Andy Rowe GHK International g [email protected] www.ghkint.com. EVALUATION OF US DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROGRAMS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMPLEX PUBLIC POLICY DISPUTES. DISCLAIMER.
This presentation has been prepared by the author and represents only my views. The agencies participating in or contracting the work on which this presentation is based do not necessarily subscribe to any or all of what is contained in the presentation.
“Collaborative processes are more effective than a reasonable or likely alternative process”
Decreased cost of resolving disputes
Increased efficiency of agencies through use of ADR
Increase agency and public satisfaction with process and results of ADR
ADR in State Government
Dispute Systems Designs
Oregon state agencies have practices and systems that ensure ADR is available
Practice of ADR supports agency mission, and receives positive feedback
ADR is successful (time and resources spent in disagreement and conflict are now redirected to more constructive purposes)
Dispute resolution systems are improved
Roster provides expedited access to qualified and appropriate providers
ADR successful (resources spent in disagreement are now used more constructively)
Good outcomes from process
Party interactions constructive
All parties involved in an ADR process are satisfied that the process was fair and open.
ADR more effective (better benefits for resources expended) than other options for this dispute
Durable and implementable agreement reached using ADR
Agreements reached with ADR are complete - there are no hard issues left or deferred.
Right parties continue to be engaged, new parties added as required.
Use of ADR helps adversarial parties collaborate
Use of ADR narrows disagreements
Stakeholder capacity to use ADR is improved through experience with this case
ADR is used where it is the best approach for this case
Design of the ADR process is appropriate for the dispute and needs of parties
ADR used appropriately
Government decision making is improved through use of the process
Appropriate mediator leads ADR
Right parties engaged in process
Non-ADR processes used where the best approach
At not time did one of the parties dominate to the detriment of the process or others
The neutral helped us manage our time well.
The neutral made sure that the concerns of all parties were heard.
The parties followed the direction of the neutral.
The neutral made sure that the concerns of all parties were addressed.
The neutral ensured that all parties were fully engaged in the process.
When things got tense the neutral was always able to find ways to move ahead constructively
ILLUSTRATION OF CHARTED AND NESTED OUTCOMES
Expressed as questions
Appropriate neutral – parties satisfied with neutral
Appropriate neutral – neutral understands issues
Appropriate Neutral Guides the Process
Appropriate neutral – manages process well
Appropriate neutral – available for process
Appropriate neutral – parties understand process