An Introduction to Mediator Credentialing

Controversy about mediator credentialing is not new. Practitioners have strong opinions about the subject, and there is little organizational consensus among us about what we should or should not do about it. Yet, ways to credential mediators are being developed in literally thousands of different programs:

Professional association membership categories
National sector-specific program rosters
State court programs certification
State court program registries and rosters
Federal court program rosters
The national family mediator certification program in Canada
State mediator association experiments with certification
Graduate degrees
Private and quasi governmental agency rosters.

An August 28, 2000 headline from ADRWorld.com read “FMCS Mediator Credentialing Plan Stirs Controversy.” The FMCS plan for a credentialing program would be but one of the many existing programs that mediators use as a credential. The issue is not that credentialing is new to the field of mediation, rather what we will do about attempts to define the practice, set standards, delineate preparation or qualifying requirements, and policing the performance of mediators.

What is credentialing? How shall we think about it? Since credentialing is in our collective futures, can the direction of credentialing efforts be influenced in ways that are productive for the field and helpful to consumers? How can we plan, proactively, and not simply react?

This article will be the first of a series at this web site and in professional journals and newsletters addressing these and other credentialing topics. From January, 1998-May, 2000 Peter Maida (Executive Director of the Key Bridge Foundation) and I served in leadership roles for the Academy of Family Mediators’ Voluntary Mediator Certification Project. The project was funded by the Hewlett Foundation to explore how an organization such as the AFM might develop a national, voluntary mediator certification program, and, working with Margaret Herrman and her colleagues at the Mediator Skills Project at the University of Georgia’s Vinson Institute, to develop an initial tool to measure mediator knowledge. The project was advised by a group of individuals representing national dispute resolution organizations that were willing to advise the project and observe our strategies even though none was committed to the concept of voluntary certification of mediators. (The AFM, The Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution, the National Association for Community Mediation, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, and the American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution.)

One of the goals of the project was the development of an outline of credentialing basics, including history, current credentialing methods, issues, and a plan for building a certification program. (The Outline is available through AFM. Email Sue Costello Lowe at [email protected]). In this and the subsequent articles, we will share what we’ve learned, encourage you to get informed about credentialing, and encourage vigorous debate on a subject that is developing quickly and broadly.

Credentialing in General

Recently, I heard a state program administrator say that when it comes to considering a mediation program, his primary question is “Who is going to vouch for the mediators?” We should not lose sight of the importance of this remark. People seeking mediators and those referring cases to mediators want to know what makes them competent to receive a case, and what recourse the clients have if the mediator does something wrong. Credentialing can be viewed as a form of vouching for the competency of an individual to perform a profession or an occupation.

Credentialing doesn’t guarantee competency. Many mediators believe that credentialing doesn’t even assure quality. However, keep in mind that the trend in professional organizations is the belief that while not guaranteeing or perhaps even assuring quality, credentialing supports and encourages quality. “Most credentialing mechanisms … do not guarantee quality or outcomes. Each of the credentialing methods can help improve quality and identify higher levels of performance, but one should not assume that an accredited organization or a certified individual possesses a performance guarantee.” (Hamm, Michael M., The Fundamentals of Accreditation, ASAE: Washington, D.C. 1997, page 4).

Credentialing can mean that according to a set of performance and ethical standards, a person has the required background, e.g., education, training, experience, to do the job. The credentialing organization sets standards of practice including ethics; specific education requirements, experience, and/or training required to quality, measurement of conformity to standards (e.g., performance evaluation), continuing education, oversight of consumer complaints, ethics review, and other requirements. For example: The National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) sets standards for colleges and universities that prepare teachers for licensing. The standards include design of professional education, candidate criteria and outcomes for graduates from a professional education program, faculty requirements, governance and accountability. Another teacher credentialing organization is the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Their mission is to establish standards for what accomplished teachers should know and be able to do, to develop and operate a national, voluntary system to assess and certify teachers who meet these standards, and to advance related education reforms for the purpose of improving student learning in American schools.

A credential can be defined as “a letter or certificate given to a person to show that he has a right to confidence or to the exercise of a certain position or authority.” (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Unabridged, Second Edition, 1971). Thus, although the dictionary definition is consistent with the notion of “vouching” for a person’s competency, based on the requirements of the program or organization that provides the credential, it is also consistent with a very vague notion of credentialing that I have seen many mediators use. Perhaps because credentialing in the field of mediation is so controversial, people and programs that want credentialing are simply using their own definitions of a credential. These include substitute credentials, such as a law degree or other advanced degree, or unregulated credentials such as a listing on a mediation roster that has irrelevant or minimum requirements.

I think of credentialing in three categories: regulated, degree-based, and substitute. Regulated credentials include licensing, accreditation and certification. Within these, we must keep in mind, who is vouching for (not guaranteeing) an individual’s competency, what gives them the authority to vouch, what are they saying the individual is competent to do, and what do they require of the individual to say he’s competent?

Regulated Credentials: State or Other Government Agency Regulation

A license is a credential issued by a government. It arises out of the government’s constitutional obligation to protect the public welfare. State Boards that oversee the licensing process often partner with, arise out of or work in cooperation with professional associations or institutions of higher learning that prepare the individual who has to obtain a license. A license is the government entity’s permission to an individual to perform the occupation or profession he seeks to perform. One cannot hold oneself out as the professional or occupation without it. It also is a statement to the public that the person meets certain qualifications to do the work.

Regulated Credentials: Self-Regulation or Voluntary Regulation

Certification is a form of self-regulation. Generally it refers to the voluntary achievement of a set of standards set by the private sector, often a professional association or independent board. “Certification is a … form of self regulation that usually implies the development of standards. It generally involves the measurement of conformity with them by individuals in various professions and occupations.” (Hamm, Michael M., The Fundamentals of Accreditation, ASAE: Washington, D.C. 1997, page 4). It generally means the public can believe in the competency of the individual who is certified.

Recognition through certification provides individuals with credentials, usually represented by a title or designation. Certification is a process by which a non-government agency or association grants professional recognition to an individual who has met certain predetermined qualifications specified by that agency or association. (From NCATE)

While licensing is the state’s exercise of its constitutional mandate to protect the public welfare, certification, privately and often through professional associations, has, broadly, joint goals, to promote the general welfare and to promote the business interests of their members. These distinctions are recognized in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifications of charitable organizations and trade associations. A 501 (c) (3) entity is a charitable or social welfare organization, operating to promote the general welfare, while a 501 (c) (6) is a trade association that promotes the welfare of the business and industrial community. Because of IRS interpretations, certification organizations are most often incorporated as 501 (c) (6) corporations. See The Licensure and Certification Mission: Legal, Social and Political Foundations, Schoon, C.G., Smith, I.L., eds, 2000, Professional Examination Service: New York)

According to Michael Hamm (p. 23), “One could argue that a primary function of any national professional or trade organization is to define the field and identify the essence, core values, and quality indicators that someone outside the field would search for to identify the quality performer. … Any association that has not examined this role or service may be overlooking an important opportunity to serve the membership and establish itself in a leadership role.” It is this argument that forms the basis for the thousands of professions and occupations that include a formal certification program as a requirement for their members to hold themselves out as competent in the field.

The Project Management Institute describes the purpose and goal of its certification program as “the development, maintenance, evaluation, promotion, and administration of a rigorous, examination-based, professional certification program of the highest caliber.” In addition to establishing standards of practice, the Project Management Institute provides seminars and educational programs for its members and has a “Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.” This does not appear to be an exam study guide. Rather it is a general informational reference about the profession and to promote quality in the profession.

Accreditation is “a standard-setting and conformity assessment process developed for organizations, institutions, and fields of interest focusing on areas other than the measurement of competence by individuals.” NCATE sets standards as to the following: (1) encourages excellence in schools of education as they change the way they operate to incorporate the latest knowledge and best practice; (2) provides a common set of professional standards for preparation of teachers and other school specialists, and thus holds teacher preparation programs accountable for meeting these standards; (3) promotes the need for resources necessary to provide superior teacher preparation; (4) assures the public and prospective teachers that institutions have met external standards set by professionals in the field and that the evaluation which takes place is objective and impartial. (From NCATE)

There is one final type of credential that I include as a voluntary or self-regulated credential. This is the professional membership association “practitioner” category that sets standards and has requirements that set it apart from general membership. This category informs the public that the person who holds the membership designation (Practitioner member for the Academy of Family Mediators, for example) has a credential that attests to performance capabilities. The merged organization of SPIDR, AFM and CreNet are considering special membership designations. We should keep in mind, however, that although a few state courts require the AFM practitioner member category to receive case referrals, there has not been broad adoption by states or state courts of this method of credentialing.

Degree-Related Credentials

This credential refers to an advanced degree or university certificate after an advanced degree, comparable to the credential of an advanced degree in other fields. Many universities now have Masters and Ph.D. programs in conflict studies, conflict resolution or dispute resolution. Certificate programs are accredited programs in the same fields of study. The issue in the context of this article is, what do these degrees provide a credential for? Except for recognition by university programs and colleges, it is possible that these degrees are not viewed as a significant credential in the workplace.

Substitute Credentials

I refer to a degree or credential in an unrelated field, such as law, psychology, human resources management, etc., as a substitute credential. I also include in this category substitute credentials such as a 40-hour training. I have too often heard mediators describe themselves as certified in mediation after attending a 40-hour training and receiving a certificate of attendance. Training certificates, certificate programs that generally supplement an individual’s career in another field, university degrees in conflict resolution and law degrees are treated as credentials, and are, in fact, credentials in the broadest definition of the term. But these do not carry many if any of the essentials that the public might need to rely on someone’s ability or authority to hold themselves out as a qualified mediator. (see Chris Honeyman’s The Incredible Disappearing Profession, published in CONSENSUS, the newsletter of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, January, 1999.

Substitute credentials, such as law or mental health degrees are appealing because the general public thinks the mediators are authorized by someone to do what they say they can do, and that they (the public) have some recourse against the professional should he do something wrong. I have always assumed that judges create their own rosters of mediators from among lawyers because they believe, even at an unconscious level, that by the mere fact that they have control over the lawyers in the practice of law, they have control over them in the practice of mediation. However, if mediation is not the practice of law, how does a judge have control over a lawyer to whom he refers a case, even if the lawyer practices law in that jurisdiction?

Rosters and Registries have become commonplace as a means of “vouching” for mediators. These are lists. Rosters purport to set standards (or at least have requirements to get on the list) and to vouch that the individual on the list meets the standards. Registries more often are lists of individuals who attest to having done what they say they have done (e.g., had a certain training, mediated a certain number of cases…) and the organization maintaining the list vouches for the fact that the individuals have done what they say they have done. We all know that the requirements for and faith the public can put in these lists varies hugely across all sectors of practice. Many mediation programs are developing their own quality and assessment methods. I believe that most of these efforts result in rosters or registries. I also believe, as mentioned earlier in this article, that the numbers of rosters and registries may easily be counted in the thousands. In the United States there are more than 16,000 state general jurisdiction and appeals courts, 94 federal district courts, 10 federal appeals courts, over 150 federal agencies developing mediation programs for EEO cases, 400-500 mediation centers, campus mediation programs, statewide dispute resolution organizations, statewide “offices of dispute resolution,” numerous national program rosters (e.g, AAA, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Jams-Endispute) and countless state agencies that have in place or will be adopting mediation programs for their disputes. When the FMCS announced its plans to develop a “credentialed roster,” the ADRWorld.com article also quoted FMCS Director Richard Barnes saying “It is in the public interest to establish standards of training, ethics, and practice for our profession.” While I believe it is true that it is in the public interest to establish these credentials for mediators, and I fully support the FMCS undertaking to raise the bar for the development of mediator qualifications, I think the real news is that the direction mediator credentialing is moving in is rosters and registries.

If credentialing is headed in the direction of rosters and registries, is it by will or by happenstance? This article has provided a brief overview of credentialing. I earlier asked the questions, “If credentialing is in our collective futures, how can we influence the direction of credentialing efforts in ways we view as productive for the field and helpful to consumers? How can we plan, proactively, and not simply react? In my next article I will review the history of discussions and accomplishments in mediator credentialing to date. Future articles will provide examples of credentialing programs used by other professions and occupations, review credentialing articles and books written by experts on the subject, and will take a more specific look at trends in current “credentialing” or qualifications programs.