Defining 'Success' in the Neighborhood Justice Movement (From Neighborhood Justice, P 172-192, 1982, by Roman Tomasic et al - See NCJ-83472)

• NCJ Number: 83478
• Author(s): S E Merry
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 21 pages
• Sale Source: Longman Inc
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Evaluations of neighborhood justice centers have focused on the judicial definitions of need and standard of success, neglecting issues of quality and access to justice as well as community development goals.

Abstract

To understand mediation and its potential role in American society better, this paper provides (1) an examination of the prototype of mediation and the social settings in which it occurs naturally, (2) an analysis of the impact of the social context and the surrounding social structure on the way mediation functions, and (3) broader definitions of effectiveness and success which describe more fully what neighborhood justice centers can provide in the American context. Early proponents of mediation in American society drew their inspiration from three situations in which mediation serves as the predominant mode of dispute settlement: nonindustrial, small-scale societies reported in the anthropological literature; socialist people's courts and comrades' courts; and labor and commercial arbitration in the United States. An analysis of these prototypes suggests the need to transplant community mediation into American society with more sophistication and greater awareness of the impact of the surrounding social structure. The extent and condition of ongoing relationships, the role of consensus and shared values, the need to settle, and the availability of avoidance and court as culturally acceptable and socially possible alternative solutions to conflict all influence the way mediation functions. The manifestations of mediation through the neighborhood justice centers must also be evaluated from a broader perspective of the benefits that may accrue from the operations of these centers. Evaluation measures thus far have focused primarily on judicial goals while ignoring such benefits as access to justice and the facilitation of community development by defining community values, increasing local autonomy in dealing with social control problems, and facilitating the development of local leadership that may be applied in other areas. Two notes are provided.