Many people who have been involved in mediation for years talk and write about its advantages — and I certainly have been one of them. We have become so convinced of the advantages that we are sometimes taken back by people who refuse to mediate. Over the years I have found that many who refuse share common reasons and misunderstandings. I’ve listed the most common reasons I’ve heard: 

1 – “I know I’m right and any judge will see that I’m right.” Two thoughts come to my mind when I hear this. First, it’s not unusual for the other side to say much the same thing. Both parties typically believe they are right or they probably wouldn’t be contesting one another. Second, I often check on what happened to those cases that refused mediation and went to court. Let’s just say that even people who believe they are right can lose. 

2 – “I don’t want to settle.” Why would anyone not want to settle their dispute? I have mediated court referred disputes where one party was not willing to settle. In a confidential caucus the party told me that their objective in suing the other party was simply to cause them distress and expense. They had no intention of settling, and, in fact, used mediation to cause even more problems for the other party.

3 – “Mediation is a waste of time.”  Typically, people who say this do not understand the process and have not had any experience with mediation. Many people simply don’t know what mediation is. Some years ago, one of my students did informal polling in grocery store check- out lines, simply asking the person in line if they had ever heard of mediation. The most frequent answer was that it had to do with child custody. And more than one said “it’s where you close your eyes and sit quietly.” Various studies report that 60% to 80% of voluntary mediations result in agreements. And even if the parties did not reach a formal agreement, the parties reached a clearer understanding of the issues and possible resolutions of their dispute, which may have lead to later reconciliations.

4 – “Agreeing to mediate shows you are weak and/or have a weak case.” I find this “reason” the most frustrating to deal with. Somehow the person has equated working with the other party to find a mutually acceptable agreement as being weak and continuing confrontational bargaining and litigation as being strong. Working together to reach an agreement can be hard work and requires strength from both parties. Mediation is not always easy. I’m not sure how needless and expensive continuation of confrontation in any way is a marker of strength.

5 – “I’m at a disadvantage because the other party is more experienced/a better negotiator/better speaker than I am.” This final reason can certainly be legitimate. As a conflict develops between parties, one party can feel at a disadvantage to the other for any number of reasons and simply don’t want to be in another situation where they experience those feelings again. Actually, mediation is exactly the situation those people should want. Mediators are experienced in “leveling the playing field.” As a neutral party they manage the process so one party cannot use the mediation to in any way disadvantage the other party.

People who decline the opportunity to mediate have reasons and as mediation becomes ever more available, those reasons should be directly addressed.

In many communities police receive calls for minor disputes from people who either live together or involve neighbors. One urban police chief explained to me that such calls are both expensive and nonproductive. Each, he said, might take two officers off other calls and feel they don’t have the proper amount of time or experience to deal with minor disputes other than to try and calm the situation down.

Some communities have explored options, including mediation training for officers. This certainly expands their skills to deal with minor disputes, but it still takes them away from more serious calls. Several communities provide officers with referral information to local mediation centers, but with this approach, the disputing parties are on their own to contact a mediation center.

Dayton, Ohio, has just announced a new option: Dayton plans to send unarmed mediators to minor, nonviolent calls. According to Dan Kornfield, founder of and project manager of this new program, Dayton dispatchers receive approximately 150 calls to 911 each week that are appropriate for mediation. As the program is envisoned, the dispatcher will transfer possible mediation cases to a specialized screener who will determine if mediation is appropriate.

Initially calls involving juvenile concerns, noise complaints, neighbor disputes, barking dogs, panhandling, roommate troubles, partying, family arguments and loitering will be considered for mediation. 

When the two-person mediation team arrives on the scene their first priority is to evaluate the situation for safety and call for officers if needed. Then the mediators will assist the parties resolving the underlying sources of the conflict. The mediators have more time to listen to both sides and connect people to services they might need for help.

The program should not only benefit the people in their disputes, but free officers for more serious calls, like violent crimes and other dangerous scenarios.

More and more communities are using mental health experts and social workers for calls involving mental illness, drug addition, homelessness and nonviolent crises. But Dayton’s program may be the first to formally enlist mediators in community disputes.