NCJ Number
173021
Journal
Judicature Volume: 80 Issue: 5 Dated: March-April 1997 Pages: 222-229
Date Published
1997
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This article describes the problems that developed in Arizona's attempt to implement court-annexed ADR (alternative dispute resolution), and how they have been addressed, along with an outline of lessons learned from the Arizona experience for other States that are planning an ADR system.
Abstract
Some of the problems encountered in Arizona in the implementation of a court-annexed ADR system were complaints by attorneys and litigants that mediation was costly, time- consuming, unfruitful, and a poor substitute for formal court proceedings. Further, efforts to prove the value of ADR after 1 year of operation were hampered by differences across programs and the short period of operation. Still, ADR fund legislation, despite barriers to its implementation, has spurred the growth of court-annexed ADR in Arizona. Several counties have now placed the previously grant-funded mediation programs in the court's permanent budget, and data from the funded programs is encouraging in terms of reducing court caseloads. This article presents a number of recommendations based on Arizona's experience with ADR. First, if planning to fund ADR programs with filing fees in a non-unified court system, decide whether to establish a common fund or separate funds for each court. Second, prior to implementation of an ADR program, conduct surveys of judges, lawyers, court managers, and litigants regarding the proposed program design. Third, identify specific goals for the program and establish adequate data-collection procedures to verify their achievement. Fourth, facilitate broad participation from the legal community in the development of a statewide court- annexed ADR program.