The Neighborhood JusticeCenter Movement[1]

Edith B. Primm

In 1978, the U.S. Department of Justice began the Neighborhood JusticeCenter (“NJC”) pilot program to explore new dispute resolution options. Pilot projects were established in Kansas City, Atlanta and Los Angeles. Each project received a $212,000 Justice Department grant to be used for the first eighteen months. After the initial eighteen months, the programs raised $12,000 to meet the Federal government’s matching $148,000 grant. Figuring out how to receive additional funding without the help of their initial source proved to be challenging. As a result of the project, NJCs spurned across the country.

The programs differed in structure, which encouraged various NJC models throughout the country. NJCs that had direct links with the court systems had higher referral rates than those that worked independent of court systems. Atlanta produced a caseload referral rate that was two to three times higher than the other two programs. Eighty percent of the referrals in Atlanta were made by judges from the bench or clerks in the filing desks to NJC court volunteers working with them in the court. Atlanta’s model, which required for NJC volunteers to work alongside court staff, has been replicated by many other mediation centers. The Los Angeles NJC chose not to have direct ties with the courts, preferring if at all possible, to get disputes to mediation before a formal case had been filed.

Since the completion of the pilot projects, partnerships between NJCs and court systems have increased NJCs’ referral rates and have helped lawyers and court staff workers alike develop more appreciation for NJCs. Most NJCs strive to ensure that people who participate in mediation are aware of their rights while securing enough funding to stay afloat. Without a clear mission, NJCs run the risk of mirroring court systems. Some lawyers have raised concerns about NJCs possibly infringing on disputants’ rights and inappropriately practicing law. In order to alleviate such fears, many NJCs encourage disputants to seek legal advice prior to mediating and throughout the mediation process. This has helped NJCs to maintain good standing with individuals in the legal field.

Court systems could also help the community at-large understand the benefits of mediation. For instance, people who participate in mediations can break contracts and enter new ones. Lawyers can read over contracts and agreements to insure that the parties are aware of their legal rights. In court systems, it is almost impossible to break written contracts. Mediations also allow people to discover how the dispute originated and to develop ways to resolve the dispute and prevent similar ones from occurring in the future. Given the win/lose nature of court systems, participants who litigate disputes rarely are able to get such results.

NJCs still grapple with the issue of servicing their communities efficiently while promoting the fundamental goal of allowing community members to resolve their disputes without court inference. Court-ordered programs have proven to be more successful at garnering much-needed referrals and funding for NJCs; however, NJCs were developed under the premises that participants voluntarily agree to have their disputes mediated. Posing mediation as a voluntary option for people could mean some cases may not be resolved because one or both sides may not reach an agreement. Mandatory mediation programs may give participants the impression that they must settle. In order for NJCs to continue to promote the original ideal, they will have to encourage voluntary referrals and set realistic standards for their center’s goals.

Ethical Practices and Values [OE]

-Ethical Representations to Participants [OE-2]

History

Referrals [OR]

-Receiving Cases from Other Agencies

States

-California

-Georgia

-Missouri

1

[1]Primm, Edith. “The Neighborhood JusticeCenter Movement.” Kentucky Law Journal81.4 (1992-1993): 1067-1083.