State of Community Mediation 2013

2013 State of Community Mediation
Report Supplement
“Profiles of Growth”

Karmit Bullman

Conflict Resolution Center MINNEAPOLIS, MN

LaDessa Croucher Volunteers of America Dispute Resolution Center EVERETT, WA
Mary Hancock

Dispute Resolution Center of Kitsap County SILVERDALE, WA

Laura Jeffords

The Mediation Center ASHEVILLE, NC

Daniel Kos

NYS Unified Court System’s Office of ADR ALBANY, NY

Matt Phillips

National Association for Community Mediation PALM SPRINGS, CA

Olga Sanchez

Community Action Partnership Riverside RIVERSIDE, CA

Joe Brummer

Community Mediation, Inc. HAMDEN, CT

Lorig Charkoudian Community Mediation Maryland TAKOMA PARK, MA
LaDessa Croucher

Volunteers of America Dispute Resolution Center EVERETT, WA

Elaine Dickhoner

Conflict Management Group CINCINNATI, OH

Gabrielle Frey

Resolution Works DENVER, CO

Brad Heckman

New York Peace Institute NEW YORK, NY

Laura Jeffords

The Mediation Center ASHEVILLE, NC

Daniel Kos

NYS Unified Court System’s Office of ADR ALBANY, NY

Jim Lingl

Ventura Center for Dispute Settlement CAMARILLO, CA

D.G. Mawn

Intuitive Synergies LOUSVILLE, KY

Steffanie Medina

Creative Mediation Wilshire Community SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

Brian Pappas

Michigan State University College of Law EAST LANSING, MI

Kelly Riley

Nebraska Mediation Association EAGLE, NE

Laura Smythe

Mediation Center of Greater Green Bay, Inc. GREEN BAY, WI

Renata Valree

City Attorney’s Dispute Resolution Program LOS ANGELES, CA

Malcom White

Neighborhood Justice Center LAS VEGAS, NV

Development of this publication has been made possible through the generous support of the JAMS
Foundation, a premier resource and leader in the conflict resolution field. The JAMS Foundation’s
mission is to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), support education at all
levels about collaborative processes for resolving differences, promote innovation in conflict
resolution, an advance the settlement of conflict worldwide. A storied and generous supporter of
community mediation, the JAMS Foundation is an aligned partner with NAFCM, committed to
enhancing the awareness, accessibility, and utilization of the community mediation field and its
broad portfolio of conflict-assistive services. To learn more about the JAMS Foundation, please
visit http://www.jamsfoundation.org

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................. PAGE 2
BOLD STEPS:
HOW TO FIND YOUR DONORS .......................................... PAGE 3
Community Resolution Center
Minneapolis, Minnesota

STEPS TO THE CAPITAL:
HOW TO FIND YOUR VOICE......................................PAGE 3
Resolution Washington
Washington State

STEPPING FORWARD TOGETHER:
HOW TO BUILD YOUR ECONOMY OF SCALE....................PAGE 9
The Mediation Center
Asheville, North Carolina

TAKING ONE STEP AT A TIME:
HOW TO BUILD A GRASSROOTS NETWORK.....................PAGE 9
The Mediation Center
Poughkeepsie, New York

EVOLVING STEPS:
HOW TO FIND YOUR PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY..............PAGE 13
Community Action Partnership of Riverside County
Riverside, California

CONCLUSION........................................................PAGE 16

INTRODUCTION

Does it sometimes feel like you are in a Sherlock Holmes mystery
attempting to understand how some community mediation centers are
able to become financially stable and even expand significantly? The goal
of the 2013 State of Community Mediation Supplement is to de-mystify
this with a vivid, inside look at how growth is possible with centers of
varying size and geographic location. In 2011, The State of Community
Mediation Report demonstrated the tremendous depth of the over 400
community mediation centers, 1,300 staff members, and 20,000
volunteer mediators throughout the country. This Supplement builds
upon this research and has collected five case studies where community
mediation centers of various budget size achieved financial stability
including the development of completely new revenue streams. More
than ever, with traditional government funding becoming less reliable,
one often hears it stated that nonprofits need to diversify their funding
sources. The following five case studies have accomplished this task.
Further, these successes in the field of community mediation all occurred
since the downturn in the economy demonstrating the field's resilience
and ability to grow under the most difficult of circumstances.
The first example comes from a center in Minneapolis, Minnesota where
they implemented an individual donor program that has brought in
significant new revenue and community relationships.
The second example comes from the state of Washington, where the
state-wide association not only gave community mediation centers a voice
at the state capital, but created significant new revenue streams for
centers.
Next, from Asheville, North Carolina, we detail community mediation’s
version of a Wall Street merger, in the form of an "absorption" and see
how it strengthened not 1 center, but 3 centers.
The fourth example is from Riverside California, we detail a community
mediation center that continues to evolve and grow after 17 years of
being housed within a government agency.
Finally, from Dutchess County, New York we detail how an organization,
through grass-roots initiatives, triumphed over an uncertain financial
position.
1|Page

These case studies are only a glimpse of all the progress that has
occurred in the community mediation field recently. Many additional
stories came forward to NAFCM from community mediation centers that
have begun to make progress along similar paths as well as paths that
will be profiled in future editions. NAFCM is committed to acting as a
conduit for best practices in the field of community mediation to be
shared with all centers.
The following cases studies are 5 proven strategies that brought financial
stability to centers throughout the country. However, every center is
unique and should pursue the route that fits its center. NAFCM exists to
provide the support, resources, and national voice needed for all
community mediation centers to successfully serve its community.
NAFCM’s hope is that by working together the result will be that when the
next profile is published, there will be 400 new paths that were sparked
by reading the following profiles.

BOLD STEPS: HOW TO F IND YOUR DONORS
COMMUNITY RESOLUTION CENTER
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

Most people dislike having to ask to for money. But the Community
Resolution Center (CRC) in Minneapolis, Minnesota has developed an
individual fundraising plan that has tremendously strengthened its center
and its connection to its community. What may really surprise you is that
CRC only asks for money once a year, but raised almost $100,000 last
year. In fact, it developed an individual donor roster strong enough that
it doesn’t even have to ask every year as the majority of its donors have
committed to a multi-year gift. Although, it may appear to be magic,
there is definitely a method behind CRC’s new revenue generating
success.
Either way it is hard to argue with CRC’s results. Since 2008, CRC has
grown its net assets by 59%, its income by 68% and its members by
100%. CRC continues each year to enhance its operational strength and
stability with growth across almost all revenue sources. In addition, staff
has more than tripled, volunteer hours provided have increased and the
2|Page

number of people served by CRC each year continues to grow. In 2009,
CRC had only a handful of individual donors and most of its revenue came
from government sources. In 2012, government revenue made up less
than one half of CRC’s revenue, contributed support comprised about
20% of the revenue and the rest of the income came from fees for
service. The largest single source of income for CRC is individual
donations; and this revenue keeps growing each year.
In 2009, CRC held a full day Board and volunteer retreat where CRC
developed a plan for executing a fundraising system similar to that taught
by Benevon (previously Raising More Money) CRC’s Executive Director,
Karmit Bulman, has extensive experience directing non-profits who use
the Benevon model and had seen first-hand the program’s ability to
generate an entirely new revenue source for an organization. From this
initial retreat and training, CRC tasked its Fundraising Committee with
creating a plan for twice monthly open houses. These open houses are
called a “Taste of Mediation”. At each Taste of Mediation event,
community members from all backgrounds have an opportunity to learn
about how CRC serves the community and how it can play a part. There
are always plenty of questions about mediation and related topics at
Taste of Mediation events however one question never asked is “will you
donate to CRC”.

Figure 1. The Benevon Model Overview.

3|Page

CRC’s Tastes of Mediation are friend-raising events; fundraising happens
only once a year. The Benevon Model makes clear that you ask for funds
from your friends only at a free-one hour event that occurs annually
(some organizations do these twice a year). The rest of the year, friends
of the organization reap the benefits of being part of the community. They
are invited to educational workshops, fun events and are invited to learn
more about the organization. Donors are not hounded with letter writing
campaigns, phone call solicitations or time-consuming gala invitations.
It was Benevon who provides the framework for regular open houses and
the annual ask event, but it was CRC who provided the heart and passion
for making this a successful revenue generator. This model requires the
strong support of staff, board and volunteers; this is not a one-person
endeavor, but requires a strong team. CRC recommends that your initial
team be comprised of at least 2 board members, 4 volunteers, and 2 staff
members. As the fundraising infrastructure gets built, it is possible to
move forward with fewer volunteers as long as there are dedicated staff
members to make sure the fundraising efforts are successful.
Once the team is assembled and there is strong buy-in, a number of
items need to be accomplished:
● Plan the open houses including venue, strategic date/times, and
participants.
● Create a compelling 7-8 minute video.
● Develop marketing materials.
● Plan the annual fundraiser.
● Make sure the open houses have a steady stream of guests who are
likely to become involved with the organization.
In 2009, the CRC hosted its first Taste of Mediation, however only 3
guests showed up; however, there was a definite sense that this one hour
event was a good way to bring new friends to the organization. Now that
CRC moves into the 4th year of hosting twice monthly Tastes of Mediation,
it is clear that its visibility in the community has risen tremendously. CRC
has brought hundreds of new donors into the organization. There is a
new buzz about community mediation and the new energy and
excitement is palpable on Taste of Mediation Tuesdays.
4|Page

The Taste of Mediation events culminate in an annual fundraising
breakfast that CRC calls “Bold Steps”. The annual fundraising breakfast is
the only time that supporters and attendees of the “Tastes of Mediation”
are actually asked for money. At CRC’s first breakfast in 2009, it
generated over $43,000 in new revenue. It was at this point, that the
CRC team felt that they had found a vehicle for solid revenue generation.
In 2012, the Bold Steps revenue increased to $90,000. Many of the gifts
to CRC are made in the form of multi-year pledges; as a result the CRC
can rely upon ongoing and sustainable income from private donors.

Figure 2.

With Conflict Resolution Center’s strengthened community support it now relies on government support for
less than half its annual revenue.

Benevon is definitely a fundraising program that any community
mediation center would benefit from. CRC not only benefited from the
new revenue from implementing an individual donor program but also
strengthened the organization at its core. CRC’s board, staff, and
volunteers have learned to plan, collaborate, and execute in ways that
carried over into other areas of the organization’s work. Together it
accomplished something remarkable…and it didn’t even have to ask twice.

5|Page

STEPS TO THE CAPITAL: HOW TO FIND YOUR VOICE
RESOLUTION WASHINGTON
WASHINGTON STATE

Seven years ago in Washington State, community mediation had no voice
in the state capital of Olympia. No voice may be an over-statement, but
there was definitely no collective advocacy for community mediation
taking place. Then Resolution Washington (the state-wide association for
community mediation centers) developed a vision for advocacy for the
state that would make a dramatic impact for community mediation.
In the fall of 2006, a state-wide legislative committee was formed that
was comprised of directors of community mediation centers from across
the state. In Washington State, community mediation centers receive
funding from a surcharge collected on civil district court filings. The
maximum filing fee per filing had not increased since the initial legislation
permitting the surcharge was created in 1990. During the ensuing years,
the real value of a dollar had decreased by about 35%. The legislative
committee quickly sought to increase the maximum possible surcharge
through its new legislative advocacy. However, the legislature had
recently approved an increase to the court filing fees to benefit local court
operating expenses which made the political climate extremely
unfavorable to another fee increase, no matter what the reason. So it felt
like the committee had quickly reached a dead-end and new funding from
its advocacy and legislative efforts felt like a pipe dream.
However, also during this time, it began to interview potential lobbyists to
assist in its legislative advocacy and funding efforts. One of these
lobbyists was Lonnie Johns Brown, who had extensive experience
representing clients in the social services field. Lonnie was hired and
attended one of the next quarterly meetings of community mediation
centers state-wide. At this meeting, Lonnie made it clear that if
Resolution Washington was to be successful in Olympia, then community
mediation centers staff, board, and supporters were going to need to be
her partners in advocacy. Further, she explained that she could have
meetings with legislators all day but those meetings would not have an
impact without the corresponding visits, phone calls and emails from its
constituents.

6|Page

Figure 3. Resolution Washington Lobbyist Lonnie Johns Brown has advocated for community mediation in Olympia,
Washington since 2006.

This education in political advocacy continued for every day after that as
Resolution Washington learned to navigate the politics of a state capital.
Throughout these efforts, there was constant communication between the
Resolution Washington Legislative Committee and their lobbyist. If
Lonnie met with a representative or a senator, the legislative committee
would quickly receive notice that follow up with that legislator was
needed. The legislative committee would then contact the respective
center to make the necessary contacts. Similarly, if a director had a
meeting with their legislator, this information was quickly passed to
Lonnie as well. This consistent sharing of information between their
lobbyist and the committee led to an effective leveraging of Resolution
Washington’s state-wide reach as well as the lobbyist’s experience and
knowledge. During, the first legislative session of activity Resolution
Washington was able to receive $500,000 per year for a 2 year biennium
in general capacity funds for community mediation centers across the
state. (Resolution Washington had initially sought $1,500,000 per year,
but were able to secure the $500,000.)
There was a sense that Resolution Washington had successfully created a
voice for community mediation within Washington State Legislature.
Unfortunately, the next 6 years were to see some of the most difficult
7|Page

revenue shortfall in Washington State history and the word from Lonnie
was that the “last funding in is the first funding cut”. The Resolution
Washington Legislative committee and membership knew it was going to
have to work harder than what it had first imagined in order to maintain
this legislative foothold that it had temporarily achieved.
Over the next 6 years, Resolution Washington and Lonnie undertook the
following action steps in order to expand its political presence in Olympia:




Each year, the Resolution Washington Legislative Committee
came up with a new “one pager” that provided a clear
overview for legislators of what Resolution Washington does
for the state and what Resolution Washington was hoping to
accomplish in the upcoming legislative session. The one
pager included data on how many individuals and families had
been served by community mediation centers in the past
year.



Mediation success stories were distributed by the local
Olympia Dispute Resolution Center staff on a weekly basis
during the session. These success stories were contributed by
centers throughout the state on a variety of topics that
reflected the broad impact of community mediation.



The Resolution Washington Legislative Committee responded
quickly to all directions from Lonnie. If meetings, calls, emails
needed to occur with particular legislators, the legislative
committee promptly made these tasks happen with the
support of the directors state-wide.



8|Page

Directors continued to speak directly with their state
legislators but it expanded to imploring staff, board members,
volunteers, and other supporters to do the same. The
Resolution Washington Legislative Committee created talking
points and support for these new voices for community
mediation.

The Resolution Washington Legislative Committee kept the
membership updated frequently on how things were going
and what action steps needed to be completed, usually within
short time frames.



The Resolution Washington Legislative Committee met at the
annual retreat to outline priorities for the upcoming legislative
session.

As of today, approximately seven years after the Resolution Washington
Legislative Committee first assembled, Resolution Washington has
received a minimum of $500,000 a year in general capacity funding for
community mediation centers nationwide totaling over $3 million.
Additionally, during this time period, Resolution Washington received
$500,000 in state legislative funding for family mediation services. Just
as significant as this new funding source was the new way that
community mediation centers and their services were being viewed by the
community. Community mediation centers in Washington were being
asked to do more group facilitations for government agencies and
workplaces than anytime previous. But, no one could have predicted
where Resolution Washington’s legislative advocacy would take
community mediation centers next.
From 2007 to 2010, like through most of the country, home foreclosures
dramatically increased in Washington State. In 2010, a number of stakeholders began meeting to discuss the possibility of new legislation that
would provide homeowners and the note holder/bank the opportunity to
sit down together in mediation before a home foreclosure occurred. A
combination of a tip from the legal community and utilizing Lonnie to
know what to do with the information led to Resolution Washington
having a voice in the shaping of Washington State’s Foreclosure Fairness
Act. This voice allowed community mediation centers to become partners
with Department of Commerce, the state agency tasked with developing
the foreclosure mediation program, in creating a framework that provided
professional mediation services cost-effectively throughout the state.
Community mediation centers from the beginning were the primary
providers of home foreclosure mediations in the state with approximately
70% of referrals going to a community mediation center. During the first
year, community mediation centers generated new revenue from home
foreclosure services fees of approximately $350,000 however this funding
was significantly short of what was needed. Specifically, additional
funding was necessary for intake, case management and mediation
service delivery as community mediation centers across the state began
to feel significant financial pressure. Once again, Resolution Washington
came together and drafted a proposal for funding support from the
National Bank Settlement.
9|Page

Figure 4. Brochure from the Washington State Department of Commerce and Resolution Washington partnership to
provide Washington State’s Home Foreclosure Program.

In response to this proposal, in 2012, the Washington State Attorney
General’s Office awarded Resolution Washington $2.1 million to support
the home foreclosure program for the following 3 years. Additionally,
Resolution Washington was able to get commitment of $100,000 annually
of state funding from the Department of Commerce funding from fees
generated from bank foreclosure default filing fees for community
mediation centers to provide home foreclosure mediation services through
2015. Resolution Washington Legislative Chair, Mary Hancock elaborates,
“The program continues successfully today with community mediation
centers playing a crucial role in training foreclosure mediators, tracking
data, supporting administrative functions of the Department of Commerce
as well as continuing to provide the majority of the foreclosure mediation
services”.
Resolution Washington has proven to be successful in giving community
mediation centers a voice in the state capital, as well as generating
necessary new revenue that provides the state cost effective services.
Community mediation centers came together in order to amplify their
voice and generate new revenue that would have been impossible for one
center to secure on its own. But, the partnerships expanded beyond the
community mediation community and state legislators to include legal aid
organizations, banks, county/city government, Bar Associations, housing
counselors, the Governor, and other community organizations. In the
10 | P a g e

end, Resolution Washington’s legislative activities have created a statewide infrastructure that has positioned community mediation centers to
continue to generate revenue while meeting the state’s and their
respective communities’ conflict resolution needs.

STEPPING FORWARD TOGETHER: HOW TO BUILD YOUR ECONOMY OF SCAL E
THE MEDIATION CENTER
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

You may have heard of Wall Street firms performing mergers and
acquisitions as vehicle for sustainability and growth, and now community
mediation centers have found a way to join together as a growth engine
as well. Like many community mediation centers across the US,
mediation centers in North Carolina lost a large amount of government
funding during the recession. Prior to 2010, the North Carolina legislature
had provided a line-item allocation to support the money-saving work of
the state’s 22 community mediation centers. All of this funding was
eliminated at the start of the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Although the amount
of funding comprised a relatively small amount of the overall budget of
many centers, tight funding from all sources made this change
particularly difficult.
The Mediation Center has provided services in Buncombe County, North
Carolina since 1984. Nearby Henderson, Polk, and Transylvania Counties
had been served by two other organizations since the mid-80s as well.
After the state budget cuts were implemented, the Mediation Center was
approached by the boards of directors of the Dispute Settlement Center of
Henderson and Polk Counties and the Center for Dialogue of Transylvania
County. The Mediation Center began to explore a variety of possible ways
that they could work together to ensure that their services continued to
be available in the region. A short three months after the start of the
discussion, the three centers came to an agreement that the Mediation
Center would absorb the other two organizations – a process similar to a
merger, but where only assets and not liabilities are taken on.
The Mediation Center worked with an attorney who had expertise in
nonprofit law throughout the process, for the purpose of drafting a sound
agreement which would limit risk to all parties and ensure clarity around
critical issues. The three board worked together through several drafts of
11 | P a g e

Figure 5. A map of the counties involved in the 3 center merger in North Carolina.

the agreement, and continued friendly negotiations until all three boards
voted unanimously to approve the arrangement. From the time of the
first discussion until the absorption was final, only three months passed.
This accelerated timeline was necessary to preserve the assets of all three
agencies by moving toward a more efficient business model as quickly as
possible. During the preparation period, the Executive Director met
several times with each board and also the volunteer mediators in each
county to share the vision for the new organization and learn more about
local operations and culture. While volunteers understood the necessity
of the move and were largely in agreement about its benefits, it was
important to process the feelings of sadness and loss experienced by
those who had spent many years investing in their local organizations and
to ensure that systems and relationships were in place to preserve local
input and engagement.
In order to ensure that there was continuous, high-quality service across
their new, regional service area, The Mediation Center hired all the
program staff from the other two organizations, maintained each office
location, and brought members from each community onto the board of
12 | P a g e

directors. It quickly identified the importance of working closely with
their grant funders throughout the process, and was able to maintain all
committed funding. Further, it formed a Volunteer Council in each
community. The Volunteer Councils consist primarily of former members
of the boards of directors of the two dissolved agencies, who are longstanding supporters and program volunteers. The Volunteer Councils not
only allowed The Mediation Center to maintain community ties, but it
additionally expanded its capacity for fundraising, donor development,
and community relations. Volunteer Council members implement
strategies that fit each community, and use their connections to conduct
meaningful outreach and to personally connect with donors.
There are many advantages to being a regional organization. As one
organization, The Mediation Center’s costs are lower for many back-office
functions including auditing, bookkeeping, insurance, benefits, and IT
system maintenance, to name a few examples. The Mediation Center has
also grown from 11 to 17 staff, creating larger teams within each
program. Staff benefit from having more peers doing similar work with
whom they can collaborate day-to-day. They have been able to take the
systems and practices that were working best from each of the three
organizations and expand those across all four counties, which has
strengthened their programs and increased the quality of their services.
Of course, there were also many challenges, and lots of work to do. The
first year as a regional organization was filled with numerous new projects
– from training all staff on policies and procedures, re-organizing work
flow processes to account for distance, a substantial change to the
organizational chart, and new job descriptions for nearly all staff. At
times, it was difficult for staff to keep up with program responsibilities
while also making transitions in most aspects of their work. Many staff
members worked extra hours for several months to ensure that they were
able to serve clients while combining processes and cultures. The three
centers started their time together with several intensive planning
sessions to determine where they wanted to standardize services and
processes, and where differences were relevant and useful. They also
received a grant to hire a marketing and branding consultant who
assisted their board and staff in re-writing brochures and other key
materials as well as designing a new logo. This gave the new Mediation
Center a unified look and message that allowed them to avoiding using
the image of just one of the organizations that had come together.

13 | P a g e

It was crucial that they quickly standardized as many parts of their
operation as possible:


Volunteer mediators receive the same pre- and in-service
training, use the same forms, and follow the same
procedures.



The scope of their service is more similar in each county, but
distinctions remain based on the needs of the court and the
services of other nonprofits.



Human resources functions like payroll, benefits, and
timesheets are handled centrally



They worked with funders to make grant outcomes for similar
programs as similar as possible, so that data tracking is more
efficient



They have moved to cloud-based computing so that
collaboration is easier and staff that move between office
locations can access documents from anywhere.



They now have a VOIP phone system connected across
locations that allows them to transfer client calls internally.



Fundraising is coordinated across the organization, which
allows for the undertaking of larger projects and has
increased gifts.

After two years, things are running smoothly. Revenue-wise, the
Mediation Center has been able to spend more money on programs
because less funding is needed to support management and
administrative aspects. Further, it has received new and/or increased
support from many funders who appreciate its innovative response to the
difficult economy, feel hopeful for its future, and see strong evidence of
its ability to collaborate and adapt. The Community Foundation of
Western North Carolina helped it get started with a $20,000 grant to
cover IT and phone upgrades, as well as the marketing and branding
consultant. It was also recently selected for a $150,000 three-year
capacity building grant from the Melvin R. Lane Fund of the Community
Foundation of Western North Carolina which will enable them to hire its
first full-time development coordinator, and expand the hours of the
14 | P a g e

administrative assistant so that the Executive Director can spend more
time on strategic leadership, staff development, and major donor
relationships.

Figure 6. The board chairs and executive directors who created and signed the agreement for the Mediation Center to
become a regional organization.
Left to right: Jan Woloson, former Executive Director of Dispute Settlement Center of Henderson and Polk Counties
(currently Senior Mediator/Trainer at the Mediation Center); Don Huber, former board chair of Dispute Settlement
Center of Henderson and Polk Counties; Lucy Lawrence, former board chair of the Mediation Center; Laura Jeffords,
Executive Director of The Mediation Center; Joe Wilbanks, former board chair of the Center for Dialogue of
Transylvania County; Susan Miller, former Executive Director of the Center for Dialogue of Transylvania County.

In difficult economic times, three centers in North Carolina became one
and have increased more than just revenue. They have a strong
partnership with Western North Carolina Nonprofit Pathways, a regional
capacity building organization that has provided consultants to help with
strategic planning, marketing, fundraising, and board development. Also,
they learned a lot from the other regional nonprofits in its area whom
have experience serving multiple counties. Having adequate support
from experts and peers has been critical during this transition period. The
Mediation Center has had to make a large number of decisions, bring
together the culture of their staff and board members, and develop a new
regional identify. There is an unmistakable sense of pride when three
groups join together and are able to sustain services to people who are
experiencing difficult and stressful times. In North Carolina, an
absorption was the key to community mediation’s growth and
sustainability.

15 | P a g e

EVOLVING STEPS: HOW TO FIND YOUR PLACE IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA

Approximately 86% of community mediation centers are non-profit
agencies while the remaining 14% of centers are housed within a
government agency. The centers housed within government agencies
have a unique set of benefits and challenges, and the Community Action
Partnership of Riverside County (CAP Riverside) has leveraged their
unique vantage point for significant growth in serving its community.
CAP Riverside is a public agency within the County of Riverside, California
and for the past 34 years, CAP Riverside has been governed by the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors and is administered by the
Community Action Commission. Also, CAP Riverside is a member of a
national network of 1,100 community action agencies (CAAs) created
through the 1964 War on Poverty legislation. From the outside, this may
sound like a traditional government agency, but it is pushing itself to
continue to evolve and has recently experienced tremendous growth.
Over these past 17 years, since the establishment of its Dispute
Resolution Center, CAP Riverside has served its community in a number
of ways including partnering with its local courts, law enforcement, and
other government agencies to offer a well-rounded mediation
program. Although, it receives funding from the government, every year
it must demonstrate that its services are meeting the community’s needs
in order to continue to be funded. To illustrate, it was just 4 years ago
that CAP Riverside saw a need in its community that was not being
met. In 2009, CAP Riverside, implemented a preventative aspect to its
program that would provide mediation tools directly to elementary,
middle, and high school students. The program was started in direct
response to conflicts that community members children were having in
school. As many of us know, Peer Mediation is a voluntary process where
students, trained as Peer Mediators, help other students come to a better
understanding of each other and reach their own solution to school
conflicts (i.e. rumors, bullying, etc.). Peer mediators become models of
peacemaking wherever they go, helping to make their homes, their
schools, and their communities a better place to live. Using conflict
resolution skills and the peer mediation process, students can begin to
see conflict as an opportunity for growth and learning, rather than
something that fuels anger, frustration, or even violence.

16 | P a g e

The program started off at Sunnymead Middle School, a low-income
school located in the city of Moreno Valley with 25 students. The program
was quickly embraced by the community and there was a strong desire
that the program expand. The very next year, the program expanded to
6 middle and high schools. By 2011, the program had grown to 25
schools and by 2012 over 1800 students and school administrators had
been reached in less than 3 years.

Figure 7. Future community mediation center leaders: peer mediation students take on their first case.

While CAP Riverside was definitely not the first community mediation
center to implement a Peer Mediation Program, it is a clearly unique
example of a government program continuing to grow through
strengthened community partnerships. CAP Riverside emphasizes the
significance of a first impression in creating and developing new
community partnerships. To illustrate, if Sunnymead Middle School (the
first school where the program was implemented) would have had a
negative experience, the program would have not had the community
support it needed to significantly grow to 25 schools in such a short
period of time.
However, sometimes a positive experience is not quite enough. CAP
Riverside not only planned out its first Peer Mediation Program with
extreme detail, but it made sure to capitalize on its success through
creating open lines of communication with the community. Specifically,
CAP Riverside quickly documented the success at Sunnymead Middle
School and began sharing this success with the community through
surveys, success stories, school follow ups, and involving participating
students in other aspects of its program (i.e. Mediation Conference). In
the short time since the program’s inception, CAP Riverside has created
hundreds of new partnerships. One such new “partner” was a Peer
17 | P a g e

Counselor from Raymond Cree Middle School in Palm Springs who stated,
“We had a number of students that would get into arguments,
disagreements, or even talk of fighting until meeting with two Peer
Mediators to reach a peaceful solution. Our fights went down by 50%
from last year. I strongly attribute the statistics to our Peer Mediation
program.”
Recently, CAP Riverside was able to showcase its Peer Mediation program
at its Annual Mediation Conference. It received additional community
support from judges and other stakeholders in the community that will
continue to move the program forward.

Figure 8. Peer mediation students participate in the CAP Riverside’s 2nd Annual Mediation Conference.

In the next 2 years, CAP Riverside plans to double the number of students
and school personnel trained. This would mean that 3,600 students and
school personnel would be trained in just the 6 years since the program’s
inception. This is the type of exponential program growth commonly
identified with Silicon Valley start-ups, not governmental programs.
Riverside County is a leader in innovative government. Further, the Board
of Supervisors has adopted the goal of creating Healthy Communities.
Health entails more than just medical well-being. Mediation is a very
important tool in ensuring the overall health of a community. With the
combined resources that county government offers, and the innovation
that has marked the success of CAP Riverside, this agency is leading the
way among public agencies that offer mediation services.

18 | P a g e

TAKING ONE STEP AT A TIME: HOW TO TRIUMPH OVER ADVERSITY
THE MEDIATION CENTER OF DUTCHESS COUNTY
POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK

In April of 2011 Jody Miller, Executive Director of the Mediation Center of
Dutchess County (MCDC), received a shocking phone call from the
organization’s stable long-term funder. The state court system informed
her that MCDC’s funding would be cut by $25,000. This surprising news
came on the heels of dramatic cuts from the County. “All told we lost
more than $150,000 of funding in a matter of 16 months,” recalls Miller.
With a staff of seven FTEs reduced by half, MCDC was forced to maintain
only a part-time office and significantly scale back its community
mediation services. Caseload numbers which topped 650 cases a year fell
below 400 cases.
Fortunately, MCDC retained its reputation as an innovative community
mediation center and a high quality social service provider. In previous
years MCDC launched a successful elder mediation service; developed a
ground-breaking partnership with Dutchess County Domestic Violence
Services (formerly Battered Women’s Services) which provides custody
and visitation, divorce, and intimate partner mediation for victims of
domestic violence; and transitioned to adopt the use of the transformative
mediation orientation in all of its casework. This reputation was a critical
asset as Miller and the MCDC Board of Directors developed strategies to
stabilize the organization during the economic downturn. Faced with an
uncertain financial future, the Board directed its short-term strategy
towards connecting with twelve local foundations in the hopes of shortterm stabilizing revenue. Impressed by the center’s past and current
work, the Board successfully received support from four of those
foundations. This accomplishment, in turn, galvanized the Board to raise
the bar even higher and undertake a long-term comprehensive approach
to restructuring the organization by building new alliances while
maintaining its core programs.
One aspect of its strategy was to look beyond mediation services and see
how else the organization could meet the needs of the community.
Without compromising its commitment to mediation, MCDC explored how
it could put collaborative values to work in the community building and
community organizing efforts related to its programming. It began by
building deeper connections with its local and county governmental
agencies and elected officials. Working in concert with the Dutchess
19 | P a g e

County Coalition of Nonprofits, MCDC re-established connections with
county legislators, county commissioners, the country Executive, and
department heads from the Health Department and Probation
Department. This effort not only allowed MCDC to better understand the
county’s social service priorities, but also helped it to provide input and
shape the priorities. MCDC responded to the priorities by establishing and
expanding two community-wide coalitions—the Coalition on Elder Abuse
in Dutchess County [“Coalition”] and the Anti-Bullying Initiative.

Figure 9. Advertisement for the Anti-Bullying Youth Summit sponsored by the Mediation Center of Dutchess County.

The Coalition came into existence when MCDC conducted a community
needs assessment before launching an elder mediation program.
Stakeholders identified elder abuse as a community-wide issue that
needed attention and could potentially compromise the effectiveness of
mediation services. The Center responded by adjusting its typical
screening and mediation processes and also helped convene the Coalition,
now comprised of more than 30 organizations including governmental
agencies, nonprofits, faith based institutions, law enforcement, and
financial services providers. Together these partners initiated the first
World Elder Abuse Awareness Day held in Dutchess County in cooperation
with the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse (INPEA).
The Anti-bullying Initiative also grew from MCDC many years of providing
peer mediator training and partnering with schools to provide services in
cases involving young people. Increasing reports of youth suicide when
bullying was a factor, and the implementation of the Dignity for All
Students Act (DASA) that went into effect July 2012, inspired MCDC to do
more. Since its inception, the Anti-bullying Initiative has employed
grassroots organizing such a Walkathon, film screenings, Youth Summits,
20 | P a g e

and a student art show. MCDC engaged county and local government
officials in the development of these events including key officials such as
the Health Commissioner and County Executive as chairpersons and
speakers.

Figure 10. The Mediation Center’s Anti-Bullying Walkathon Over the Hudson.

“Community mediation programs are often reluctant to engage in
coalitions and advocacy work for fear of compromising the community’s
perception of their neutrality, “explains NAFCM Executive Director Matt
Phillips. “MCDC’s experience shows that by connecting advocacy work to
universal issues such as elder abuse and anti-bullying, issues that grow
from the organization deep connection to the value of people’s selfdetermination, that community mediation centers can use advocacy
strategies to advance their missions without compromising their values.”
As MCDC’s commitment to the Coalition and Anti-bullying Initiative grew,
so did their visibility in the community. Now perceived as more than a
mediation service provider, MCDC received the attention of new funders
and the renewed interest of past funders. The County now funds MCDC
for nearly $85,000 to coordinate the Elder Abuse Coalition, lead elder
abuse awareness training programs, and support its work in bullying
prevention. United Way, who had changed its funding priorities and
stopped funding MCDC five years ago, returned as a funder, providing a
grant of $25,000 to implement anti-bullying programming.
In Forces for Good, Leslie Crutchfiled and Heather McLeod Grant explain
that “the best nonprofits both advocate and serve. They couple policy
reform with program or direct services to create more impact By
operating programs on the ground, they gain a first-hand view of the
problems facing their constituents and can . . . inform their proposed
21 | P a g e

policy solutions. And by engaging in policy . . . reform, organizations can
influence legislation and identify new opportunities for programs.
Ultimately the two activities reinforce each other.” MCDC’s work is a rare
example of a community mediation program that employs this strategy.
Not only has the organization been able to advance its mission, its grassroots approach to long-term development has helped the organization
attain the financial resources needed to support its sustainability while
augmenting its impact in the community.

SUMMARY: NEXT STEPS

NAFCM hopes that these examples will shine as beacons of inspiration. It
hopes that these case studies will not only serve as concrete examples of
what is possible but will generate other stories to come forward from
community mediation centers across the globe. The case studies above
are all very distinct from each other, very much like how things appear
when looking at map (or now MapQuest) and calculating the various
potential routes to your destination. Similarly, just as you may pick the
most scenic or perhaps the quickest route to meet your driving needs,
there may be a case study in this report that will meet your center’s
specific needs better than the others. If there is one or more that really
seems to be a good fit for your center please contact NAFCM for more
information and support in reaching the same success as the centers
profiled here.
These stories are just starting points for all centers, including the centers
profiled. The next chapters of all these storied will be impacted by many
factors that may not be in our control. However what is in our control is
the ability to share what has worked and what has not. The field of
community mediation has become too large not to be consistently
learning from the extraordinary amount of experience, wisdom, and
expertise. Even within these case studies, we see that that most of the
examples include a group of community mediation centers coming
together to accomplish things. However, even in the centers that were
successful without concrete partnerships with other centers, it is evident
that that it was crucial to have created significant partnerships with other
nonprofits and community organizations.

22 | P a g e

Over the next couple of years, together we can write the next chapters
which will contain hybrids of these success stories as well as completely
new paths to success in the field. In this way, we can not only help those
in our community but also help each other to better serve our
communities through shared methods proven to alleviate the financial
stresses that too often impinge upon our ability to achieve our aims.
Community mediation works best when people work together, and we
believe that the same is true of community mediation groups as well.
NAFCM is committed to working together with community mediation
centers across the country until success and growth in the field of
community mediation will be “elementary, my dear Watson”.

23 | P a g e

For more information contact NAFCM:
admin@nafcm.org
(602) 633-4213
www.nafcm.org

24 | P a g e

State of Community Mediation 2013

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (9)

Similar a State of Community Mediation 2013

Similar a State of Community Mediation 2013 (20)

Más de virtualmediationlab

Más de virtualmediationlab (20)

Último

Último (20)

State of Community Mediation 2013