Alternative methods of resolving disputes allow parties to settle a potential or existing legal matter outside of a formal juvenile justice court proceeding. This technique is used broadly in disputes between adults (e.g., divorce, consumer disputes, civil actions) and is referred to as alternative dispute resolution or ADR. ADR is generally thought of as two or more equal individuals coming to the table and coming to an agreement using mediation.

Although the technique is successfully used in the juvenile justice court, it is important to point out that its use is not generally between two equal parties, but between a juvenile who has violated the law and the victim of that violation. Consequently, instead of using the traditional term of ADR, the GUIDELINES uses the term dispute resolution alternatives, or DRA, to emphasize the difference. Dispute resolution alternatives can be used in the juvenile justice court system both as an informal diversion and a formal intervention. When a dispute resolution alternative is used in a formal court case, the proposed resolution is presented to the juvenile justice court judge for approval.

In many juvenile justice courts, dispute resolution alternatives have met with enormous support, success, and growth. Dispute resolution alternatives can be successfully used in the juvenile justice court particularly when the perpetrator and the victim have an ongoing relationship or the circumstances of the offense have contributing factors from both the offender and victim. It is important to note that in most circumstances these techniques are used to determine the response to the offending behavior as opposed to whether or not the youth broke the law.

Examples of dispute resolution alternatives that have been successfully used in juvenile justice courts include:

• Victim-Offender Conferencing – This intervention occurs after a voluntary admission of guilt by the offender and uses trained facilitators to guide dialogue between the victim and offender. The process is victim-focused. The purposes of the dialogue are to teach responsibility to the offender and to provide the offender with an opportunity to repair harm in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. If the case is being handled formally, the juvenile justice court judge must approve the plan. It is important to know whether the victim or offender is a trauma victim before using this intervention as there is risk that re-traumatization may occur.
• Family Group Conferencing/Family Conflict Resolution – Immediate and extended family members and close friends meet to design solutions that they agree to implement to resolve a problem. Although these methods are most often used in conjunction with abuse, neglect, or dependency proceedings, they are also useful in delinquency proceedings when there are problems within the family structure, including developing safety plans for detention release in family violence situations and identifying family supports for a youth when the parents are not able to provide adequate support or supervision.
• Accountability Boards or Community Boards – Trained community members sit as a panel to provide a mechanism for informal diversion and immediate sanctioning, usually to first- or second-time status or misdemeanant offenders who have admitted their offense.
• Negotiation (also referred to as Mediation) – A neutral facilitator assists parties to come to an agreement on a response that is acceptable to all to an admitted offense. The facilitator assists parties to identify issues that need to be addressed and empowers them to negotiate workable solutions. Examples of situations where negotiation might be appropriate include:
• Youth offenses within the family structure;
• Offenses within a school or residential setting;
• Dealing with ongoing neighborhood and community disputes that have resulted in an offense; and
• Developing crime prevention plans.

Using dispute resolution alternatives in the juvenile justice system has several advantages. Advantages for the parties include:

• An agreed solution is more likely to be supported and followed;
• Settlements can be reached more quickly than if the case goes to juvenile justice court for resolution;
• It is less expensive as attorneys may not need to be involved and juvenile justice court costs are often reduced;
• It generally takes fewer hours to complete the process than attending multiple juvenile justice court hearings, and
• Participating in the process teaches youth and families a method for resolving problems in the future.

Advantages for the juvenile justice court include:

• Reduced docket time required for judges, enabling the juvenile justice court to have more time to hear cases; and
• Conservation of scarce juvenile justice court resources, such as counsel for youth and prosecutors, for those cases that need them most.

Dispute resolution alternatives can be used both to divert the filing of a formal petition as well as to design solutions that can be proposed to the juvenile justice court judge for formal cases involving family conflict.

Dispute resolution alternatives are valuable tools that juvenile justice courts can use to divert cases to alternative systems whenever possible and appropriate. When the juvenile justice court and community work together to create community resources for dispute resolution, juvenile justice courts can conserve their scarce resources to use on the more serious cases. In addition to the community resources already described above, other resources that can be used for conducting dispute resolution alternative programs include community volunteers (such as the Better Business Bureau arbitration and mediation models) and students at local colleges of law.