« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
The Role Of Mediation In Tackling Neighbour Disputes And Anti-Social Behaviour
2. MEDIATION FOR NEIGHBOUR DISPUTES
Extent of neighbour problems
2.1 Neighbour disputes are widespread, however the use of mediation is not. According to a recent survey (Palmer and Monaghan 2001), neighbourhood disputes are the most common type of civil legal problem, experienced by 12 percent of the population (compared to seven percent for criminal problems and six percent for housing problems, the next most common civil problem). Only two percent of people who seek help for any civil legal problem approach a mediator.
Purpose and ethos of mediation
2.2 Mediation aims to provide more sustainable and satisfactory outcomes and to resolve disputes without having to resort to costly and time-consuming legal processes. Advocates of mediation claim that it offers a non-adversarial, non-judgemental, confidential, relatively inexpensive, and speedy way of tackling disputes (Gray 2002, Mackay and Brown 1998). It also removes the reliance on external adjudication and retains responsibility for a solution with the parties themselves. Mediation services avoid using language such as 'perpetrator' or 'victim', and use neutral identifiers such as 'party one' and 'neighbour two'. More generally, it is claimed that mediation can encourage better communication and greater tolerance in communities. It can deal with disputes for which there is no appropriate legal remedy. It can reduce the risk of agencies themselves becoming embroiled in disputes. In terms of effectiveness, Gray (2002) suggests that it is difficult to compare mediation with housing and environmental health intervention because of its flexibility. As with all restorative justice approaches, the lack of clear distinction between offender and victim sets mediation apart from the ethos of the criminal justice system.
Models and process of mediation
2.3 Two main models of community mediation have been identified (Peper and Spierings 1999): neighbourhood and city, which differ in the size of area with which they are identified. A more appropriate term for the model found in Scotland is a 'city or regional' model, reflecting the coverage of rural areas. In 1998, when Dignan and Sorsby (1999) did their survey of mediation in Scotland, there were three community mediation services and two in-house local authority services. By 2002, that number had doubled, to five community mediation services (Edinburgh, Fife, Aberdeen, East Lothian, Orkney) and three local authority in-house services (Falkirk, South Lanarkshire and Scottish Borders - with at least two more in the start-up phase). Although most cases involve two individuals or households, some can involve large groups of neighbours. A growing number of local authorities have in-house mediation services. Gray (2002) suggests that around ten percent of mediation services in the UK are 'in-house', but that the expansion of this model is limited by the reduction in council tenancies through the Right to Buy and stock transfer.
2.4 Mediation for neighbour disputes in the UK is voluntary. One or more parties may decide not to take up the offer of mediation, or may withdraw at any point during the process. After initial contact with mediation services, the parties may resolve the matter without mediator involvement, although this may be influenced by contact with mediation services. There are several ways in which mediators can operate: to speak to one or both parties by phone or in person, by 'shuttle' mediation where an agreement is reached without direct contact between parties, or by face-to-face meetings. In the community mediation service studied by Mulcahy (2001), most cases were resolved without mediation, and 28 percent of cases were resolved by shuttle or face-to-face mediation (face-to-face in only 12 percent of cases), with the rest dealt with by visits or telephone contact with the parties. Although mediation is often associated with the use of unpaid mediators, Gray (2002) found that a significant number of services had begun to pay mediators in order to meet service delivery targets, because paid mediators are more likely to have greater availability.
Referral routes and types of case
2.5 Cases reach mediation services through referrals by the parties themselves or via services such as housing, environmental health or police. A recent evaluation of a community mediation service in England (Mulcahy 2001) found that although housing officers were generally positive about mediation, it was rarely the first option for them; mediators, on the other hand, believed housing officers should refer cases sooner.
2.6 There are types of case where mediation is less suitable (Mackay and Brown 1998); for example, disputes that are very entrenched, that involve mental illness, criminal charges, violence, or ongoing civil proceedings; but these are not absolutes. Mulcahy (2001) found that housing officers generally avoided referring cases of domestic violence, racial harassment or mental health problems. Research into how neighbourhood disputes are dealt with by Procurators Fiscal (Mackay and Moody 1996) found that around half of cases were potentially suitable for diversion to mediation. However, police reports did not contain sufficient detail for prosecutors to make informed decisions about prosecution and alternatives. Prosecutors were doubtful about the effectiveness of court proceedings that could only exacerbate the problem. This suggests that there is considerable scope for expansion of mediation.
2.7 Noise is the main cause of neighbour disputes. Mediation UK's 2001 Community Mediation Dispute Survey found the main issue in disputes to be noise (45 percent of cases), abusive behaviour and threats (20 percent), children's behaviour (17 percent), and boundary or property disputes (17 percent). In 2001-02, community mediation services in Scotland saw almost the same percentage (44 percent) of noise-related cases (figures from SACRO). In the community mediation service studied by Mulcahy (2001), 52 percent of cases were noise-related.
Outcomes of mediation
2.8 In 2001, across the UK, the proportion of cases where full or partial agreement was reached was 30 percent, although around one in five cases closed following withdrawal by one or more parties (Gray 2002). Of 703 cases coming to community mediation services in Scotland in 2001-02, 59 percent resulted in a positive outcome of agreement or improvement of the situation. In 85 percent of the remaining cases, this lack of agreement or improvement was a result of withdrawal or refusal to get involved by one of the parties (figures from SACRO).
2.9 The study by Dignan, Sorsby and Hibbert (1996) concluded that the outcomes of community mediation are likely to be better than informal intervention, which is often ineffective, or amounts to very little intervention at all. As in relation to victim-offender mediation, it has been argued that agreements as a measure of success is ambiguous, and depends on what one means by agreements and what they mean to the parties (Marshall and Merry 1990). One of the conclusions of Mulcahy's study (Mulcahy 2001) was that the success of mediation had to be seen in the context of structural and social causes of disputes (such as poor design, high-density living, lack of play facilities, mental health problems and cultural differences), which are readily identified by mediators themselves.
« Previous | Contents | Next »