Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,~ <br /> <br /><:> 0 Program Initiation - who will be responsible fur contract development, selection and <br />training of medi.ators,. public outreach and education, procedures and forms development? <br /> <br />o Case Management - who will be responsible for assigning cases selected' for alternative <br />resolution to. mediators, preparing background information and paperwork for mediators, <br />scheduling sessions for all participants, and ensuring that participants have the. necessary <br />information ahead of the mediation? . . <br /> <br />o Program Evaluation, Data Management,'Atfministration - who' will track and report <br />participants' satisfaction with the ~ession,. evaluate mediators' performance, and identify data <br />needs for evaluation and reporting purposes? Who will be responsible for administration of <br />program - i.e., payments to mediators, report development? <br /> <br />.:. Program Evaluation <br /> <br />Participant evaluation of his/her experience with the complaint process, including alternative <br />,.resolution options, is a key element to assessing program effectiveness and maintaining program <br />integrity. 'Most mediation programs request participants to complete a brief survey after the <br />mediation session as an evaluation .tool. MATT noted that it would be beneficial to report'satisfaction <br />rates for complainants and employees. separately, while maintaining. anonymity. One option. <br />discussed would be to use different colored versions of the same form for each .group. Attachment B <br />is a compilation of surVey questions from other mediation programs. MATT recommends that these <br />questions form the basis for th~ development of a participant satisfaction form(s) to be. used for both <br />,(......,' mediations and facilitated disCussions. . <br />',1 ) <br /> <br />In addition to participants' evaluation of the sessions, MATT recommended that mediators provide <br />feedback to the Auditor (or other designated body) at the conclUsi~n of each session. Mediator <br />feedback should include whether, in his/her opinion, the particular case was suitable for mediation, <br />what the outcome was, whether any agreements were reached that may require follow-up, and ideas <br />for process improvements. . A method of evaluating mediator performance, particularly for new <br />mediato.rs, was also suggested. Direct observation of several sessions by someone experienced with <br />mediating 'police complaints was recommended to assess mediator skills and style,. and to suggest <br />areas for improvements to process and/or performance. <br /> <br />.:. . Data Collection ,and Reporting <br /> <br />Within the confines of confidentiality, records should be maintained for program management and <br />evaluation purposes, for transparency, and for identification of process improvements. Data <br />collection should enable the generation of a public annual report, but not create an onerous collection <br />and data management issue for the program manager. <br /> <br />MATT recommended the following basic information be collected: <br />o number and types of cases selected for mediation and facilitated conversation <br />o number and types of cases offered and declined, and who declined (lA/supervisor, employee, <br />complainant) <br />o number assigned and completion rates <br />o reasons for incomplete sessions <br />o timeline for completion <br /> <br />Pace 9 <br />