NCJ Number
67567
Date Published
1980
Length
36 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF SIX ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE PROCESSING PROJECTS AND A REVIEW OF THE THEORETICAL LITERATURE FINDS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTER CONCEPT OFFERS MORE HOPE FOR PERMANENT INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION.
Abstract
TRADITIONALLY THE COURTS HAVE BEEN USED TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN PERSONS. HOWEVER, LITIGATION IS COSTLY AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR A HOST OF MINOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FAMILY DISPUTES THAT HAVE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF CONFLICT AND THAT ARE AT ONCE TOO SMALL TO WARRANT THE TIME AND EXPENSE OF A FULL TRIAL AND YET TOO COMPLICATED FOR A 'YES OR NO' ANSWER. EXAMINATION OF SIX ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE PROCESSING PROJECTS IN BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, COLUMBUS, OHIO, MIAMI, FLORIDA, NEW YORK CITY, ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, AND SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, FINDS THAT BETWEEN 80 AND 95 PERCENT OF THE CASES END IN PERMANENT DISPUTE RESOLUTION. CASES HANDLED ARE FAMILY MATTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD CONFLICTS, BAD CHECK CHARGES (FOR WHICH RESTITUTION IS WORKED OUT), AND LANDLORD-TENANT CASES. VARYING DEGREES OF COERCION ARE USED TO ENFORCE ORDERS. ALL THE PROJECTS USE TRAINED PERSONS TO HEAR THE CASES; MOST OF THESE MEDIATORS ARE NOT ATTORNEYS AND MANY COME FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL PARTIES HAVE THE OPTION OF RETURNING TO COURT IF THE RESOLUTION IS NOT SATISFACTORY, BUT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE DO. FIVE OF THE SIX PROJECTS WERE STARTED WITH LEAA FUNDS. NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTICE CENTERS SEEM TO BE FAR BETTER THAN FORMAL COURT PROCEEDINGS FOR MINOR DISPUTES. THE ENTHUSIASTIC ACCEPTANCE OF THE CENTERS BY BOTH POLICE AND COURT PERSONNEL ATTEST TO THEIR USEFULNESS. A TABLE COMPARES THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CENTERS. REFERENCES ARE APPENDED.