Virginia Association for Community Conflict Resolution Data Compilation Report for the

1. Virginia Association for Community Conflict Resolution Data Compilation Report for the Community Solutions Program May 2002 – April 2004

2. Contact initiated by: Sample Intervention: Water management in the Shenandoah Valley – Contact Initiated by: Party (Examples from this dispute provided on each slide throughout presentation for each topic) Number of Interventions throughout Data History The interventions reported varied in the number of stages they proceeded through. Some disputes involved a telephone call and issue identification, and then the process ended. Other interventions were involved in all stages of the process including initial contact, identification of stakeholders and goals, process used to intervene in dispute, and identification of whether the goals of the process were met. The distribution of intervention progress follows: • 197 – Total contacts • 168 – Disputes identified • 137 – Goals of processes identified and used • 137 – Interventions were recorded for Staff and Volunteer time spent

3. Referral Source • 146– Total responses • Examples of • Other category: • Self – Initiated • Court Referrals • Volunteer Mediators Referral Source in Sample Issue: Word of Mouth

4. Type of Dispute Type of Dispute in Sample Issue: Water management in the Shenandoah Valley – Environmental Dispute

5. Total processes used are cumulative – multiple processes may be used for each intervention Type of Process Used Number of cases ….. 35 ….. 57 .…. 44 .…. 45 .…. 10 .…. 11 ….. 39 ….. 51 ….. 48 ….. 40 TOTAL = 380 Type of Process Used In Sample Issue: Consensus Building, Group Facilitation, Dialogue, Issue Scoping, and Other

6. Stakeholders -- Number of people Stakeholders In Sample Issue: Environmental Non-Profit, Local Business, Civic Non-Profit, Consumer Groups, Individuals, Industry, Federal Government, State Government, Local Government, and Other

7. Goals of Process Goals of Process in Sample Issue: Identify Stakeholders, Identify Options, Identify Issues, Understand Perspectives and Build Relationships, Obtain Public Support, and Development of Recommendations

8. Goals of Process Met Goals of Process in the Sample Issue: Yes, Goals of Process were met In water management intervention Partially Yes • Goals of Process (list of • all categories): • Identify Stakeholders • Identify Options • Identify Issues • Understand Perspectives and • Build Relationships • Public Hearing of All • Viewpoints • Public Education • Obtain Public Support • Development of • Recommendations • Development of Agreement • Other N o Were Goals of Process Met? • 137 – Total responses • 76 – Goals met • 52 – Goals partially met • 9 – Goals not met

9. Did the process result in a resolution of the issues? Chart without “Not Applicable” Category • 134 – Total responses

10. Center Hours and Costs • DID THE FEE COVER STAFF HOURS/COSTS? Yes – 27% of the time (41) No – 73% of the time (95) • DID THE FEE MORE THAN COVER STAFF HOURS/COSTS? Yes – 9% of the time (14) No – 91% of the time (125) ESTIMATED TOTAL VOLUNTEER HOURS – 2022.91 ESTIMATED TOTAL STAFF HOURS -- 1136.49

11. Sampling of Interventions

12. Sample Interventions

13. Goals of Process Not Met – an example • Dispute: City Funding for a Non-Profit Organization • Contact initiated by the Center • The party, a representative of a government agency, was referred to the Center through promotional materials • This was a workplace dispute that had Consumer Group and Individual stakeholders • Four people were participating in the process • A Dialogue process was used • The intervention lasted for one month (seven months after the initial contact) • Two staff hours and two volunteer hours were spent on the dispute • The goal of the process was to Identify Stakeholders • The goals of the process were not met, and the intervention did not result in a resolution of the issues • The Center completed the work pro bono – staff time was not covered by the fee • The impact of the process was a referral