Guidelines for Agency Dispute Resolution Coordinators

Some Basic Steps to Initiating DR in an Agency

TABLE OF CONTENTS MORE 

There are four basic steps to designing and initiating a DR program. These are: 1) making an assessment of needs; 2) undertaking an initial plan or design for the program; 3) implementing the program (often initially on a pilot basis); and 4) evaluating the program's success and making any necessary improvements before taking it agency-wide.

  1. Assessment: An assessment is the initial step in developing a DR plan for your agency. The analysis should consider both the structure and mission of the agency and its current dispute resolution system. It will also examine the barriers that must be overcome as well as opportunities, incentives, and potential sources of support.
  2. Planning and Program Design: The plan may be comprehensive and address some of the structural issues described above, or it may focus on developing a particular program that sets goals, objectives and steps the agency will take in implementation.
  3. Demonstration: A pilot project allows an agency to begin on a small scale in order to see how well DR will work. The agency will learn lessons from the pilot, correct any problems that arise and then implement the program on larger, more permanent scale.
  4. Evaluation: Evaluation helps an agency determine whether a DR program is meeting its goals and is working properly. Evaluation data are useful in making decisions about the future direction for the DR program, and in obtaining resources for continuing or expanding successful programs.

A DR Coordinator charged with integrating a new program should consult other documents that provide detailed advice on how to carry out these steps. Chapter 2 of the Federal DR Program Manager's Resource Manual, Designing a DR Program, is an excellent place to begin.

Guidelines for carrying out the four steps:

  1. Do an Assessment. There are a number of approaches to making a formal assessment of an agency's needs. Depending on the overall purpose or charge and the knowledge and resources available to the DR Coordinator, the assessment can be agency wide or can start with one or two sections or divisions of the agency where interest exists. Another way to begin is to identify three types of recurring and/or disruptive conflicts within the agency and focus on potential plans and activities to address those conflicts.

    For examples of assessment tools and plans, see the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution's Agency DR Assessment and Planning Tool and Guidelines; the New Mexico DR Council's DR Template; and the Oregon Dispute Resolution Commission's DR Needs Assessment Sample Questions and Next Steps.

  2. Develop a Plan or Systems Design. Once the assessment is completed, the DR Coordinator will begin to develop the plan or design. A full-blown agency plan should include the following elements:
    1. program goals and objectives
    2. which DR methods will be used
    3. how the program will be carried out
    4. roles and responsibilities for managers
    5. case selection
    6. neutral selection
    7. program procedures and policies
    8. training
    9. funding and resources
    10. plans for evaluation and tracking.

    The Administrative Conference's Dispute System Design Checklist sets forth a brief overview of steps in establishing an effective dispute resolution program. See also the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution's Agency DR Assessment and Planning Tool and Guideline. Two other examples of actual agency plans include the New Mexico Environment Department DR Implementation Plan, which takes a more comprehensive approach, and the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department's Plan, which focuses on three specific projects.

    A number of useful assessment instruments have been developed, and can assist a DR Coordinator with case-specific reviews. A screening tool called "Determining Whether to Pursue a Consensus Process," published in PCI's Practical Guide to Consensus, offers DR Coordinators and potential parties a cost-effective means of assessing a case's potential. Also see the Florida Conflict Resolution Consortium's User's Guide to Collaborative Dispute Resolution, which offers advice on assessing possible collaborative processes. In addition, an Oregon Department of Justice report titled Attorney General's Collaborative Dispute Resolution Model Rules is a useful guideline to assessment for rulemaking and dispute resolution processes.

  3. Develop Pilots. Implementing DR across the board can be a huge undertaking. Some experts advise "Think big. Start small," and suggest using pilot programs as a way to get started. Pilots allow DR Coordinators to find out what will work best, identify "bugs," and permit changes for improvement-all without setting precedent. Well designed pilots will likely provide successful experiences that can help users become aware of the potential of DR. They also allay people's concerns about moving too quickly.

    In selecting a focus for a pilot program, a DR Coordinator should pick an area that offers some likelihood of success. It is often useful to start a pilot program by focusing on selected disputes that are central to the agency's goals and mission, where adequate resources can be assured and there is a caseload sufficient for testing, and cases that are likely to be appropriate for DR. Once an area is targeted for a pilot effort, the DR Coordinator will need to address the details of case selection, administration and resolution.

    In undertaking a pilot, it is very important to secure funding to ensure that the program can be implemented and evaluated effectively. Chapter 4 of the Federal DR Program Manager's Resource Manual, Constructing Pilot Projects, is a useful resource on this topic.

  4. Evaluate the Program. A plan for program evaluation will help an agency maintain the DR program's effectiveness and may be a critical factor in decisions to modify or expand a program. While it may seem premature to think about evaluating a program before it is up and running, advance planning is critical to assuring that program goals are clear, indicators of success are identified, and necessary information is available when an evaluation begins.

    PCI is collaborating with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, the Massachusetts Office of Dispute Resolution, and the Oregon Commission on Dispute Resolution to develop cost-effective procedures and data gathering tools for dispute resolution program managers. When the project is complete, evaluation tools for states will be available on PCI's website.

    Other useful evaluation resources include Evaluating ADR Programs: A Handbook for Federal Agencies, published by the Administrative Conference of the US, and Chapter 8 of the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group's Federal DR Program Manager's Resource Manual.
TABLE OF CONTENTS MORE