
VOM becomes overly standardized as management seeks to reduce caseloads by quickly
processing cases. In doing so, community mediation programs may eliminate critical
components of this model, such as the mediator’s individual preparatory meetings with the
victim and offender or they may curtail dialogue during the mediation session. We conduct
separate preparatory meetings between the mediator and victim and the mediator and offender.
These meetings help the mediator assess the participants’ attitudes, address expectations, and
ensures no one is feeling coerced into VOM. These meetings also help redress the imbalance of
power caused by age and communication differences between the offender and the victim,
especially if the latter is an adult. The Office of Human relations’ mediators address these issues
through informal role-playing that helps prepare both parties for the face-to-face dialogue. In six
instances victim-offender mediation face-to-face dialogue did occur with positive results, such as
apologies, restitution agreements and a better overall understanding of how the offense(s)
impacted the overall community.
Office of Human Relations Victim‐offender (VOM) Mediation Cases
Juvenile Justice Cases Referred
Face‐to‐Face Dialogue
Convened No Face‐to‐Face Dialogue
Victim Felt Safer
Hispanic/Latino Participation
24
Benefits and Potential Pitfalls
Nationally many process and outcome studies have been conducted on VOM programs.
Although primarily based on the evaluation of adult VOM programs, research suggests that
victim offender mediation is beneficial to both the victim and the offender. Among the wellestablished benefits of this program are the high levels of victim and offender satisfaction with
the VOM process. Victims appreciate the opportunity to share with the offender their story and
express the pain suffered from the offense. Consequently, many victims report decreases in
anxiety over the offense and a feeling of closure with the incident. Offenders generally report
having a better understanding of the effects their offense had on the victim. Additionally, most
VOM participants believed the process to be fair, including the agreement reached. The reports
are confirmed by the high number (almost 90 percent) of agreements are reached during VOM.
Of those agreements, about 80 to 90 percent are reported as completed. Given that the majority
of VOM programs require voluntary participation from offenders and victims, these results
undoubtedly contribute to participants’ high satisfaction levels and fairness perceptions.
Summary judgements about the effect of VOM on offender recidivism are complicated by
differing definitions of re-offense and the time frame researchers use to evaluate re-offenses. For
example, some researchers define re-offense as adjudicated guilty, others check for subsequent
arrests, while still others define re-offense as a violation of probation. Overall, research on adult
VOM programs nationally reports reduced recidivism when the follow-up is limited to a period
of a year from the initial offense. Generally, the extent of the positive effect decreases as the
timeframe increases.
VOM Impact Statement Example
Maria’s Life was changed when her friend Rose was killed by two cars racing
Maria was funny, creative and beautiful. She told me she thought of me like a sister, that
sometimes we would fight but hours later we would pick up where we left off. She meant so
much to me.
It was difficult to create the Victim Impact Statement I gave to the Office of Human Relations
mediator before meeting with the offender.
The process was hard, it brought up a lot of emotions. I needed to do it, because I wanted to
show how very important Rose was to so many people in the community.
As you go through this process, I want you to know even if you are having a hard time, push
through it. I felt better after presenting my statement; it brought some measure of peace in my
25
life and Maria’s family. My hope is that my Victim Impact Statement, as well as yours, will help
people see the much bigger picture. This crime impacts so many lives and the people we no
longer have are greatly missed. The community is the true victim.
Sincerely, Maria of San Jose
VOM Case Example
A Bomb, a Student and an Officer
The Victim Offender Mediation program has many types of offenders and victims. Sometimes
the victim is a police officer. A high school student called in a bomb threat at his school. The
deputy chief police officer responded to the call. He ordered two dozen police officers, a bomb
unit and a half dozen detectives to check out the high school, and he went to the school to
supervise the situation. The school was evacuated. The campus was guarded by multiple officers
for 11 hours while investigators searched the campus. No bomb was found. They eventually
found and caught the offender, a student. The student called in the bomb threat to get out of a
test he and his classmate had been scheduled to take. He called from his cell phone. At the time
the mediation took place, the offender had been through the court process and had served his
probation. He was terribly remorseful and appreciative that the he did not receive worse
penalties for his actions. He requested the mediated face-to-face dialogue to express his thanks
that the city and county had not billed him or his mother for the police department’s costs on
that day. The police officer was surprised but pleased to be able to have mediated face-to-face
dialogue with the offender about the incident. He detailed those costs for him, including human
costs like having fewer officers available to respond to the dozens of 911 calls that came in during
the crisis. The officer also movingly described what it is like for him to have the role he does,
protecting the community against crime---how that role comes with both stigma and privilege
and how it limits and determines how he responds to different people and different
situations. The young man expressed his understanding of how much it means to the police
officer to him to serve his community honorably and to do right by both victims of crime and
offenders.
The officer invited the offender, too, to take a broader view of his own role in the community, as
a student leader and athlete, as someone who is now known to have gotten in trouble, and as the
son of a mother who trusts him and fights for his rights. The police officer expressed how he
saw the two of them as both being people who will encounter others who are predisposed to
judge them and as both bearing a burden to hold themselves to high standards as a result. The
offender was visibly moved by and grateful for what the police officer shared and for the
mediated face-to-face dialogue with the police officer. Afterwards, the policeman expressed his
gratitude for the mediation, saying, "I have never experienced anything like this."
26
A Dad and a School Bully
In another, the offender was a high school senior, ditching a few classes with two friends. They
were driving around in a work van that had some of the offender's mother's tools in it. His
mother is carpenter. The offender saw a motorcycle that he recognized as belonging to a
classmate. He described the classmate as awkward and weird. Showing off for his friends, the
offender said, "I want to see how he'll react," so he grabbed a drill and drilled holes in the body
and tires of the motorcycle while his friends laughed. The classmate's father and the classmate,
built the motorcycle together. The father was the registered owner and was considered one of
the victims. Interestingly the classmate/victim was very quiet. The father said, "I'd rather
someone stuck a knife in my chest than purposefully damaged my son’s motorcycle.” They had
really bonded over building the bike. The father could not understand why the offender would
do such a thing. He himself got in trouble as a young adolescent and struggled to get his life in
order. During that time he had not been a good parent. The bike symbolized his hard won
success in getting his life back together and most importantly it symbolized the reconciliation of
him and his only child. The father entered the mediated face-to-face dialogue saying he didn't
want any touchy-feely nonsense, just payment in full for the damages. He told the offender just
how angry he was, and said, "It's not my usual style to talk about a problem like this." Within
an hour, though, he began looking at the offender differently and as a young person from his
community, as the offender took full responsibility for the damage. The offender offered to
repair the damages, give up his summer football and vacation plans, and had already taken a job
and in only a month earned $1500 towards the repair of the motorcycle. Further, the offender
discussed with the father, knowledgeably and earnestly about the details of the repair
estimates.
After the Offender offered to pay for the damage, the victim-classmate who had been very quiet,
spoke up and said simply, “Thanks.” Then the offender discussed his insecurity and unkind
actions. Then the victim-classmate expressed that he was fine with that and it was over for him.
He said, “Everybody makes mistakes.” It was at this point, that the father of the classmate
expressed concern for the effect this incident could have on the offender's life and offered to
write a letter to the high school principal on the offender's behalf.
Pre-Adjudication Diversion Practice/Program (Next Year’s Goal)
We wish to start discussions about setting up, or creating policy and, or an adopted resolution by
the Board of Supervisor regarding a Pre-Adjudication diversion practice for youthful offenders in
the community. Pre-adjudication diversion is defined as providing opportunities for youth who
would otherwise face formal processing in the court system so that they can avoid an
adjudication of delinquency or conviction for a summary offense and instead directing them into
the Victim-offender mediation (ADR) program.
27
In addition, the adopted resolution and “Pre-Adjudication Diversion Practice” can extend and
complement our current school youth mediation “Conflict, Resolution, Essentials, for Schools,
Training” (CREST) programs:

Bullying Prevention

Community and School Based Youth Aid Panels

Peer Councils/Courts/Juries

Family/restorative group conferencing

Conflict Training for Students, School Administrators, Parents and Teachers
The Victim-offender mediation (VOM) practice already initiated in the Office of Human
Relations has revealed that Pre-adjudication diversion can occur at various decision-making
points. It can provide alternatives for youth who have not yet entered the juvenile justice system
but who are at imminent risk of being charged with a delinquent act, and can also channel youth
who have been alleged to be delinquent away from formal court processing that could result in
an adjudication of delinquency.
A youth’s participation in a diversion program should be voluntary. Success will depend on the
youth’s willingness to accept services and sanctions voluntarily. Participation should be made
available to all youth no matter the youth’s race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or legal
representation.
Lastly, certain youth who would otherwise face formal processing in the juvenile justice system
should be considered for pre-adjudication diversion. These include:

First time youthful offenders

Youth referred by local juvenile advocacy non-profits, juvenile court judges, and juvenile
probation officers (JPO’s) for failure to comply with a lawful sentence in summary
offense cases; and

Youth charged with misdemeanor/non-violent offenses.
CREST Objective is to develop interactive curricula designed for all youth and high-risk
students specifically to teach effective communication and conflict resolution skills as an
alternative to defensive communication and violence.
28
The CREST (Conflict Resolution Essentials for School Transformation) Program focuses on
creating a culture shift through the training of whole school communities, including the faculty,
staff, students and parents so that they embrace the value of effective communication and
problem solving skills. This approach leads to the complete change in paradigms and to the
training of students as peer mediators. The goal is to respond to conflicts at the initial stages in
order to avoid accelerated behavior problems, student and overall violence on school campuses.
In FY15, CREST provided services to two schools: Meadows, and the Aptitude Academy in San
Jose. Ten after school program staff members from Recreationplus.org assigned at Meadows, 49
parents and the Principal at the Aptitude Academy were trained in basic communication and
conflict resolution skills. Meadows students will become conflict managers. In addition, through
the intersection of the basic mediation curriculum and the CREST program, San Jose Unified
School district staff received training in November of 2014. As a result, 22 staff members have
reported on the success of the program within the San Jose Unified School district this fiscal year
reporting (FY 2015). We will be scheduling training for more staff members to receive the
training in FY 2016 and they will also be able to apply their newly learned skills in their daily
work with students.
DRP has also developed a long-term relationship with Santa Clara County Office of Education.
Based on this collaboration, many schools have opted for a “whole school approach” to training
and continuous learning of dispute resolution techniques. The initial meetings with the School
Boards, administrators, and teaching staff also provided an opportunity to identify their unique
school needs and potential student conflict managers.
In FY 2015, DRP updated and printed new quantities of the CREST Brochure and newly revised
Conflict Manager’s Work Book. The latter publication utilizes technology and visuals to be more
appealing to new generations. Due to recent violent events that impact children in the community
we anticipate a higher demand for CREST in FY 2016. We have plans to work with the Franklin
McKinley School District and the Community Organizing Resources to Advanced Learning
(CORAL).
Training Institute
The Dispute Resolution Training Institute implements a routine of teaching and outreach aimed
at acknowledging the diversity that exists in our community in respects to culture, gender, social,
economic, religious and ethnic background of residents. The Institute approaches organizations
that represent particular demographics that have been flagged as ones that could benefit from the
development and application of conflict resolution principles and skills.4 This process fosters
4
Such demographics include Community Based Organizations, Women, Youth, Ethnic & Immigrant Communities,
Government Agencies, and Colleges and Universities.
29
mutual exchanges, training, collaboration, and relationship building as processes that contribute
to enhanced outcomes. It also enriches the program as cultural nuances applicable to mediation
strengthens and broadens the effectiveness of mediator skills and applications for underserved
individuals and groups.
Reactively, the Institute also provides trainings to groups who contact the DRP unit to assist with
the enhancement of communication, planning and conflict resolution skills. These trainings
come in preset formats but they can be tailored to meet organizational and diverse needs of
participants. The Training Institute conducts trainings for governmental, community based, and
educational institutions.5 It also routinely provides 40 and 32-hr basic mediation trainings and
introductory to mediation trainings to community members upon requests.
The following represents a partial description of the types of trainings offered for the reporting
period.
Date of Training
February 6,7,8,13,14, 2015
Trainings
40 Hour Basic Mediation Training
March 20, 21, 22, 29, 30, 2015
40 Hour Basic Mediation Training
April 24, 25, 26, May 2, 3,
2015
40 Hour Basic Mediation Training
Date of Training
August 21, 2014
Skill Enhancement
Mediation Confidentiality Training
November 20, 2014
Elimination of Bias Training
March 20, 2015
Online Dispute Resolution, how to use today’s technology to
further the resolution of conflicts with Colin Rule from
Modria.com
Civil Harassment Mediation Training
June 15, 2015
Training Institute Objectives/Future Goals
The Dispute Resolution Training Institute objective is to educate the community and its
constituents on a neutral non-bias approach to solving conflicts which is essentially peace
building within the community. To meet this objective will require the restructuring of the
training institute and educating our mediators on our recent clarification of human rights as the
framework for the office’s work in transformative mediation and one of the most critical tools we
5
These trainings vary by design and content, and moreover, range from 8 to 56 hours in duration.
30
have to achieve in human rights goals in collaboration with the Human Relations Commission
and their Human Rights County Initiative.
It will require an increased training focus on convening, understanding of human rights as the
framework for the office’s work in transformative mediation and sensitivity dialogue training for
participants and volunteers. The certificate policy will change to reflect that participants who
attend the 40-hour conflict resolution training will not receive certificates of completion until he
or she completes 250 hours of supervised case convening in community mediation.
Lastly, training applicants need to demonstrate clearly that they currently are, or will be, in a
position to promote transformative mediation as well as benefit from the skills they will gain
during the training. They must also evidence how those working and living around them will
benefit from the 40-hour basic mediation training.
Staffing
In FY 2015, 3.8 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) DRP positions, (1) FTE HRC III extra help position
(Training Institute), and .3 FTE administrative HRC I extra help position were working directly
for the Dispute Resolution Program.
In addition to extra help unclassified staff assigned to the Training Institute, two classified staff
members, including the Office of Human Relations Manager and full time Administrative
Assistant, work with DRP in a limited capacity to provide general departmental oversight and
administrative support.
Staff members
Delorme McKee-Stovall,
OHR Manager .4 FTE
Noemi Alvarado,
OHR Secretary .2 FTE
Vacant (Interim), Undray Moore
DRP Coordinator
Viola Alvarez
Human Relations Coordinator II
Kate Jones,
Human Relations Coordinator III
Vacant
Human Relations Coordinator II
6 Extra Help Positions
DRP Coordinator 1.3 FTE
31
The County of Santa Clara’s Dispute Resolution Program Services is one of four services
provided by the Office of Human Relations, a department of the County Executive’s Office.
DRP reports to the Manager of the Office of Human Relations. Funds received from the County
of Santa Clara’s general fund augment those funds provided by the Dispute Resolution Program
Act, and are approved directly by the Board of Supervisors. The Program is guided by a Lead
Program Coordinator who is charged with day to day operations, risk management, program
development, quantitative and qualitative outcomes, Data base systems, reporting, volunteer
recruitment, training and retention, and human resource development and management.
DRP Program staff members have a longstanding history and experience in providing
professional neutral services for 16 years. Staff education includes seven Bachelors in Science,
four Masters of Arts Degrees and three Juris Doctor Degrees and various certificates from
Dispute Resolution Program training centers and a number of universities. In addition to the
unique OHR neutral approach and training in dispute resolution, some staff members received
additional training provided throughout the United States. Moreover, staff are required to take
advanced dispute resolution and related trainings every year.
Community Volunteers and Mediators
Mediators utilized by the Program are by in large community non-lawyer volunteers who reside
in the community with backgrounds in law, psychology or counseling. The Dispute Resolution
Program recruited, trained, and maintained 180 active community volunteers and 7 interns
during the fiscal period. Those volunteers and interns contributed 32,070 hours to the County of
Santa Clara; the equivalent of 15.42 FTE coded employees.
Volunteer mediators are recruited via the Program’s Training Institute that establishes the
guidelines and criteria for volunteer mediators. During FY15, the Institute provided 40-hour
trainings focused on the fundamentals and principles of basic mediation. Students demonstrating
the skills, interests, and aptitude for mediation may be selected to further enhance their mediation
skills by practicing with an experienced mediator and conducting community mediations for
DRP after several rounds of feedback and evaluation by trainers and staff. A mediation
certificate is issued by DRP to those who successfully complete the 40-hour training.
In addition to the staff listed, the Dispute Resolution Program received direct assistance from
seven (7) interns this year. DRP has a long-standing internship program based on relationships
with the community, local agencies, colleges and universities. These relationships often foster a
quid pro quo relationship with students and professionals interested in the application theories
and practices of dispute resolution. All interns are screened through a multiphase interview
process and are required to contribute a minimum of 250 hours of service to the Program. Interns
of the Program have come from a variety of sources including San Jose State University, the
University of California system, Stanford University Graduate School Programs, Straus Institute
32
for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law, and Santa Clara University
School of Law. The 7 interns contributed more than 1,750 hours of non-paid service to the
program for this reporting period. Importantly, this number captures only the number of
volunteer hours contributed to the process commonly referred to as convening. This number
does not reflect additional hours spent in training or direct party mediation.
Budget Financial Analysis FY 2013
Salaries
Title
DRP Coordinator
HR Coordinator II
HR Coordinator III
HR Coordinator II
OHR Manager (25%)
OHR Secretary (20%)
Extra Help Position (5.3)
Operating Expenses
(34% of Services and Supplies Appropriation)
Total General Fund Costs
Salary & Benefits
$132,666.836
$100,453.207
$127,869.908
$100,453.209
$36,946.34
$20,165.25
$105,000.00
$623,554.72
$105,85610
$729,410.72
Contributions
In-kind Volunteers (32,070 hrs * $40/hr)
In-kind Partner savings through mediated agreements
(CCP section 1775(f)).
Total In-kind contrition not general fund
DRPA Contributions
Total Contributions (In-kind +general fund)
6
$1,282,800.00
$2,988,794.00
$4,271,594.00
$226,200.00
$5,850,759.44
County Budget System
County Budget System
8
County Budget System
9
County Budget System
10
Operating expenses are a prorated portion of total Services and Supplies (Obj 2) appropriation for OHR.
Percentage of 34% is the relative percentage of funded staff assigned to DRP compared to total OFR staffing.
7
33
Areas for future planning and development
1.
2.
3.
4.
Outreach
Research and reports to communities
Focus on customer satisfaction and community building.
State of the Art Community Mediation Center of Professional Neutrals
Goals for Next Year
The Board of Supervisors (BOS) approved a fee for service model and it was implemented May
1, 2013. This decision was evaluated by the BOS in April of 2014 when it directed the Office of
Human relations to suspend mediation fees and continue charging an administrative fee of $40 at
case opening. The Office of Human relations was also directed to monitor both client reactions
and financial impacts and report back to the BOS in FY 2016. OHR also received Board
approval to implement a web-based case management system to enhance our clients’ experience
with intake and case development. The new system was also instituted to contribute significantly
to all OHR programs’ ability to manage cases remotely using the latest web-based technology. In
FY14, the system was fully implemented. The Office of Human relations’ staff is continuously
using and monitoring the system in order to make further modifications in FY 2016.
The Office of Human relations lost its community mediation program coordinator at the end of
FY 2014. The program is now being managed by an interim coordinator working-out-of-class
and undergoing an extensive evaluation and strategic planning to determine changes and
improvements. In addition, it is expected that the program coordinator position will be upgraded
to a newly created program manager II position to meet the ongoing dynamic needs of the
organization and could be hired at the beginning of FY 2016.
The Office of Human relations strives to further expand outreach in the community for the
purpose of reaching high risk vulnerable populations and work in partnership with non-profit
organizations to maximize its contributions and resources offered to the community. In so doing,
we wish to also start discussions with the community and key stakeholders about setting up, or
creating policy and, or an adopted resolution by the Board of Supervisor regarding a “PreAdjudication diversion” practice or program for youth in the community, i.e. as before
mentioned herein. We also plan to host “Peacemaking Circles” events within the community. We
will educate police officers and juvenile probation officers (JPO’s), prosecutors, judges, and the
victim services division on the adverse impacts and importance to the community on having
more pre-adjudicated youth offenders referrals to the Victim Offender (VOM) Mediation
34
program. We will revitalize and restructure the training institute to meet the community’s
ongoing changing diverse and dynamic needs.
Training applicants will be required to demonstrate clearly that they currently are, or will be, in a
position to promote transformative mediation as well as benefit from the soft skills they will gain
during the training. They must also evidence how those working and living around them will
benefit from these skills in the community. The restructuring of the training institute will require
educating our trainers and mediators on our recent clarification of human rights as the
framework for the office’s work in transformative mediation and one of the most critical tools we
have to achieve in human rights goals in collaboration with the Human Relations Commission
and their Human Rights County Initiative.
In addition, with an overcrowded court and already growing high population based in the
Silicon Valley we foresee the demand for our dispute resolution program services growing
beyond service capacity levels to serve the citizens of the county. The State of California
guaranteed a market for dispute resolution services as it now exists as the result of state and
legislation mandating the use of ADR. This is further evidenced by the Office of Human
Relations provided service to the courts that in turn results in significant cost savings to the
court in monetary amounts of $3,943 per court calendar day. It is further clarification from the
evidence we have been able to collect that the data collected is indicating that we transition from
the current “Day of Court” to a “Pre-Day of Court” program to be more efficient and
effective in ADR work.
The court venue is not seen as a neutral ground for community mediation to take place,
especially when the judicial system has lost the trust and respect of the citizens in which it
serves. The court has an inefficient budget which is resulting in less service to the already
growing dynamic and diverse county population. The court now has less calendared court days
and less full-time commissioners to hear the cases presented by the citizens of the community in
the county. On many days of service to the community a “Judge Pro Tem” hears cases in small
claims court. “Pro tem” is short for the Latin phrase pro tempore, which means temporary.
Accordingly, a “judge pro tem” refers to someone who has been a lawyer for at least 10 years and
is trained to hear and decide small claims cases. The person temporarily serves in place of a
regular judge. Because of budget constraints and the shortage of judges, small claims courts
make extensive use of temporary judges.
The ultimate goal to achieve in providing any community mediation program is neutrality. Our
ultimate goal set for next year is to achieve professional neutrality. We can meet this objective by
moving away from the physical location of the court. There is also a significant county general
fund impact and high risk of county liability if county volunteers are unsupervised at the court
site by county staff. In the event we do not move away from the court a significant county
general fund impact would need to incur to eliminate the county’s exposure to the risks of
having unsupervised volunteers that require additional full-time staff to supervise over 40
volunteers at the court site and case management in the court setting and allocating 1 FTE staff
35
just for clerical administration of a “Day of Court” mediation program in the data entry of over
300 cases monthly into our web-based case management system to adhere to the record
retention policy within the county.
The small claims court already refers over 300 cases each month to the Office of Human
Relations dispute resolution program. In addition, the data we have been able to collect
indicates that over 80 percent of the cases on the small claims court docket more than qualify
for alternative dispute resolution services (ADR). This qualifier has placed the courts in a
desperate position to state to the county residents that before you present your case to a judge
you must try to settle your case in mediation, either at Small Claims Court or at the Office of
Human Relations dispute resolution center. We are currently unable to meet this demand with
current OHR staffing levels. In fact, volunteers themselves serving the court in the scope of
mediation practice comes with inherent neutrality risks due to their law backgrounds.
In addition, Case Management also means referral to mediation. Starting and administering a
community mediation program in court involves a lot of supervision, intensive 40-hour 5 day
trainings and advanced training events, 250 hours of supervised conciliation case convening
apprenticeship of mediators, coordination, meet and confers, and initiative. The encouragement
by the court to adopt Mediation as a dispute resolution process and the sanctity given by the
Court to the agreement are the factors that influence settlement. The effectiveness of the
mediation process is based on how the court starts, administers, coordinates and runs the
mediation program in partnership with the Office of Human Relations dispute resolution center.
Any neglect by the courts to allow supervision from a professional neutral outside of its sphere
of influence and uncoordinated initiative is a disservice to the mediation program and reasons
for discontinuance of a mediation program in court. The Referral Judge has to therefore be
totally involved and catch the moment for stressing on the need to settle. In fact, when
mediation sessions fail, and the parties go back to court, a query of the Presiding Officer or
concern expressed with regard to an issue, works as a catalyst and parties come to a consensus
at that stage. Even then, if necessary, the referral Judge can send the parties back for another
round of mediation sessions or record the settlement that they arrive at if it is mutually
agreeable. This could be even understood as a Judicial Settlement. The alternative is having the
case put on the court docket and not being heard for 3 months or more while individuals are still
in conflict with one another. Depending on the court it is not uncommon for a large majority of
the cases placed on the docket to never actually make it into court; they may be withdrawn for a
variety of reasons, i.e. leaving citizens in the community in conflict with one another.
Further, it makes sense overall to refer these types of court cases if an agreement is reached
between the parties to a conflict. It takes cases off the docket and saves $3,943 per court
calendar day and results in having a more vibrant peaceful community. But conducting
mediations in the court setting is far from the standards of professional neutrality as defined in
the scope of mediation practice. The ultimate goal we aim to achieve next year is professional
neutrality.
408-792-2317, v. 1
36