REPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT

ON

THE USE AND RESULTS OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

*Giving the American People*

*Better Results and More Value*

April 2007

A Collaborative Project of Representatives From:

-Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Sections

-Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
Steering Committee

-Agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government

[Table of Contents]{.underline}

[Page]{.underline}

**Acknowledgments** ix

**Executive Summary** 1

I.  Introduction 1

    A.  A Brief History of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution 1

    ```{=html}
    <!-- -->
    ```
    A.  Overview of the Interagency Working Group Sections and Steering
        Committee 2

    B.  Survey of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs 3

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
I.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs: Enhancing Agency Missions 3

II. Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution 5

    A.  Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government 5

    B.  Managing Costs 6

    C.  Managing Strategically 6

III. Areas of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and Use 7

     A.  Civil Enforcement and Regulatory 7

     B.  Claims Against the Government 8

     C.  Contracts and Procurement 9

     D.  Workplace 11

IV. The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution 13

    A.  Capitalizing on the Potential of Alternative Dispute Resolution
        13

    B.  Challenges and Opportunities 14

V.  Conclusion 15

**Report for the President on the Use and Results of Alternative Dispute
Resolution**

**In the Executive Branch of the Federal Government**

I.  Introduction 16

    A.  A Brief History of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution 17

    B.  Overview of the Interagency Working Group Sections and Steering
        Committee 19

        1.  Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section 19

        2.  Claims Against the Government Section 20

        3.  Contracts and Procurement Section 21

        4.  Workplace Section 22

        5.  Steering Committee 22

            a.  Protecting the Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution
                Proceedings: A Guide for Federal Workplace ADR Program
                Administrators 23

            b.  Guide for Federal Employee Mediators 23

            c.  Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds 24

            d.  Finding Neutrals Handbook 24

    C.  Survey of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs 24

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
I.  Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs: Enhancing Agency Missions
    26

    A.  Cabinet Agencies 26

        1.  Department of Agriculture 26

        2.  Department of Commerce 26

        3.  Department of Defense 27

            a.  Department of the Air Force 27

            b.  Department of the Army 29

            c.  Army Corps of Engineers 30

            d.  Department of the Navy 30

            e.  Defense Commissary Agency 31

            f.  Defense Contract Audit Agency 31

            g.  Defense Contract Management Agency 31

            h.  Defense Finance and Accounting Service 32

            i.  Defense Information Systems Agency 32

            j.  Defense Logistics Agency 32

            k.  Department of Defense Education Activity 33

            l.  National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 33

            m.  National Guard Bureau 33

            n.  National Security Agency 34

            o.  Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences 34

            p.  Washington Headquarters Service 34

        4.  Department of Education 35

        5.  Department of Energy 36

        6.  Department of Health and Human Services 37

            a.  Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

            b.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

            c.  Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

            d.  Departmental Appeals Board

            e.  Food and Drug Administration

            f.  Health Resources and Services Administration

            g.  National Institutes of Health

            h.  Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights

            i.  Office of Hearings

        7.  Department of Homeland Security 40

            a.  Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

            b.  Citizenship and Immigration Services

            c.  Federal Emergency Management Agency

            d.  Secret Service

            e.  Transportation Security Administration

        8.  Department of Housing and Urban Development 42

        9.  Department of the Interior 42

        10. Department of Justice 44

            a.  Civil Division

            b.  Civil Rights Division

            c.  Community Relations Service

            d.  Environment and Natural Resources Division

            e.  Executive Office for United States Attorneys

            f.  United States Attorneys' Offices

            g.  Federal Bureau of Investigation

            h.  Federal Bureau of Prisons

            i.  Justice Management Division, Equal Employment
                Opportunity Staff

            j.  Tax Division

        11. Department of Labor 49

        12. Department of State 49

        13. Department of Transportation 49

            a.  Federal Aviation Administration

            b.  Federal Highway Administration

            c.  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

            d.  Federal Transit Administration

            e.  Office of the Inspector General

        14. Department of the Treasury 52

            a.  The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

            b.  Bureau of Engraving and Printing

            c.  Bureau of Public Debt

            d.  Departmental Offices (Departmental Oversight Office)

            e.  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

            f.  Financial Management Service

            g.  Internal Revenue Service

            h.  Internal Revenue Service Appeals

            i.  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

            j.  Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

            k.  United States Mint

        15. Department of Veterans Affairs 55

> B. Independent Agencies 56

1.  Commodity Futures Trading Commission 56

2.  Consumer Product Safety Commission 56

3.  Corporation for National and Community Service 57

4.  Environmental Protection Agency 57

5.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 58

6.  Export-Import Bank of the United States 59

7.  Federal Communications Commission 59

8.  Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 60

9.  Federal Election Commission 60

10. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 61

11. Federal Maritime Commission 62

12. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service 62

13. Federal Reserve Board 63

14. Federal Trade Commission 63

15. General Services Administration 63

16. National Archives and Records Administration 64

17. National Labor Relations Board 64

18. National Mediation Board 64

19. National Science Foundation 64

20. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 64

21. Office of Personnel Management 65

22. Peace Corps 66

23. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 66

24. Securities and Exchange Commission 66

25. Small Business Administration 67

26. Social Security Administration 67

27. Tennessee Valley Authority 67

28. United States Agency for International Development 68

29. U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the\
    Morris K. Udall Foundation 68

30. U.S. Office of Government Ethics 69

31. U.S. Postal Service 69

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
II. Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution 70

    A.  Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government 70

        1.  Accessible 70

        2.  Responsive 73

        3.  Inclusive 74

    B.  Managing Costs 75

        1.  Controlling the Costs of Conflict 76

        2.  Producing Quicker and More Durable Results 77

        3.  Preserving Resources for Mission 78

    C.  Manage Strategically 78

        1.  Maximizing Resources 79

        2.  Promoting Innovation 80

        3.  Promoting Continuous Improvement and Expansion 80

III. Areas of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and Use 82

     A.  Civil Enforcement and Regulatory 82

         1.  Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government 82

         2.  Managing Costs 86

         3.  Managing Strategically 89

     B.  Claims Against the Government 92

     C.  Contracts and Procurement 98

         1.  Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government 98

         2.  Managing Costs 99

         3.  Managing Strategically 101

     D.  Workplace 102

         1.  Background History of Workplace Alternative Dispute\
             Resolution 103

         2.  ADR Programs Are Successful in Resolving Workplace\
             Disputes 105

         3.  ADR Programs Are Cost-Effective 105

         4.  ADR Saves Agency Funds 106

         5.  ADR Saves Agency Time 106

         6.  Alternate Dispute Resolution Programs Are Essential to
             Strategic Management of the Workplace 107

         7.  Workplace ADR Programs Create Collateral Benefits for the\
             Agency 109

         8.  E-Government Makes Workplace ADR Accessible to All 111

IV. The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution 113

    A.  Capitalizing on the Potential of Alternative Dispute Resolution
        113

    B.  Challenges and Opportunities 114

        1.  Leadership 114

            a.  Proclamation by the President of a National Conflict
                Resolution Day

            b.  Letter of Greetings and Commendation From the President
                to Federal Employees Responsible for Alternative Dispute
                Resolution

            c.  Establishment of a Federal Council and Annual Conference
                for Agency Dispute Resolution Specialists

            d.  Government-Wide Biennial Alternative Dispute Resolution
                Achievement Awards Program

        2.  Performance Management 117

            a.  Conflict Management As a Selection and Performance
                Appraisal Criterion for Executive and Management
                Positions

            b.  Conflict Management As a Key Element in Recruitment,
                Training, and Planning

            c.  Programmatic Reviews and Evaluations

        3.  External Promotion and Facilitation 119

        4.  Training 120

        5.  Interagency Sharing of Federal Resources 120

        6.  Management Support 121

            a.  Institutionalization of the ADR Program

            b.  Integration or Coordination of ADR Programs

V.  Conclusion 123

Appendix A: Definitions of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes 124

Appendix B: Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes Reported\
by Agencies 2005-06 127

Appendix C: Past and Current Leadership of the Interagency Alternative
Dispute Resolution Working Group Sections and Steering Committee 137

Appendix D: Current Membership of the Interagency Alternative Dispute
Resolution Working Group Steering Committee 143

Appendix E: Federal Agencies Which Provided the Information Used in\
This Report 149

Appendix F: The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal

Procurement Policy, Procurement ADR Awards
Program.................................. 154

Appendix G: Draft Proclamation by the President of a National Conflict\
Resolution Day 166

Appendix H: Letter of Greetings and Commendation From the President to
Federal Employees Responsible for Alternative Dispute Resolution 168

ADDENDUM: Report from the Attorney General to the President on the
Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group (May 2000) 170

[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS]{.underline}

This Report to the President is a collaborative project which was
undertaken by representatives from the Federal Interagency Alternative
Dispute Resolution Working Group Sections and Steering Committee, and by
representatives from the agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal
government. Appreciation is due to all of them. The following are
specially noted for their exceptional dedication and work on this
effort:

-   Report written by: Linda A. Cinciotta, Senior Counsel for
    Alternative Dispute Resolution and Director, Office of Dispute
    Resolution, U.S. Department of Justice; Joanna Jacobs, Deputy
    Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, U.S. Department of Justice;
    and Deirdre McCarthy Gallagher, Attorney Advisor, Dispute Resolution
    Service, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Overall leadership and guidance: Linda A. Cinciotta, Office of
    Dispute Resolution, U.S. Department of Justice; Cindy Mazur,
    Alternative Dispute Resolution Director, Federal Emergency
    Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, and Chair of the
    Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group's Workplace
    Section; Richard L. Miles, Director, Dispute Resolution Service and
    the Office of Administrative Litigation, Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission, and Chair of the Interagency Alternative Dispute
    Resolution Working Group's Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section;
    Anthony N. Palladino, Associate Chief Counsel and Director, Office
    of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition, Federal Aviation
    Administration, Department of Transportation, and outgoing Chair of
    the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group's
    Contracts and Procurement Section; and Hon. Richard C. Walters,
    Administrative Judge, United States Civilian Board of Contract
    Appeals, and incoming Chair of the Interagency Alternative Dispute
    Resolution Working Group's Contracts and Procurement Section

-   Portions of the report dealing with civil enforcement and regulatory
    matters: Richard L. Miles, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
    Kirk Emerson, Director, U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
    Resolution of the Morris K. Udall Foundation; David Emmerson, Senior
    Program Coordinator, Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute
    Resolution, Department of the Interior; Jennifer Gatlan, Attorney
    Advisor, Federal Maritime Commission; Thomas Louthan (currently on
    detail as a Legislative Fellow, Senate Finance Committee), Internal
    Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Robert C. Manley,
    Associate Counsel (ADR), Office of the General Counsel, Department
    of the Navy, Department of Defense; and Ronald Murphy, Director of
    the Office of Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services,
    Federal Maritime Commission

-   Portions of the report dealing with claims against the government:
    Joanna Jacobs, U.S. Department of Justice; Deborah Ruth Kant, former
    Acting Deputy Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, U.S.
    Department of Justice

-   Portions of the report dealing with contracts and procurement:
    Anthony N. Palladino, Federal Aviation Administration, Department of
    Transportation; Hon. Richard C. Walters, Board Judge, United States
    Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; John A. Dietrich, Assistant
    General Counsel (ADR), Office of the General Counsel, Department of
    the Navy, Department of Defense; Hon. Allan Goodman, Board Judge,
    United Stats Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; Elizabeth M. Grant,
    Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense; Hon. Martin J.
    Harty (Ret.), Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals; and Kenneth
    Lechter, Associate General Counsel (Dispute Resolution), Department
    of the Air Force, Department of Defense

-   Portions of the report dealing with workplace: Cindy Mazur, Federal
    Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security;
    Doretta Bowman-Davis, Attorney (ADR), Social Security Administration
    (on loan to Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
    Homeland Security); Linda A. Cinciotta, Department of Justice;
    Kathryn A. Ellis, Senior Counsel to the Deputy General Counsel for
    Program Service and Agency Dispute Resolution Specialist, Office of
    the General Counsel, Department of Education; D. Leah Meltzer,
    Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist, Securities and Exchange
    Commission; Sarah Rudgers, former Director, Dispute Resolution
    Program, National Archives and Records Administration; and Kim
    Snyder, Intern, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
    Homeland Security

-   Editorial assistance: Pamela Pontillo, Manager, Headquarters
    Mediation Program, Office of Dispute Resolution, Department of
    Energy

-   Administrative assistance: Sylvia Covington, ADR Office Manager,
    Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
    Security; Currie Gunn, Confidential Assistant to the Associate
    Attorney General; Aloma Shaw, Staff Assistant, Office of the
    Associate Attorney General, Department of Justice; Krista van der
    Horst, Dispute Resolution Support Specialist, Office of Dispute
    Resolution, Department of Justice

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}

I. [Introduction]{.underline}

 

Alternative dispute resolution ("ADR") is an umbrella term for processes
that provide an alternative to traditional litigation. ADR processes
give the parties an opportunity to play a more active role in crafting a
resolution to their dispute. Appendix A describes the various types of
ADR processes, the best known of which is mediation. The types of ADR
processes used by the agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal
government are charted in Appendix B.

In 1998, a Presidential Memorandum directed the Attorney General to
coordinate interagency efforts to promote and facilitate the use of ADR
in the Executive Branch and to report periodically on that work. The
Attorney General submitted an initial report in 2000 when federal ADR
was in its infancy. The Report which we now submit:

-   describes the growth in the breadth, scope and depth of federal ADR
    since the 2000 Report was submitted;

-   documents the results and benefits of federal ADR, including
    substantial cost savings, increased workforce productivity and
    accountability, timely achievement of agency goals, and delivery of
    reliable and efficient service; and

-   discusses the future of federal ADR, including the challenges it
    faces and opportunities to develop its full potential.

A. [A Brief History of Federal Alternative Dispute
Resolution]{.underline}

The first uses of ADR processes began experimentally in the 1970s as a
potential remedy for disabling court backlogs, and as resolution
techniques for environmental and natural resource disputes. In 1985, the
Attorney General issued an order recognizing the need for ADR to reduce
the time and expense of civil litigation. A few years later the
Department of Justice again recognized the benefits of ADR in the
Congressional testimony of its Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Counsel, who supported the first ADR legislation enacted by
Congress in 1990.

In the 1990s, Congress passed three statutes (the Administrative Dispute
Resolution Acts of 1990 and 1996, and the Alternative Dispute Resolution
Act of 1998) which, collectively, required each agency to adopt a policy
encouraging use of ADR in a broad range of decision making, and required
the federal trial courts to make ADR programs available to litigants.

In 1996, the President issued Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice
Reform, directing federal litigation counsel to consult with the
referring agency and suggest ADR where benefits might be derived from
its use. On May 1, 1998, the President issued a Memorandum directing the
Attorney General to lead an Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution
Working Group ("Working Group") to promote and facilitate federal ADR.
The Working Group established four Sections to represent the major
substantive areas of ADR application in civil enforcement, claims
against the government, contracts and procurement, and workplace
conflict. A Working Group Steering Committee was established to
represent nearly 60 federal agencies. The past and current leadership of
the Working Group Sections and Steering Committee is given in Appendix
C, and the current membership of the Steering Committee is given in
Appendix D.

The Attorney General's first report to the President, submitted in May
2000, described the first full year of interagency efforts. (The 2000
Report is reprinted in the Addendum to this Report.) Since that time,
the use of ADR has become well-accepted and part of standard practice
throughout the Executive Branch. This Report describes hundreds of ADR
programs representing the gamut of federal executive responsibilities,
from defense to education, from energy regulation to veterans' affairs.
It shows how ADR has expanded to cover use in a broad range of contexts,
including policy development, adjudications, rulemaking, administrative
and civil judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, and public
involvement.

B. [Overview of the Interagency Working Group Sections]{.underline}

> [and Working Group Steering Committee]{.underline}

Since 1998, the work of the four Interagency Working Group Sections and
Working Group Steering Committee has reflected the expansion of ADR
programs and applications throughout the Executive Branch, and has
promoted that growth.

The Working Group's Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section was formed
initially to educate and assist member agencies in using ADR as an
alternative to traditional litigation and settlement methods in civil
enforcement cases. The Section's coverage subsequently was expanded to
include regulatory conflicts \-- in such areas as environmental,
business, and transactional disputes \-- in recognition of the potential
of ADR to make business and resource planning more cost-efficient and
productive. The Section publishes a periodic Newsletter for agencies and
the public to provide information on the application of ADR to
enforcement and regulatory missions.

The Working Group's Claims Against the Government Section focuses on the
achievement of proper balance between litigating a case where necessary
and appropriate, and otherwise resolving cases through some form of ADR
where practicable and in the best interests of the client. ADR is being
used to resolve a wide range of civil actions brought against the United
States, such as aviation and admiralty cases, medical malpractice cases,
and class action workplace discrimination cases.

The Working Group's Contracts and Procurement Section addresses the need
for a viable alternative to traditional litigation processes for
resolving the contractual and procurement disputes of agencies and
private sector companies. The Section sponsors an ongoing series of free
educational programs, open to all government and private sector public
contracts professionals, on a variety of ADR topics such as the legal
and ethical issues of confidentiality in public procurement ADR, and the
development of guidance for federal agencies' use of binding
arbitration.

The Working Group's Workplace Section assists federal agencies with
workplace ADR programs covering all types of employment-related
disputes. The Section sponsors a monthly Lecture Series to provide
current, useful, and thought-provoking information about workplace ADR
which can be implemented and utilized by ADR specialists at their
respective agencies.

The Working Group Steering Committee has recently published four new
guides which serve as advisory best practices in federal ADR. The guides
cover: application of statutory provisions governing confidentiality in
mediation of federal workplace disputes; practical ethical guidance for
federal employee mediators; factors for ensuring the independence and
impartiality of a federal ombuds office; and finding appropriate
neutrals for agency workplace disputes. The Steering Committee meets
monthly to share knowledge and experience on the facilitation of ADR in
the Executive Branch.

> C. [Survey of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution
> Programs]{.underline}

The Working Group Steering Committee in mid-2005 began surveying every
agency in the Executive Branch about their ADR operations. Responsive
data was submitted by over 100 agencies and agency components, which are
listed in Appendix E. The data have been used to prepare this Report,
and the information is also helpful in identifying areas where the
Working Group Sections and Steering Committee may be able to provide
assistance in maximizing the success of agencies in using ADR.

II\. [Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs: Enhancing Agency
Missions]{.underline}

The ADR programs and policies of the 15 Cabinet agencies and 31
independent agencies are summarized, and the nexus between programs and
the agency missions is shown, in this section of the Report. The Report
demonstrates that, increasingly, agencies such as the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission are expanding their ADR options to provide a menu
of resolution choices that are better able to enhance the missions of
government and agencies, and serve the needs of citizens.

At both Cabinet and independent agencies, ADR processes are being used
to meet agency -- and government -- goals of security, safety, and
responsiveness, to name just a few. The agencies are using a spectrum of
dispute resolution tools which are flexibly applied to meet the wide
range of their needs. Here are a few examples of the types of success
stories that are seen in Cabinet agencies:

-   The Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration used consensus building and public participation
    throughout the development of the natural resource damage assessment
    regulations promulgated pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

-   The Department of Education/Office of Federal Student Aid Ombudsman
    works with federal student aid recipient loan holders, guarantee
    agencies, and schools to prevent loan foreclosures.

-   The Department of Health and Human Services/Departmental Appeals
    Board uses ADR to provide less contentious and quicker resolution of
    disputes involving Medicare and Medicaid program exclusions,
    imposition of civil sanctions against health care providers and
    nursing homes, and disputes with grantees (including States and
    universities) concerning disallowances of funds.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management
    Agency provided arbitration for more than 130 Los Alamos fire claim
    victims who wanted an alternative to court proceedings.

-   The Department of Justice/Civil Rights Division's Americans With
    Disabilities Act Mediation Program uses ADR to resolve, quickly and
    voluntarily, discrimination complaints about architectural,
    communication, and attitudinal barriers for people with disabilities
    throughout the country.

-   The Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration has
    integrated a Neutral Evaluation program into the negotiated
    grievance process for all labor disputes between the Air Traffic
    Controllers Association and the Federal Aviation Administration. The
    program promotes collaboration and resolution early in the process
    by presenting disputes to an independent neutral, with expertise in
    the particular subject matter at issue, to provide a non-binding
    advisory decision.

-   The Department of the Treasury/Office of the Comptroller of the
    Currency's Office of the Ombudsman, through the Customer Assistance
    Group, addresses disputes between consumers and national banks or
    their subsidiaries, and provides a user-friendly Web site of
    resources, answers, and formal complaint forms for consumers.

The independent agencies shared a similarly impressive track record of
success stories, some of which are these illustrative examples:

-   The Consumer Product Safety Commission utilized mediation to resolve
    a major dispute involving a risk to the public of carbon monoxide
    poisoning.

-   The Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Administrative Law
    Judges uses a mediation program to facilitate settlement of
    administrative civil penalty enforcement cases under a set of
    federal environmental laws. The agency's Office of the Small
    Business Ombudsman resolves disputes with the small business
    community in the development and enforcement of environmental
    regulations.

-   The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission provides a menu of ADR
    options such as facilitation of collaborative pre-license processes,
    mediation, settlement judges, and the use of early neutral
    evaluation.

-   The Federal Maritime Commission facilitates the flow of U.S. ocean
    commerce by using ADR to quickly resolve disputes involving ocean
    shipping transactions, violations of shipping statutes, and freight
    charges.

-   The Nuclear Regulatory Commission employed collaborative,
    facilitated ADR processes to involve the public in decision making
    about revision of agency rules and guidance on emergency planning in
    the wake of 9/11.

The Report also shows that ADR is being routinely employed -- with great
success -- to resolve workplace conflict and result in higher morale and
greater productivity in the federal workforce.

III\. [Advantages of Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}

ADR has been instrumental in promoting a citizen-centered government,
managing the costs of government, and supporting the strategic
management of government resources.

A. [Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government]{.underline}

A citizen-centered government is one that is:

-   accessible to the citizens it serves;

-   responsive to the needs of the citizens it serves; and

-   inclusive of the interests impacted by government initiatives.

The inherent design of ADR promotes a citizen-centered government
because ADR processes facilitate early and direct communication and
interaction among disputants.

Federal agencies are capitalizing on technology to enhance the
contributions of ADR to citizen-centered government. The National
Mediation Board is a forerunner in the use of on-line dispute resolution
tools, such as document-sharing software, to bring parties together
electronically in their efforts to forge agreement. The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission operates an Enforcement Hotline which gives
citizens access to an early neutral evaluation for a range of disputes
before complaints are formally filed with the agency. The Department of
Justice Civil Rights Division has a comprehensive, interactive, and
user-friendly Web site for persons with disabilities and business owners
who have questions about their rights and obligations under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department of Defense/Department of
the Air Force utilizes the Internet as a primary means of dispensing ADR
information.

Numerous agencies, such as the United States Agency for International
Development, are employing ombuds to provide employees and citizens an
opportunity to speak directly with an agency representative about issues
of concerns. The ombuds provides timely feedback to the potential
disputant and, as importantly, ongoing feedback to the respective agency
regarding the impact and effectiveness of its programs.

Countless agencies also are encouraging the use of consensus-building
processes to let citizens participate in agency decision making. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, for example, has convened collaborative
processes for developing guidelines regarding the recycling of
radioactive materials. The Department of Energy Office of Legacy
Management has developed a Public Participation process to target
populations -- small towns, rural areas, minority and low-income
communities -- that are limited in their ability to participate in
environmental decisions because they lack access to information,
technology, expertise, and decision-makers. Such processes serve to
identify and dismantle roadblocks to agency initiatives and foster
collaborative relationships between agencies and their respective
stakeholders, something that can have a long-lasting impact on agency
decision making and approval processes.

B. [Managing Costs]{.underline}

ADR contributes to the effective conservation of limited federal
resources in several interrelated ways:

-   controlling the costs of conflict;

-   producing quicker and more durable results; and

-   preserving resources for the mission of the agency.

*Controlling the costs of conflict.* Use of ADR controls the financial
impact of conflicts by saving on the skyrocketing costs associated with
litigation. Many agencies have documented significant costs savings in
legal expenses, expert witnesses and travel costs. ADR also saves the
cost of productive labor that otherwise would be dedicated to, or lost
as a result of, the conflict.

*Producing quicker and more durable results*. Litigation is extremely
time-consuming and results in a winner and a loser. In contrast, because
ADR is inherently flexible, it gives the parties a unique opportunity to
craft the process and solution which are tailored to their own needs.
They can decide when to meet and they can decide on the terms of a
mutually-beneficial outcome that best serves their respective interests.
The resolution they reach is likely to last much longer than a
hierarchical decision imposed by an outside forum.

*Preserving resources for the mission of the agency.* The use of ADR
preserves resources for agencies. Rather than funneling resources to
manage ongoing disputes, agencies employing ADR are able to apply
resources to achieving the mission of the agency.

C.  [Managing Strategically]{.underline}

ADR contributes to the strategic management of government resources,
both monetary and human, by:

-   maximizing resources;

-   promoting innovation; and

-   fostering continuous improvement and expansion.

*Maximizing resources.* Use of ADR maximizes resources. The issues at
stake in some cases demand litigation or a more formal administrative
process. Maximizing agency resources requires the assessment and
identification of those cases which are appropriate for ADR and those
which require a more formal disposition. As the Federal Election
Commission reported, early disposition of cases to ADR liberates
resources for those cases that necessitate a more formal process.

*Promoting innovation.* Use of ADR promotes innovation by giving the
parties a chance to craft a resolution that captures their needs and
interests in a way that may not be possible through a more formal
process. As the Federal Maritime Commission explains, ADR processes
provide flexibility to the parties involved in shipping transaction
disputes so they can draft innovative solutions that reflect their own
needs as well as the state of the market.

*Fostering continuous improvement and expansion.* Use of ADR promotes
continuous improvement and expansion by encouraging agencies to identify
opportunities for more and better ADR successes. The growth of ADR
programs throughout the federal government, in a wide range of areas,
reflects the need for this improvement and expansion as agencies strive
to develop programs that better serve party needs.

IV\. [Areas of Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs and
Use]{.underline}

This section of the Report discusses the specific contributions of ADR
to good government, as viewed through the lens of the four major
substantive areas of federal ADR applications: civil enforcement and
regulatory; claims against the government; contracts and procurement;
and workplace.

A.  [Civil Enforcement and Regulatory]{.underline}

*Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government.* In civil enforcement and
regulatory disputes, unassisted negotiations and litigation have focused
traditionally on which party has the stronger position. Today, many
agencies fulfill their statutory mandates with the use of ADR, which is
used as a supplemental tool to avoid protracted litigation when
unassisted negotiations fail. The public interest is often better served
when citizens, non-governmental organizations, corporations, state and
federal agencies, tribal nations, and other entities participate
directly in an ADR process that includes them in the development of a
result that meets the interests of all concerned. Stakeholders who work
toward a shared, positive outcome often achieve better results than they
would have received in court and can create long-term productive working
relationships.

A few examples show how ADR is supportive of citizen-centered government
by promoting accessibility, responsiveness, and inclusiveness:

-   The Environmental Protection Agency Brownfields Mine-Scarred Lands
    Initiative is a multi-level effort to engage a broad range of
    federal partners and local community members in addressing
    mine-scarred lands across the country.

-   The Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management is using
    ADR to involve stakeholders early and often in decision making
    regarding the nuclear weapons complex cleanup program.

-   The Small Business Administration National Ombudsman acts as a
    "trouble shooter" between small businesses and federal agencies on
    problems perceived as unfair and excessive regulatory enforcement.

-   The Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and
    Compliance is advancing greater use of consensus-based decision
    making in the implementation of the National Environmental Policy
    Act to engage local communities throughout the analysis process
    including developing the preferred alternative.

*Managing Costs.* ADR programs enable better control over resources
expended, as well as better outcomes, as these examples reflect:

-   The Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management
    Agency notes that for every lawsuit avoided, the agency can save
    thousands of dollars, thus leaving it better able to manage its
    resources.

-   The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reports faster processing
    and savings in hydroelectric proceedings where settlement agreements
    are reached during the pre-filing period.

-   The Securities and Exchange Commission, while unable to agree to
    settlements during the mediation session (because of the need for
    review and authorization by the Commissioners), emphasizes the
    benefits that can flow from the process of mediation. For example,
    the Commission reports that mediation routinely helps to streamline
    discovery and focus the parties on key issues so that they are able
    to reach settlement shortly after the mediation concludes.

*Managing Strategically.* Agencies are building internal capacity to
maximize the benefits of ADR, as shown by these practices:

-   The Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service Appeals
    office has an incentive-based training program which enhances the
    competitiveness of Appeals Officers trained for collateral duty
    mediation, and 400 of them have been trained as mediators.

-   The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution has a
    national roster of pre-qualified neutrals, searchable on-line, that
    is used by federal agencies to locate environmental conflict
    resolution practitioners.

B.  [Claims Against the Government]{.underline}

Cases involving claims against the government are cases in which the
United States is a defendant in a civil action. Since the federal
district courts are required to offer some form of ADR, its use is
fairly common in many of the cases. Additionally, many agencies make an
initial determination as to whether to settle a civilian claim before a
lawsuit is actually filed. Agencies use mediation to some degree at
these initial stages; however, without the rights to discovery which
accrue with the formal filing of the lawsuit, the parties may not yet
have enough factual information to support a knowledgeable settlement at
this stage.

The goal of ADR in these cases is consistent: offering expedient
alternatives to citizens while at the same time pursuing the best
interests of the government. As a Department of Justice attorney said in
describing the obligations of representing the United States: "Our
mission is to zealously represent the United States in suits brought
against it or in suits brought on its behalf....However, we also owe a
responsibility to our citizens to act fairly to those litigating with
the United States." ADR can further both the mission and the
responsibility of the government, while yielding these benefits:

-   savings in costs associated with trials, such as fees and travel
    expenses for experts and other witnesses;

-   savings in time of attorneys, staff and parties who are federal
    employees;

-   quicker resolutions than a trial would offer and therefore fewer
    days that the parties have spent under the cloud of a pending
    lawsuit;

-   creative resolutions acceptable to the parties, but which a court
    could not impose;

-   lower monetary judgments than a jury or judge might impose; and

-   a durable and voluntary agreement without any appeals.

The use of ADR in appropriate claims against the government also allows
the agencies more control over agency resources. Savings in money, time,
and labor resources are significant when discovery and litigation costs
are reduced or eliminated through the use of ADR to settle claims, but
the impact can be realized even when the claim is not resolved through
ADR. As the Department of Justice/Civil Division reports, even when a
case does not settle, the use of ADR often results in a narrowing of
contested issues and the scope of discovery.

Finally, the use of ADR in appropriate claims against the government
enables agencies to maximize the limited government resources that are
available to defend a case. As the Department of Justice pointed out:
"By resolving cases that can be resolved through ADR, attorneys are able
to focus their resources and work efforts on the cases that need to be
fully litigated...and on the core missions of their agency rather than
on time-consuming litigation."

C. [Contracts and Procurement]{.underline}

The application of ADR to contracts and procurement disputes has
increased in recent years, as more agencies -- and more contracting
companies -- realize the value of ADR in achieving prompt and fair
resolution of contract and procurement-related disputes.

*Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government.* Agencies across the board are
utilizing technology to promote ADR, and as these examples show, that
approach is allowing individuals and private sector entities to do
business with a government that is accessible, responsive, and
inclusive:

-   The Department of Defense (the Department of the Air Force, the
    Department of the Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency) has
    developed user-friendly Web sites that provide information on ADR
    processes, sample forms, and training in how to engage in
    interest-based collaborative problem solving.

-   The Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration has
    developed a similar citizen-centered Web site.

*Managing Costs*. The use of ADR in contracts and procurement disputes
has resulted in savings of both time and money:

-   The Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force reports that
    its "ADR First" policy in contract disputes has enabled it to avoid
    an average of \$57.6 million in liability in each of the most recent
    five years (FY 2002 through FY 2006).

-   The Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration
    reports that the use of ADR has resulted in shorter resolution
    timeframes for the agency: bid protests are resolved through ADR in
    an average of 24 calendar days, while contract disputes have been
    resolved by ADR in an average of 67 calendar days.

Perhaps most importantly, agencies report that resolutions reached
through ADR are more durable because they reflect the needs and concerns
of the parties at the table, including the government. The Department of
Veterans Affairs says that as the result of its ADR program, decisions
are made with "greater certainty in achieving the Department's mission."

*Managing Strategically.* Use of ADR is enhancing the effective
allocation of resources while promoting innovation in both process and
outcome:

-   The Department of Defense/National Guard is maximizing its resources
    by providing contracting officers and other Guard personnel with
    Claims Avoidance workshops which have contributed to a reduction in
    problems and disputes arising from the implementation of contracts.

-   The Department of Agriculture maximizes resources through ADR
    process efficiencies such as using internal neutrals, consolidating
    travel assignments, and using telephonic and video-conferencing in
    place of travel where possible.

-   The Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration
    provides ADR to parties *before* they file formal bid protests which
    enables them to resolve concerns before the dispute escalates, and
    reports that of 79 "pre-dispute" cases where ADR was employed only
    three proceeded to formal litigation.

In 2002, upon the recommendation and with the support of the Interagency
ADR Working Group Contracts and Procurement Section, the Office of
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy established
an annual Federal Procurement ADR Awards Program for agencies and their
private sector business partners who effectively employ ADR to avoid and
resolve procurement-related disputes. The public sector award winners to
date have included the Department of Defense (Department of the Air
Force, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Defense Logistics Agency, and the Department of the
Navy), the Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration,
and the General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals.

D. [Workplace]{.underline}

Across the federal government, agencies have found that the availability
of workplace ADR increases the ability of employees and managers to
resolve internal disputes quickly and effectively, at the earliest
possible time, and at the lowest possible level. This is especially
important in the workplace, where festering disputes may distract an
employee or manager from fulfilling essential work responsibilities. Use
of ADR is cost-effective, saving money and time because resources are
not spent on long investigations and protracted litigation, but rather
on resolving disputes more quickly outside of the courtroom. In
addition, agencies have found that involvement in the ADR process often
forces supervisors to deal directly with the outcome of their, or their
subordinate's, actions. This results in important lessons being learned
that have long-term positive effects on the organization's efficiency.
Additionally, direct supervisor interaction with employees often opens
avenues of communication that had been closed, resulting in better
working relationships and improved productivity.

*Background History of Workplace ADR.* Early and pioneering workplace
ADR programs at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S.
Postal Service launched a number of lessons learned that still serve as
linchpins for managing workplace conflict:

-   On the whole, many managers felt less threatened when they
    participated in a "problem solving" mediation to resolve a
    work-related dispute, rather than being put on the defensive in
    response to allegations of illegal discriminatory conduct.

-   The earlier the mediation occurs, the better the chances are that
    the parties will reach a voluntary settlement, and that the
    collateral negative impact of the dispute on co-workers and the
    organization as a whole will be minimized.

-   Mediation should be made available at many different stages of a
    dispute so that it is at all times a viable alternative to
    continuing with the formal dispute process.

-   Voluntary agreements reached through mediation provide a more
    enduring solution to the issues underlying the dispute than any
    outside adjudication could do.

*ADR Programs Are Successful in Resolving Workplace Disputes.* Agencies
report ADR settlement rates all above 50% and some reaching 75% and
above, with significant cost savings. By comparison, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission reported the national settlement rate
of EEO cases through ADR was 49%.

*ADR Programs are Cost-Effective.* ADR programs conserve human capital
by creating loyalty and longevity in the agency's work environment, and
increase productivity.

*ADR Saves Agency Funds.* Federal agencies report considerable savings
of monetary resources through workplace ADR programs:

-   The Social Security Administration calculated that the average costs
    of processing an EEO complaint through a traditional process was
    approximately \$40,000, while the costs of mediating an EEO
    complaint ran from \$50 (if a shared neutral is used) to \$1500 (if
    an outside vendor is used).

-   The General Services Administration noted that for every EEO case
    resolved through mediation, the agency saved \$3500 - \$4500 in
    investigation fees alone.

-   The Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation calculated
    that it cost the agency over \$2,600 for each EEO investigation and
    over \$250,000 for a Final Agency Decision, but only \$1,800 on
    average for each case resolved through mediation.

*ADR Saves Agency Time*. Agencies report a substantial time savings
through the application of ADR to workplace disputes:

-   The Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force reports, for
    example, that workplace disputes resolved through mediation take an
    average of 27--40 days, as opposed to an average of 390 days for EEO
    cases which proceed to the administrative phase.

-   The Department of Defense/Washington Headquarters Service reported
    that ADR processes took an average of 39 days, as opposed to EEO
    formal complaints (federal-wide) which took an average of 469 days
    in Fiscal Year 2004.

-   The Department of Housing and Urban Development reports that
    processing time is reduced from 802 days in formal EEO cases to 53
    days in ADR.

*ADR Programs Are Essential to Strategic Management of the Workplace.*
The availability of ADR options gives both internal and external
benefits to the agencies by:

-   demonstrating an agency's concrete commitment to fostering a
    positive long-term working environment for all employees;

-   improving relationships between federal managers and employees;

-   increasing employee productivity;

-   reducing costs with interagency sharing of in-house neutrals; and

-   increasing efficiency with interagency sharing of expertise.

*Workplace ADR Programs Create Collateral Benefits for the Agency.* The
benefits to ADR extend beyond the immediate dispute:

-   Effective communication, a key ingredient of ADR, enables management
    to get key input from the employees working with issues that can
    potentially pose problems for the agency as a whole.

-   Addressing causes of employee dissatisfaction can increase
    productivity.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ADR processes identify and address recurring issues that lead to
    systemic problems, making it more likely that similar disputes can
    be avoided in the future.

*E-Government Makes Workplace ADR Accessible to All.* Workplace dispute
resolution programs are utilizing electronic tools to multiply the use
and application of ADR through:

-   information dissemination to educate agency employees and increase
    the use of ADR services;

-   use of electronic tools for training in ADR techniques and use of
    the ADR process itself; and

-   use of ADR processes to elicit staff input in converting to
    e-government.

V. [The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}

A. [Capitalizing on the Potential of ADR]{.underline}

Alternative dispute resolution has become well-accepted in federal
agencies as an effective and efficient method for resolving disputes and
has been readily adopted as part of a sound business model. All of the
agencies responding to the survey convey the fundamental belief that
conflict is reduced wherever and whenever communication is improved and
acknowledge the positive impact of ADR on both reducing conflict and
enhancing communication.

However, the agencies in the Executive Branch are still a long way from
employing ADR to its full potential. Alternative dispute resolution is
still being used to "fix problems" as they occur, and needs to grow into
a system of pro-active conflict management. The key to reducing conflict
is early intervention and anticipatory dispute resolution which prevent
the escalation of disagreement. A number of agencies have developed
programs to focus on early intervention, including: the Federal Aviation
Administration Early Dispute Resolution Center; the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission Dispute Resolution Service and Enforcement
Hotline; the Department of the Interior CORE PLUS Program for managing
any workplace conflict; the Department of Justice Mediation Program for
disability rights; the Department of Transportation Center for
Alternative Dispute Resolution; and the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution work with the other federal agencies on engaging
stakeholders early in the process of resource planning or environmental
review.

All agencies can learn from these trailblazers to recognize the positive
power of conflict. Successful conflict resolution programs value the
diversity of viewpoints, and are based on a belief that more creative
and responsive resolutions can emerge when more minds tackle a problem.
Conflict is thus transformed from a negative interaction into a
cooperative activity which can infuse value, flexibility, and
adaptability into business decisions.

B. [Challenges and Opportunities]{.underline}

The Report offers a roadmap of challenges and opportunities that could
assist in fulfilling the promise of ADR in the coming years:

*Leadership.* Expressions of leadership commitment would be valuable in
maximizing the beneficial impact and results of ADR through the
Executive Branch. Possibilities include:

-   proclamation by the President of a National Conflict Resolution Day
    recognizing the societal value of conflict management (Appendix G);

-   letter of greetings and commendation from the President to federal
    employees responsible for alternative dispute resolution (Appendix
    H);

-   establishment of a Federal Council and annual conference for agency
    Dispute Resolution Specialists; and

-   government-wide biennial ADR achievement awards program.

*Performance Management*. The uses and successful outcomes of ADR are
more likely to be maximized if the agency performance management
structure includes conflict management elements, for example:

-   conflict management as a selection and performance appraisal
    criterion for executive and management positions;

-   conflict management as a key element in recruitment, training, and
    planning; and

-   programmatic reviews and evaluations to show measures of improvement
    and progress in implementing ADR programs.

*External Promotion and Facilitation.* Agencies should educate the
entities subject to their jurisdiction about how ADR works and the
benefits it can produce, and promote and facilitate their use of ADR in
appropriate cases.

*Training.* At a minimum, agencies should provide communication skills
training for all new employees, and communications skills and conflict
management training for all new managers and supervisors. Agencies
should explore means of saving training expenses by using and sharing
federal trainers and training resources.

*Interagency Sharing of Federal Resources.* With leadership and
coordination, agencies should consider sharing in many interagency
projects, including ADR tracking and evaluation tools.

*Management Support.* Agencies should institutionalize their ADR
programs by providing leadership commitment and continuity of staff and
funding. Regardless of whether their ADR programs and operations are
centralized or decentralized, agencies should ensure that ADR is
integrated into the way people do business in all areas of the agency's
responsibilities where use of ADR is appropriate.

VI\. [Conclusion]{.underline}

Alternative dispute resolution is a tool for appropriate cases, not a
panacea for all cases. The interests of the United States often are
unique. Federal officials can resolve cases only in ways that will not
undermine important legal issues, jurisdictional defenses, or policy
interests. In appropriate cases, ADR has become a common sense option
for the federal agencies. It is cost-effective, time-efficient, it gives
the parties control over the outcome, and it involves stakeholders in
decisions that affect them.

 

**I. [Introduction]{.underline}**

Although it is human nature to avoid conflict where possible, conflict
is not all bad. Conflict can be constructive and a catalyst for growth.
It also is inevitable, so the real question is how best to manage
conflict. In our world, litigation too often has been the primary game
plan for dealing with conflict. But the need for an alternative to
litigation was evident at least 150 years ago, when Abraham Lincoln
said: "Discourage litigation because the nominal winner often is a
loser, in both time and money." It took a long time after President
Lincoln's admonition before a new framework was constructed that
recognizes litigation is not, and should not be, inevitable. That
framework is alternative dispute resolution ("ADR").

Less than ten years ago, in May 1998, a Presidential Memorandum directed
the Attorney General to coordinate interagency efforts to promote and
facilitate the use of ADR in the Executive Branch of the federal
government and requested a periodic report on that work. The Attorney
General submitted an initial report in 2000 when federal ADR was in its
infancy. The Report which we now submit:

-   describes the growth in the breadth, scope and depth of federal ADR
    since the 2000 Report was submitted;

-   documents the results and benefits of federal ADR, including
    substantial cost savings, increased workforce productivity and
    accountability, timely achievement of agency goals, and delivery of
    reliable and efficient service; and

-   discusses the future of federal ADR, including the challenges it
    faces and opportunities to develop its full potential.

Successful managers in every federal agency are embracing and
institutionalizing alternative dispute resolution -- and the results are
dramatic. Throughout the federal government, the use of ADR is
delivering concrete and measurable results to the American people who
rely on the resources of the federal government, including:

-   substantial cost savings;

-   increased workforce productivity;

-   increased workforce accountability;

-   timely achievement of specific agency goals; and

-   delivery of reliable, efficient, and high quality service.

ADR is an umbrella term encompassing a range of processes that provide
alternatives to traditional litigation. ADR processes, in general, give
parties the opportunity to play a more active role in collaborating to
create mutually agreeable decisions or crafting a resolution to their
disputes. Mediation, a commonly used ADR process, highlights the
benefits of this opportunity. Through mediation, those individuals who
best know the facts, the issues, and the vested interests involved in an
issue or dispute are the very people balancing priorities and crafting a
resolution that reflects their interests. The result is a durable
resolution, created and endorsed by those who will implement it.
Oftentimes, the result also includes improved relations between the
parties to a dispute, particularly important for parties who have
ongoing business relationships.

The range of ADR processes employed throughout the federal government is
varied, reflecting the needs of the respective agencies and their
constituencies. However, all of the ADR processes give parties a greater
opportunity to engage with their government in decisions that directly
impact them. Attached in Appendix A is a list of some of the various
processes that fall within the ADR umbrella, along with descriptions of
the elements of each one. Attached in Appendix B is a description of the
types of alternative dispute resolution processes employed by each
federal agency.

A. [Brief History of Federal ADR]{.underline}

The use of ADR processes in the federal government is not a new
phenomenon. Its genesis was in the 1970s. In the 30-plus years since it
took root, ADR has experienced exponential growth. Let us look back at
those tentative early efforts, and the catalysts that have led ADR to
its current status as part of the business of the federal government.

In the mid-1970's, ADR use was championed as a potential remedy for
overwhelming and disabling court backlogs. Countless cases were delayed
-- many for two years or more for lower court adjudication -- leaving
litigants languishing, their access to effective justice essentially
denied. The initial federal implementation of ADR aimed to address this
problem by offering litigants a quicker route to resolution in
appropriate cases. The experiment offered great promise and delivered
tangible results. The effective use of ADR also demonstrated over time
that there are other distinct advantages to using these processes beyond
merely shrinking court backlogs. Disputes addressed through ADR often
are resolved more quickly, more effectively, and at less cost, both in
terms of money and human resources, than disputes addressed through
traditional processes, primarily litigation or formal administrative
proceedings. Additionally, the voluntary agreements reached with ADR
often are better received and, correspondingly, more durable than
adjudicated outcomes.

Also in the 1970s, use of ADR began to take hold for resolution of
environmental and natural resource disputes. Then, in 1985, the Attorney
General issued an order recognizing the need for ADR to reduce the time
and expense of civil litigation. A few years later the Department of
Justice again recognized the benefits of ADR in the Congressional
testimony of its Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
who supported the first ADR legislation subsequently enacted by
Congress.

It was the initial positive experience with ADR that led to its further
development and expanded use in the courts and throughout the federal
government. In 1990, Congress moved toward institutionalizing federal
agency ADR with the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution
Act, which required each agency to adopt a policy to encourage use of
ADR in a broad range of decision making. Initially, the Act included a
sunset provision as well as other provisions protective to the
government in ADR processes. In 1996, however, the statute was reenacted
permanently without the earlier restrictions. Also in 1996, the
President issued Executive Order 12988 on Civil Justice Reform,
directing federal litigation counsel to consult with the referring
agency and suggest ADR where benefits might be derived from its use. Two
years later, in 1998, Congress mandated that the federal trial courts
develop and implement ADR programs in every district throughout the
country. It was slowly becoming clear that dispute resolution no longer
was just a narrow response to a particular legal problem, but a widely
applicable tool for effective conflict resolution.

In response to the burgeoning use of ADR throughout the federal
government, the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group
("Working Group") was established by Presidential Memorandum on May 1,
1998. The President directed the Attorney General to lead the Working
Group's mission of assisting Executive Branch agencies in exploring ADR
as a more effective and efficient way to handle disputes involving the
federal government. The Working Group also was tapped to monitor and
coordinate ADR use and report periodically to the President on the
current state of federal use of ADR. The initial organizing meeting of
the Working Group established four Sections, described in detail below,
to represent the major substantive areas of ADR application. A Working
Group Steering Committee was established to represent nearly 60 federal
agencies. The past and current leadership of the Working Group Sections
and Steering Committee is given in Appendix C. The current membership of
the Working Group Steering Committee is in Appendix D.

The Attorney General submitted a brief initial federal ADR Report to the
President on May 8, 2000 ("the 2000 Report," attached as the Addendum)
when federal ADR was still in its infancy. The 2000 Report concluded the
important first full year of interagency efforts to promote and
facilitate federal ADR. At that time, the largest and most successful
use of federal ADR was the U.S. Postal Service's REDRESS^®^ Program,
which focused on Equal Employment Opportunity ("EEO") complaints. The
statistics presented in the 2000 Report detailed the obvious advantages
of ADR and the agency's extraordinary accomplishments in that area. The
early use of ADR in contracting also had begun to show promise. Today,
the use of ADR is well accepted and part of standard practice in those
areas. Since the submission of the 2000 Report, there has been a major
expansion in the use of ADR in other areas, including enforcement and
regulatory, and claims against the government.

The growth in breadth, scope, and depth of the ADR programs developed
since 2000 is described at length in this Report. The use of ADR has
grown to encompass a broad range of contests, including policy
development, adjudications, rulemaking, administrative and civil
judicial enforcement actions, permit issuance, and public involvement.
This Report seeks to measure and evaluate that exponential growth and
provide a harbinger of the potential for ADR to realize the goal of good
government \-- government that is both results-oriented and responsive
to the needs of the American people.

B. [Overview of the Interagency Working Group Sections and]{.underline}

[Working Group Steering Committee]{.underline}

The 2000 Report focused on the initial challenge of promoting and
assisting in the establishment of an ADR program in every federal
agency. Since that time, the use of ADR has expanded across and within
many federal organizations. For example, agencies which once
concentrated their ADR efforts solely on workplace disputes have
effectively leveraged their positive experiences to expand ADR to
procurement and regulatory disputes. Correspondingly, the goals of the
Working Group Sections and Steering Committee have expanded in
broadening support for the continued development of ADR programs and
application of ADR in a multitude of areas. This Report captures the
unprecedented advances of the years following submission of the 2000
Report and reflects an extraordinary overall decade of federal
leadership in the field of ADR. The compilation of innovative ADR
programs thoughtfully designed in over a hundred federal agencies and
sub-agencies in recent years - many of which are built on the
foundations described in the 2000 Report -- demonstrates ADR's potential
to deliver government accessibility, services, and justice to the
American people.

In mid-2005, the Working Group Steering Committee began the process of
surveying hundreds of ADR programs throughout the federal government in
order to evaluate and measure progress achieved in the use of ADR.
Surveys were distributed to every agency within the Executive Branch.
The data provided by those agencies (listed in Appendix E) offer
concrete information to illustrate the past successes and future
potential of ADR, and confirm that ADR has both delivered on its
promises and offered realistic hope for further successes.

Before delving into the survey results, addressed in length in the
subsequent sections, we have described below some of the other specific
areas of accomplishment of each of the substantive areas covered by the
four Working Group Sections and Steering Committee.

[CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATORY SECTION]{.underline}

When initially formed, the goal of the Civil Enforcement Section was to
educate and assist member agencies in the use of dispute resolution
techniques in civil enforcement and compliance cases as an alternative
to traditional litigation and settlement methods. This goal remains the
same today but with an expanded focus, to reflect the realization that
there are other, related areas where ADR has great potential to make
business and resource planning more cost-efficient and productive in
appropriate instances. Accordingly, in the autumn of 2002, the scope of
the Section's coverage was expanded to include regulatory conflicts, and
its name was changed to the Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section.
Active agency representatives in this Section come from the: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Federal Maritime Commission, Federal Election Commission, Coast Guard,
Department of the Navy, Department of the Interior, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Force, Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution**,** and the Department of
Commerce. These members are dedicated to assisting other agencies and
stand ready to provide consultation or training in ADR program
development. Agencies for which this Section has provided consultation
and training include the Social Security Administration, the Department
of Transportation's Surface Transportation Board, and the Department of
Labor.

Since its inception and expansion, the Civil Enforcement and Regulatory
Section consistently has reached out to agencies and other organizations
to expand the use of ADR. Agencies were contacted directly to explore
interest in participating in Working Group activities. The Section also
developed a Newsletter for agencies and the public, detailing Section
activities and providing information on the applicability of ADR to
enforcement and regulatory missions. Topics which have been covered in
the Newsletter include: ADR success stories in the civil enforcement and
regulatory arena; resources available to support ADR efforts, such as
ADR consultation teams; related initiatives by other organizations;
guidance on frequently asked questions, and considerations on the
appropriateness of ADR for a particular case. Each Newsletter is posted
on the Federal Interagency ADR Web page at
[www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/).

In sum, the Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section and its dedicated
members support the widespread application of ADR. Lengthy, costly, and
time-consuming traditional adjudication processes have forced business
decision-makers to devote an inordinate amount of their time to
defending their positions. Their time could be better spent running
their businesses more efficiently. This Section recognizes that ADR
provides an attractive alternative for dealing with environmental
disputes, business disputes, and transactional disputes. An environment
that allows for disputes to be resolved quickly, and at low cost,
benefits everyone directly affected, as well as the general citizenry.
The goal of the Section is to continue to foster the development and
implementation of ADR initiatives within the enforcement and regulatory
arenas of the federal government.

The Administration recently demonstrated its commitment to the use of
ADR in environmental disputes through the Memorandum on Environmental
Conflict Resolution which was issued jointly on November 28, 2005 by the
Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental
Quality. This policy support has enabled members of the Civil
Enforcement and Regulatory Section to be stronger advocates for the
effective use of environmental conflict resolution within their own
agencies.

[CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SECTION]{.underline}

Since the 2000 Report, this Section has assisted federal offices across
the country in integrating ADR into the preparation and management of
appropriate cases involving a claim against the government. This has
included trainings for federal attorneys throughout the country, to
educate them on how to effectively represent their client in an ADR
process, as well as to strategize about the most effective and
appropriate use of ADR. The focus is on reaching the proper balance
between litigating a case where it is necessary and appropriate and
otherwise resolving cases through some form of ADR where it is
practicable and in the best interests of the client. The federal
government has used ADR successfully in aviation and admiralty cases,
medical malpractice cases, class action and individual workplace
discrimination cases, water rights and Native American land disputes,
and a vast array of other civil actions brought against the United
States.

[CONTRACTS AND PROCUREMENT SECTION]{.underline}

The goal of the Contracts and Procurement Section is to address the need
of agencies and private sector companies to find a viable alternative to
traditional litigative processes for resolving contract and procurement
disputes.

This Section has actively promoted the use of ADR through an ongoing
regular series of free educational programs on a variety of ADR topics.
The Section has co-sponsored, along with the American Bar Association,
twenty educational programs from 1999 to the present. The programs are
open to all government and private sector public contracts
professionals, giving them an opportunity to pro-actively identify
potential problems of future contract interpretations and develop
programs to explore areas subject to future disagreements. The programs
have been exceptionally well-received with attendance often exceeding
one hundred participants, with an equal or greater number participating
by teleconference. A few of the topics include: "Unique Aspects of
Mediating Government Construction Contract Disputes"; "Developing
Guidance for Federal Agency Binding Arbitration"; and "Confidentiality
in Public Procurement ADR -- Legal and Ethical Issues." The series is
continuing and will include program topics suggested by the membership
as topical and pertinent to contracting issues.

In 2002, the Section worked with the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy and the Procurement Executives Council to develop and implement
an award program recognizing federal agencies and private sector
companies that have used ADR effectively to resolve government contracts
disputes. The award winners are selected by an independent panel of
public and private sector ADR experts. Government award winners to date
have included: the Air Force; the Army Corps of Engineers; the Federal
Aviation Administration; the Defense Logistics Agency; the Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals; the General Services Administration
Board of Contract Appeals; and the Department of the Navy. A special
award was presented in 2003 to the American Bar Association Public
Contract Law Section. The award program recognizes agencies and
contractors who have distinguished themselves in their effective use of
ADR in federal procurement disputes and serves to encourage other
agencies and companies to utilize ADR in resolving public contracting
disputes.

The Section also has facilitated mentoring among federal agencies on the
appropriate use of ADR to resolve procurement disputes. In this area,
the Section has been actively working with individual agencies to
develop or improve their ADR processes and procedures. Section members
have worked directly with and conducted ADR seminars and training
sessions for twenty different agencies and have worked with many more on
an informal basis to optimize their ADR programs and usage.

[WORKPLACE SECTION]{.underline}

The purpose of the Workplace Section is to assist federal agencies in
the development and implementation of workplace ADR programs which
provide faster, more cost-effective and more satisfying opportunities
for employers and employees to address and to resolve all types of
employment-related disputes. In addition, many agency workplace programs
cover more than simply current employees; some programs cover
contractors, former employees and even applicants for positions with the
agency.

The Workplace Section has focused its efforts on educating all federal
agencies about ADR and advancing the use of ADR in the federal
workplace. The Workplace Section facilitates, encourages, and
coordinates the use of ADR to resolve workplace conflict and disputes.
To support this effort, the Workplace Section has convened a panel of
dispute resolution mentors to assist and motivate agencies with creating
and improving workplace ADR programs.

A critical component of the Section's education process is information
dissemination.

The Workplace Section has organized a Lecture Series (generally held on
a monthly basis) on federal workplace ADR to provide the most current,
useful, and thought-provoking information affecting the workplace. The
popularity of these presentations has steadily expanded since the first
session in 1999, with growing participation and interest in the series.
Each month, the ADR speakers at these sessions share their knowledge,
experience, theories, and techniques. This medium for educating the
federal ADR community has proven to be quite successful. It is expected
that much of the information presented can be implemented and utilized
by ADR specialists at their respective agencies.

[STEERING COMMITTEE]{.underline}

In July 2006, the Steering Committee posted on the interagency Web site
an updated governance document which outlines the mission of the
Interagency Working Group Sections and Steering Committee, and describes
their authority, structure, interrelationship, and decision making
process. The governance document is available on the interagency ADR Web
site at [www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/) (click on left "Working
Group" navigation button, click on "Governance").

In 2006, the Steering Committee published three new guides to serve as
advisory best practices in federal ADR. Two of the guides cover
confidentiality and federal employee mediation ethics. The third guide,
on ombuds programs, is a joint publication by the Steering Committee and
the Coalition of Federal Ombudsman. The three guides are intended to
bridge the gap between the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act's
legislative intent to promote ADR and the difficult, practical questions
facing federal government administrators in developing workable dispute
resolution programs. Prior to finalization, public comment on each of
the three draft guides was solicited in the Federal Register.

In 2005, the Steering Committee published a new Handbook on finding
appropriate neutrals for agency workplace disputes.

The three guides and the Handbook, described briefly here, are posted in
their entirety on the interagency ADR web site at
[www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/).

["Protecting the Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution
Proceedings:]{.underline}

[A Guide for Federal Workplace ADR Program Administrators"]{.underline}

[(April 2006)]{.underline}

This comprehensive guide offers practical guidance for federal ADR
program managers on the application of statutory provisions governing
confidentiality in mediation of federal workplace disputes. The guide
covers all requirements applicable before, during, and after dispute
resolution sessions. It includes discussion on specific areas of
confidentiality, including confidentiality agreements, record-keeping,
program evaluation, access to reports, and non-party participants. The
guide focuses ADR program managers on the appropriate balance between
governmental reporting requirements and the importance of protecting
parties' confidentiality. It describes how to maintain appropriate
agency goals pertaining to confidentiality and, at the same time, leave
an agency sufficient flexibility to tailor a particular program to meet
specific agency circumstances and needs. The guide is available on the
interagency ADR Web site at [www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/) (click on
left "Guidance" navigation button.)

["A Guide for Federal Employee Mediators:]{.underline}

[A Supplement to and Annotation of the Model Standards of Conduct for
Mediators Issued by the American Arbitration Association, the American
Bar Association, and the Association for Conflict
Resolution"]{.underline}

[(May 2006)]{.underline}

This guide offers practical ethical guidance for federal employee
mediators, tailored to a mediation practice within the federal
government. Federal employees who are serving as mediators for a federal
agency must balance their obligations and responsibilities as mediators
and as federal employees. The guide sets forth the ethical
responsibilities for mediators in the 2005 Model Standards of Conduct
for Mediators with further explication under Federal Guidance Notes
following each ethical provision. The Notes are intended to make federal
employees aware of their additional employee responsibilities under a
variety of statutory and regulatory requirements. The guide is available
on the interagency ADR Web site at [www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/)
(click on left "Guidance" navigation button.)

["A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds:]{.underline}

[A Supplement to and Annotation of the Standards for the]{.underline}

[Establishment and Operations of Ombuds Offices]{.underline}

[Issued by the American Bar Association"]{.underline}

[(May 2006)]{.underline}

The Steering Committee's Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds is intended
to be read in conjunction with the American Bar Association's "Standards
for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices," and describes
more fully the underlying factors intended to ensure the independence
and impartiality of a federal ombuds office. The guide focuses on the
importance of determining whether a conflict of interest may exist
between the ombuds' responsibility of independence on the one hand and
the employee's duties to the agency/employer on the other hand. The
guide is available on the interagency ADR Web site at
[www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/) (click on left "Guidance" navigation
button.)

"[Finding Neutrals Handbook"]{.underline}

[(May 2005)]{.underline}

The Steering Committee's Finding Neutrals Handbook assists agencies in
obtaining the services of neutrals and assessing the type of neutral
needed for a particular workplace dispute. This guide provides basic and
comprehensive information about: the various types of neutrals available
for use by federal agencies, including both government employees and
privately employed neutrals; the various settings in which government
neutrals operate; the advantages and disadvantages of each type of
neutral for particular cases; the primary vehicles for procuring private
neutrals; and an overview of some of the related issues of concern under
federal procurement law. The Handbook also serves as a guide for
balancing a government neutral's professional obligations against the
Executive Branch's responsibilities to operate in the public interest
and with fairness. The Handbook is available on the interagency ADR Web
site at [www.adr.gov](http://www.adr.gov/) (click on left "Guidance"
navigation button.)

C. [Survey of Federal Alternative Dispute Resolution
Programs]{.underline}

As noted above, the Steering Committee in mid-2005 initiated a detailed
survey of ADR programs in the Executive Branch of the federal
government. The goal of the Steering Committee's survey was to gather
information about programs and plans. The survey elicited valuable
feedback and statistics, submitted by over 100 agencies and
sub-agencies, which quantify and evaluate existing federal ADR programs
and which form the basis of this Report.

This Report details the current state of ADR within the federal agencies
and their efforts to measure results and determine the effectiveness of
ADR. However, because each agency has a unique mission, the use of ADR
is extremely variable. Additionally, standardization is difficult
because each agency is in a continuous process of implementing new
programs and adjusting old programs to better fit its changing needs. If
there is a single guiding principle in ADR, it is that the process
requires flexibility. It is clear that in ADR "one size does not fit
all." The agencies not only have been expanding the substantive areas in
which they use ADR, but they also have been developing creative new
applications of the various ADR processes, as well as new hybrid
combinations. In fact, it is this essence of tailoring the process to
meet the individual parties' particular needs and goals which inspires
and guarantees the parties' personal accountability in the resolution
itself. Thus, development of uniform standards for measuring success of
each of varying programs, within a particular agency and among the many
agencies, is an enormous challenge.

This Report applies the agencies' own measurements of success where they
have developed agency goals and guidelines for results. As we note,
agency targets and measures still are under development in some of the
newer ADR programs, as well as in some existing ADR processes where
specialists face challenges in maximizing their potential. Part of the
focus of this Report is to identify areas where the Steering Committee
may be able to provide assistance to agencies in their efforts to
develop goals and measurements of success for their programs, and to
maximize that success.

**II. [ADR Programs: Enhancing Agency Missions]{.underline}**

Managers across the board have described how the effective and
appropriate use of ADR permits an agency to focus more time and
resources on its mission. In this section of the Report, we describe
agency ADR policies as well as specific areas in which agencies use ADR
and measure resultant benefits. Many of the agency ADR programs merit
more space than we have available in this Report, but further
information can be obtained from the Web sites where agencies describe
their ADR programs in greater detail.

[Cabinet Level Agencies]{.underline}

[DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE]{.underline}

The Department of Agriculture is responsible for developing farm income
and foreign markets for agricultural products, as well as for protecting
and conserving the environment through agricultural research and
conservation projects. Most Agriculture sub-agencies have established
independent ADR programs, primarily for workplace disputes, with a few
addressing disputes involving external clients and customers.
Approximately half of all of the programs in place have set up separate
ADR programs for early intervention in workplace disputes and EEO
disputes. In 2006, the Department issued a revised and strengthened ADR
regulation that made an offer of ADR mandatory at the informal complaint
stage, unless a very narrow exception is made because of the existence
of workplace violence, sexual assault/battery, or other criminal
activity that is related to the complaint. Significant provisions
provide that: management is expected to participate in ADR if requested,
barring a compelling reason; agencies within the Department must
establish permanent ADR awareness programs; mediators for the Department
programs must maintain training and experience credentials; and
decisions not to offer ADR at the formal complaint stage must be
documented.

[DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE]{.underline}

The mission of the Department of Commerce is to create the conditions
for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation,
entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship. The Department uses
ADR in three general areas: workplace/employment disputes (including EEO
matters); environmental compliance issues regulated by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and government contract
disputes.

The Department of Commerce uses mediation as a technique to resolve all
types of employment disputes. The Department\'s Headquarters Office of
Civil Rights, through the ADR Program Manager, develops program policy
and operational guidance overseeing each bureau\'s EEO ADR initiative.
Each bureau makes mediation available at the EEO informal or
pre-complaint stage for cases where mediation is appropriate; the
Headquarters office makes mediation available at the formal complaint
stage. Currently, the focus of EEO ADR efforts is on the election of ADR
by employees and agency officials. Each fiscal year, performance targets
are established to measure the increase in election rates above the
previous year's levels. A target measure is 20% above the previous
year's rate. In addition, the resolution rates are tracked. If the
matter is resolved through ADR, or the parties withdraw the initial
complaint, the case is considered an ADR success.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration does not have a
formal ADR program in the environmental conflict resolution arena, but
uses several ADR techniques to resolve particular cases as the situation
warrants.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration utilizes a broad
variety of ADR processes in other contexts, however, including use of
consensus building and public participation in all of their cases.
Consensus building is important to move cases toward settlement among
the various trustee agencies and frequently with the responsible
parties. Public participation, to some degree, is required by law in
most natural resources cases and is used to keep the public informed and
engaged in the agencies\' assessment of damages and to get the public\'s
input into choosing the appropriate restoration of natural resources.
Consensus building and public participation were used extensively
throughout the development of the natural resource damage assessment
regulations promulgated pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.
Furthermore, all settlement negotiations for hydro re-licensing are
based on the basic premise of reaching consensus, and typically include
federal, state, local, and tribal governments, as well as industry,
environmental groups, recreational interests, and local business
interests as well as ratepayers.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also uses
facilitation in public stakeholder meetings, in rulemaking public
meetings, in a Superfund site to coordinate government issues, and in
internal meetings among its staff and across its programmatic line
offices to help air and address differences, problems, or issues of
concern. On occasion, the sub-agency has used settlement judges in a few
of its public claims for environmental damage to resolve liability.

Lastly, the Department uses ADR in certain government contract disputes,
generally using an Administrative Judge from the Board of Contract
Appeals as a neutral.

[DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE]{.underline}

Throughout the Department of Defense, agencies are employing ADR tools
in workplace disputes and contract and procurement disputes, as well as
areas of land use and accessibility. The Department reports tangible,
timely benefits from ADR use, including time and monetary savings and,
perhaps most importantly, a profound impact on the workforce, permitting
parties to focus on accomplishing agency mission rather than on
disagreements.

*Department of the Air Force*

The Air Force mission is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of
the United States and its global interests---to fly and fight in the
Air, Space and Cyberspace. ADR supports this mission by giving
commanders, managers, and employees options for effectively and
efficiently resolving disputes that otherwise could jeopardize morale
and unit cohesion.

Air Force Workplace ADR Program.

The Air Force's emphasis on voluntary, collaborative problem solving
promotes a sense of teamwork, camaraderie, and a shared commitment to
make outcomes work. The collaborative aspects of ADR have actively
promoted stronger working relationships between management and
employees. By exhorting parties to fashion their own solutions to their
disputes, ADR produces outcomes better suited to promoting positive
working relationships, maintaining worker morale, and promoting a sense
of responsibility and accountability throughout the workforce. More than
one-half of the Air Force's civilian workplace disputes are referred to
an ADR or other collaborative early resolution process utilizing
interest-based problem solving techniques, with an average resolution
rate of 75% or better. As a result, the Air Force consistently diverts
about 40% of its civilian personnel dispute workload from time- and
resource-intensive formal dispute resolution processes. Use of ADR and
other non-traditional early resolution techniques for those workplace
disputes resolves most complaints in one-eighth the time and at
one-eighth the cost of traditional processes. By reducing cycle times to
process disputes from inception to resolution, ADR and other early
interest-based techniques free personnel from dispute-related tasks
faster and get them back to their primary mission tasks.

Empowering people to take control of resolving their own disputes places
a premium on the ability of supervisors and managers, and their
employees, to engage in interest-based interactions to solve workplace
problems, and the Air Force is currently engaged in a large-scale,
intensive effort to deliver those skills to its management workforce,
military and civilian, through its Integrated Conflict Management
System, discussed below.

Air Force Contract Disputes ADR Program.

The collaborative aspects of ADR also have had a positive effect on and
promoted stronger working relationships between the Air Force and its
contractors. In contract disputes, ADR is the Air Force default
position, and is offered in over 80 percent of cases, with acceptances
at twice the rate of rejections. ADR has reduced cycle times
dramatically in these disputes, from 38 months (for a trial) to seven
months after the parties agree to use ADR. Cost savings from the use of
ADR flow primarily from reduced cycle time, and include years of lawyer
and staff effort, direct expenses of litigation such as witness fees,
travel, and document production, and Contract Disputes Act interest on
contractor claims.

In recent years, the Air Force has emphasized early resolution of
contract disputes, prior to the issuance of a contracting officer's
final decision, and preferably prior to the submission of a formal claim
under the Contract Disputes Act. The Air Force Federal Acquisition
Regulation Supplement instructs contracting officers to submit proposed
final decisions to the Directorate of Contract Dispute Resolution at
Wright Patterson Air Force Base for review prior to issuance. Final
decisions in excess of \$500,000 also are to be submitted to the Deputy
General Counsel for Dispute Resolution for review. A primary purpose of
the review in both instances is to ascertain whether ADR should be used
to resolve the dispute before it enters the formal disputes process. Air
Force policy is to use ADR techniques once unassisted negotiations have
reached an impasse. Early resolution is desirable for both parties. It
means that creative solutions can be reached at minimal cost and with
minimum program disruption, and -- perhaps most important -- the
contracting parties retain maximum control of the outcome.

Integrated Conflict Management System and the Air Force Negotiation
Center of Excellence.

The Air Force Integrated Conflict Management System has two primary
elements. The first is a robust ADR system to resolve disputes as
efficiently as possible. The second is a conflict management system that
works to prevent disputes from arising in the first place. Key to making
such a conflict management system work is training in negotiation and
communication skills. The Air Force ADR program office for the last two
years has conducted large scale negotiation training for supervisors of
civilian personnel. The supervisory skills training has received very
high marks from participants, who realize that interest-based,
collaborative problem solving skills will help them perform all aspects
of their jobs more effectively.

This large scale training led to establishment in 2005 of the Air Force
Negotiation Center of Excellence, a partnership of the Air Force General
Counsel's office and Air University, the leading provider of Air Force
professional military and civilian education. The purpose of the Center
is to incorporate negotiation education and skills training into
professional development across all functional areas, from personnel
management to acquisition to war fighting. Education and training in
negotiating, fostering teamwork, and collaboration have been integrated
into the curriculum at the Air War College because senior Air Force
leaders recognize that mission success these days may rest more on the
ability to collaborate with others in contingency and reconstruction
operations than on the ability to give and follow orders. To reflect
today's realities, the Center's course offerings include cultural
awareness and cross-cultural negotiations.

*Department of the Army*

The Army's mission is: training and maintaining active duty and reserve
forces in defense of the national security; preserving and improving the
natural environment; and providing military assistance to federal,
state, and local governments. Within the Army, the ADR program
development and implementation resides at the major command level, which
permits them to serve as a development laboratory, promoting and sharing
best practices throughout the organization. While the avoidance of
litigation costs aids commanders with already limited resources, the
greatest benefit is the improved employee productivity. The Army's ADR
policy is to resolve disputes at the earliest stage feasible, by the
fastest and least expensive method, and at the lowest possible
organizational level. ADR is used in workplace disputes, contracts and
procurements, civil enforcement, and claims against the government.

The greatest support to the Army's mission results from resolving
employee disputes early and quickly. The Army mission heavily relies on
its employees and the reduced productivity of an employee engaged in
protracted litigation is a mission detractor. The employee often is
distracted and disgruntled, and that hurts overall workplace morale.
Direct supervisor interaction with the employee often opens avenues of
communication that had been closed, resulting in improved working
relationships and improved productivity. Therefore, the early mutual
resolution of disputes is critical to the Army mission.

At the headquarters level, attorneys within the Office of The Judge
Advocate General administer ADR programs to resolve the acquisition and
environmental disputes not within the purview of the major command.
Although the Army does not have a citizen-centric mission, it does
provide limited services to military dependents and the public-at-large.
For example, the Army uses ADR techniques to resolve disputes regarding
the accessibility of Army activities and facilities to military
dependents and the public at-large who have disabilities.

*Army Corps of Engineers*

The Army Corps of Engineers is the Army's real property manager,
overseeing engineering, construction, and realty for Army and Air Force
civil works. They have found that protracted litigation distracts the
agency from its mission, and costs incurred as part of litigation
detract from the advancement of that mission. The agency uses ADR as
part of its duty to the public to contain costs. The savings, in
transactional costs and the costs of delay, translate into additional
funding that can be available for mission execution and services on
other projects in support of the Army. The agency works with each
contractor to fashion a dispute resolution process which is specifically
tailored to the matter in dispute. Over the past ten years, the Corps
has processed 131 cases involving contract disputes through ADR and
successfully resolved 90% of them.

Additionally, the expedited resolution achieved through ADR has a
significant positive effect on the workplace environment because it
inhibits the development of negative attitudes attendant to protracted
litigation.

*Department of the Navy*

The Department of the Navy is responsible for maintaining freedom of the
seas to protect

our national interests. It uses ADR to resolve issues in controversy at
the earliest possible stage, by the fastest and least expensive method
possible, and at the lowest possible organizational level prior to
litigation. Recognizing that every dollar used for litigation is a
dollar that cannot support the fleet or Marine forces, the Department of
the Navy has established, within the Office of the General Counsel, an
ADR Program Office which is led by the Assistant General Counsel.

The Department of the Navy has found that ADR processes contribute to
civilian workplace productivity by improving working relationships and
reducing the time devoted to dispute resolution so that the workforce
can focus on the agency mission. Similarly, the Department of the Navy
uses ADR techniques (particularly facilitated partnering) for
procurement and environmental issues.

While not a regulatory agency, the Department of the Navy interacts with
the public, either as employees or as contractors, at all of its
facilities. All of the ADR processes are used where appropriate. The ADR
Program Office effectively markets these services through public
outreach, including an active Web site and by offering on-line ADR
training.

*Defense Commissary Agency*

The Defense Commissary Agency operates hundreds of retail grocery stores
throughout the world, providing an economical food supply for thousands
of military families. The agency's policy is to utilize ADR unless some
specific and identifiable reason precludes it. ADR is used primarily in
workplace disputes, as well as in some procurement matters. The Office
of the General Counsel sets forth the agency's policy and each program
head develops a specific "ADR Plan" which is tailored to meet the needs
of an individual program. Every employee is required to cooperate in the
ADR process.

ADR processes have served to reduce greatly the administrative
litigation involving all types of workplace disputes. Moreover,
supervisors and managers who have used ADR find that they are better
able to resolve subsequent disputes, thereby decreasing the total number
of complaints across the board.

*Defense Contract Audit Agency*

The Defense Contract Audit Agency performs audit functions and provides
accounting and financial advisory services to all Department of Defense
components. ADR is utilized primarily in EEO and workplace disputes. The
agency reports that ADR has saved the agency time and resources in
processing, investigating, and litigating those cases and thus promotes
greater efficiency in accomplishing the agency's primary mission.

*Defense Contract Management Agency*

The Defense Contract Management Agency is the Defense Department's
contract manager, responsible for ensuring that federal acquisition
programs (systems, supplies, and services) are delivered on time, within
projected cost or price, and meet performance requirements. The agency's
dispute resolution policy covers all disputes which may arise within the
agency, and is applied primarily in workplace, contract, and procurement
disputes. As the agency transforms from performance-based management to
earned-value management, the agency has been monitoring the number of
new workplace disputes, in order to assess the value of early ADR
intervention in the workplace arena.

The agency's Contract Law Group, which includes many attorneys who are
trained mediators and dispute resolution specialists, is structured to
engage in early dispute resolution and committed to partnering with the
military services as well as the private sector to effectively resolve
controversial contract issues at the earliest opportunity. The
appropriateness of using ADR is evaluated for every contract dispute
which arises. The agency is committed to working with its defense
contractors to assure its war fighters get the best equipment in the
most expeditious manner. The more effectively the agency can manage and
resolve disputes with those contractors, the faster it can return to its
mission of supporting the needs of the military.

The Ombuds Program provides another avenue for employees or contractors
to raise issues of integrity, fraud, or other conflict while remaining
focused on the mission of supporting the war fighter.

*Defense Finance and Accounting Service*

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service provides financial and
accounting services to the Department of Defense. The agency's dispute
resolution policy authorizes the use of ADR in any workplace dispute
(subject to a limited number of narrow exceptions) and has been used
successfully in EEO, labor, and personnel disputes.

*Defense Information Systems Agency*

The Defense Information Systems Agency provides and services the vast
network of information systems which permit communications among the
Department of Defense components. Their workplace dispute resolution
policy extends to all military and civilian personnel and is
administered by a specialist who monitors and tracks ADR usage.
Component ADR specialists provide the dispute resolution services
wherever needed and report statistics to a program manager and ADR
steering committee. Through the use of ADR, the agency has realized
greater efficiency and economy, as well as creative solutions, in a
broad spectrum of workplace disputes.

*Defense Logistics Agency*

The Defense Logistics Agency serves as the logistical support for all of
the Department of Defense components as well as other federal agencies,
and provides materials, assistance, and supplies worldwide. The agency
reports that it has a broad-based dispute resolution program encouraging
earliest possible use of ADR in any and all matters of dispute. The
agency has a central ADR Program Manager, Headquarters Advocates, and
ADR Specialists throughout the field. ADR is used in workplace disputes
and contracts disputes.

In the workplace, the policy is that ADR is always considered at the
earliest possible stage and any management decision not to use ADR must
be documented in writing at least one level above the deciding official.
In the contracts area, ADR provides quick avenues for contractors to
have their disputes heard and resolved, typically through facilitation,
mediation, or early advisory opinions. The various dispute resolution
processes have: reduced the amount of time spent on disputes, allowing
the agency to accomplish its designated functions; reduced the negative
feelings generated by disputes, allowing parties to work better together
in furtherance of the agency mission; and reduced the money spent on
disputes, preserving necessary resources for agency work.

*Department of Defense Education Activity*

This agency provides education, from kindergarten through twelfth grade,
to the minor dependents of overseas military and civilian personnel. The
agency uses ADR in workplace disputes. Through the use of mediation,
managers in this program save money, make more efficient use of limited
resources, preserve the integrity of ongoing work relations, and develop
more creative resolutions than would be possible through the usual
litigation channels.

*National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency*

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency provides geospatial
intelligence for national security purposes. The agency has an expansive
approach to ADR and uses it in resolving all types of workplace
disputes, as well as some procurement disputes. The agency uses a broad
array of ADR processes, including mediation, facilitation, and
partnering, reporting that successful ADR in the workplace promotes
teamwork, trust, and partnership.

*National Guard Bureau*

The National Guard Bureau develops and provides direction and guidance
for the National Guards of the 54 states and territories. The agency
policy requires that the National Guards of the various states and
territories attempt to resolve conflicts at the earliest possible time
and lowest possible level through the effective use of ADR. The National
Guard Bureau has established the position of an ADR Advocate who is
responsible for promoting and effectuating a broad use of ADR. The ADR
framework of the National Guard Bureau is applied across the board in
all categories. A yearly report is compiled in order to review and
evaluate each state or territory's program.

Various types of facilitation have been used by the National Guard in
considering changes in land use. For example, the proposal to "withdraw"
certain parts of Limestone Hills, MT, for increased military training
caused grave concern among special interest groups which currently use
Limestone Hills (cattle ranchers, mining interests, private property
holders). Facilitative dispute resolution processes were used early in
the Environmental Impact Statement process to successfully address many
of the concerns of these groups. The National Guard arranged for
meetings and open discussions among the various stakeholders over
several months in order to identify, discuss and share alternatives.
These meetings impacted the perspectives of the public participants and
of the National Guard and resulted in a recommendation to Congress which
meets most of the concerns of the varied stakeholders as well as the
needs of the government. These consensus building public meetings proved
to be crucial in: increasing participants' knowledge and understanding
of the proposed action; convincing the participants of the National
Guard's desire to be open and straightforward in the discussions; and
reaching consensus on the best plan to go forward.

The National Guard Bureau also has used an ADR process of partnering,
primarily with labor unions when new regulations are generated. This
sort of open discussion and exchange promotes far greater acceptance by
the union, as evidenced by fewer complaints of unfair labor practices
under the newly-enacted regulations.

The National Guard Bureau also reports that various ADR processes have
been successful in resolving tensions between military officers and
subordinates in the workplace without sacrificing the military authority
of superior officers.

*National Security Agency*

The National Security Agency protects communications in the United
States and produces foreign intelligence overseas. The agency has
created a Center for Conflict Resolution with twenty agency-trained
mediators for use in workplace disputes. The Center also provides
management training to recognize conflict early and respond more
efficiently. By increasing the ability of employees and managers to
respond to each other directly through ADR processes, managers and
employees are able to maximize their productivity.

*Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences*

The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences is the nation's
federal health sciences university. ADR applies to: disputes involving
contracts or grievances to which the University is a party; appeals from
withholding of documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act;
complaints of discrimination; and administrative grievances or other
disputes or controversies deemed appropriate for ADR by the University's
General Counsel and President. Because the organization is a small one
with few controversies, the ADR process used most often has been
mediation in the context of EEO proceedings.

*Washington Headquarters Service*

The mission of the Washington Headquarters Service is to provide
administrative and operational services in support of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense and the Department of Defense agencies. Their
Collaborative Resolution Program offers a broad array of ADR services,
including mediation, facilitation, and peer resolution panels, as well
as training for employees and managers in communication and dispute
resolution skills. These services are offered to a workforce of almost
6,000 civilian and military personnel.

After tracking the results over some time, Washington Headquarters
Service concluded that ADR is an efficient, expedient, and
cost-effective means for resolving all types of workplace issues. Sixty
percent of all its mediated cases were settled with an average
processing time of 39 days, as compared to its nationwide average of 469
days in 2004. There are multiple advantages to a speedy resolution of a
dispute which otherwise could grow into a festering conflict: positions
have not hardened over time; others in the workplace have not been drawn
into the dispute and are thus less impacted by the dispute; and any
collateral damages are limited and minimized.

[DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION]{.underline}

The mission of the Department of Education is to ensure equal access to
education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.
The Department utilizes ADR in a wide range of areas:

-   The Informal Dispute Resolution Center, staffed with full-time
    trained mediators, is in a central location to help employees and
    managers resolve informally any type of dispute or complaint
    concerning a work-related matter.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Office of Federal Student Aid assists all eligible individuals
    with federally-funded or federally-guaranteed financial assistance
    beyond high school. The office's Ombudsman works with federal
    student aid recipients, loan holders, guarantee agencies, and
    schools to resolve loan problems informally.

-   The Office for Civil Rights is responsible for ensuring that
    recipients of Department funds do not engage in discriminatory
    conduct based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or
    age. It is authorized to initiate formal enforcement proceedings
    against recipients of federal funds who allegedly are engaging in
    discriminatory practices. However, in the great majority of cases,
    the agency is able to enter into voluntary corrective action
    agreements to resolve compliance concerns.

-   The Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative aims to
    improve education programs and student performance at state and
    local levels through better use of audits, monitoring, and technical
    assistance. Many audits result in lengthy legal battles that produce
    insignificant monetary recoveries, develop significant ill will, and
    fail to provide permanent corrective action. This initiative was
    designed to avoid costly litigation, lengthy adversarial
    discussions, and non-productive impasses, and instead to rely on
    creativity in resolving audit issues. By creating permanent
    solutions to audit issues, states and local educational agencies can
    increase the availability of time, money, and resources for
    teaching, learning, and classroom improvement, and focus on their
    core mission of the education of students and other learners.

-   The Office of Special Education Programs is dedicated to improving
    results for

> infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities by providing
> leadership and financial support to assist states and local districts.
> The Office of Special Education Programs supports the National Center
> on Dispute Resolution, which encourages the use of mediation and other
> collaborative strategies to resolve disagreements about special
> education and early intervention programs.

-   The Department of Education also has engaged in negotiated
    rulemaking in the development of regulations under the Higher
    Education Act and Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education
    Act.

[DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY]{.underline}

The Department of Energy, like many other cabinet agencies, is employing
ADR in a wide range of areas, with a strong focus on public involvement.
The Department's overarching mission is to: advance the national,
economic, and energy security of the United States; promote scientific
and technological innovation in support of that mission; and ensure the
environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons complex. Because
the scope of its mission is broad, the agency is separated into program
areas which often operate independently. Additionally, most agency
facilities are managed and operated by contractors and have developed
their own unique ADR processes.

The Office of Dispute Resolution located within Headquarters oversees
the Headquarters Mediation Program as well as the Technology Transfer
Ombuds Program located within the agency's national laboratories. The
Technology Transfer Commercialization Act of 2000 was enacted to improve
the ability of federal agencies to license federally-owned inventions.
Each national laboratory and research facility has appointed a
technology partnership ombuds. The role of the ombuds is to prevent and
resolve  at the earliest possible level  disputes between the
laboratories and inventors or private companies, over technology
transfer issues such as infringement, intellectual property rights,
royalties, and licensing.

The Dispute Resolution Specialist in the Office of Dispute Resolution
advises on inclusion of ADR provisions in agency contracts and on
locating an appropriate neutral when needed for a specific dispute. In
addition, the agency's Board of Contract Appeals (now included with the
United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals) is available to
mediate disputes between the agency and its contactors and, in some
cases, between a contractor and a subcontractor or between
subcontractors.

In the workplace arena, the Headquarters Mediation Program provides
mediation for all types of workplace disputes in Headquarters, using
professional mediators under agency contract or mediators from other
federal agencies through the Sharing Neutrals Program. While most
referrals come from the Office of Civil Rights, managers and employees
are encouraged to use the program before an EEO complaint or grievance
is formally filed.

The Office of Employee Concerns addresses all good faith complaints by
an employee that a policy or practice by the agency or one of its site
contractors should be improved, modified or terminated because it is
unsafe, unlawful, fraudulent, or wasteful. Concerns can address such
issues as health, safety, the environment, personnel, or management
practices, or whistleblowing reprisals.

The National Nuclear Security Administration Ombuds Program services all
of its employees and contractors, providing a confidential, impartial,
independent, and informal resource facilitating fair and equitable
resolutions to all types of workplace concerns.

[DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES]{.underline}

The Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for the
health and welfare policies and programs of the federal government. Like
other cabinet agencies, the agency reports that the availability and
success of ADR, used in the programs described below, is improving
communication, encouraging problem solving, and increasing workplace
productivity.

*Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality*

The mission of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is to
translate research findings into clinical practice. The agency has an
ADR program which is used primarily in the EEO process, but also can be
utilized to resolve other types of employee and management disputes.

*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention*

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is at the forefront of
public health efforts to prevent and control infectious and chronic
diseases, injuries, workplace hazards, disabilities, and environmental
health threats. It monitors and prevents disease outbreaks (including
bioterrorism), implements disease prevention strategies, and guards
against international disease transmission. The agency provides ADR
services and training to employees, managers and supervisors,
Commissioned Officers, and visiting fellows.

*Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services*

The mission of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is to
ensure effective, up-to-date health care coverage for eligible citizens
and to promote quality care for their beneficiaries. The agency provides
programmatic oversight of federal medical care quality and develops and
implements policies for recipients of such services. The agency uses ADR
in several areas of its work.

ADR, primarily mediation, is used in a broad array of workplace
conflicts including EEO complaints, formal employee grievances, and
general workplace disputes. The agency has determined that mediation has
significantly reduced the number of formal complaints lodged and
improved communication and the general quality of life in the workplace.
In addition to the specific disputes, the ADR program also is used to
improve communication, identify corrective actions, and reduce the
incidence of future disputes.

States may provide drug benefits to their Medicaid population by
allowing drug manufacturers to sell their drugs to Medicaid
beneficiaries. The states then must invoice and collect rebate dollars
from the drug manufacturers for the drugs provided. Manufacturers can
dispute invoice data they believe is incorrect. The agency uses ADR to
facilitate and resolve rebate invoice disputes between the states and
drug manufacturers in order to keep the rebate dollars flowing back in
the Medicaid program. In addition to settling the specific disputes, the
ADR program also is used to improve communication, identify corrective
actions, and reduce the incidence of future disputes.

The agency's Office of Hearings hears formal appeals for provider
reimbursement for services provided by a component of the Department of
Health and Human Services. Its mediation program has a 90% success rate
for resolution of appeals. Final settlement of appealed cases generally
occurs within 180 days, as opposed to several years for federal court
appeals, and costs approximately \$750 as opposed to the \$11,500 cost
of a formal one-day administrative hearing.

*Departmental Appeals Board*

The Departmental Appeals Board provides prompt and impartial dispute
resolution for all of the components in the Department of Health and
Human Services which involve medical care. The agency's jurisdiction
includes: resolving disputes arising under the large public assistance
grants (such as Medicaid and Aid to Families with Dependent Children)
and discretionary grant programs; imposing civil monetary penalties and
exclusions under fraud and abuse authorities; hearing appeals in
enforcement cases brought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services; and hearing appeals in Medicare coverage as well as payment
and entitlement cases. The agency issues the final decisions for the
Department of Health and Human Services in all disputes with outside
parties such as state agencies, Head Start grantees, universities,
nursing homes, doctors, and Medicare beneficiaries.

The agency uses ADR to provide less contentious and quicker options than
formal processes such as administrative adjudication in a wide range of
its mission-related responsibilities, including:

-   disputes with grantees, including states and universities,
    concerning disallowances of funds, indirect cost rates, and cost
    allocation plans;

-   Medicare and Medicaid program exclusions; and

-   imposition of civil sanctions against health care providers and
    nursing homes.

The agency uses ADR in a number of non-program areas, including:

-   mediation of employment cases, including EEO, grievances, and
    interpersonal disputes;

-   administration of the Federal Sharing Neutrals Program, a
    collaboration of over 40 federal agencies, which provides mediators
    on a collateral duty basis for EEO complaints throughout the federal
    sector;

-   training in conciliation and facilitation services, and basic and
    advanced mediation skills for the Department; and

-   the conduct, in collaboration with the Department of Transportation,
    of conflict management and mediation training.

*Food and Drug Administration*

The Food and Drug Administration protects the health of the nation
against impure and unsafe food, drugs, and cosmetic products. The agency
uses ADR for all workplace and interpersonal disputes within the work
environment. The agency reports finding that the use of ADR enhances
communication, facilitates effective problem solving, and increases
productivity and employee morale throughout the workforce.

*Health Resources & Services Administration*

Health Resources & Services Administration, with approximately 1,500
employees, is the primary agency charged with improving access to
healthcare for those who are uninsured, isolated or medically
vulnerable. Additionally, the agency oversees all organ and tissue
donation programs. The agency actively promotes the use of ADR to
resolve claims of discrimination and other workplace disputes involving
bargaining unit employees. The agency reports that use of mediation
encourages cooperation and communication between management and
employees and leads to improved performance by the organization.

*National Institutes of Health*

The mission of the National Institutes of Health, which is the steward
of medical and behavioral research throughout the nation, is the pursuit
of fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems
and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy life and reduce
the burdens of illness and disability. The Office of the Ombudsman has
developed a special expertise in addressing and settling scientific
disputes relating to peer reviews of grant-funded scientific research.
The office additionally uses ADR processes to resolve disputes involving
intellectual property rights and authorship of scientific papers. The
agency determined that people in conflict are distracted from their
responsibilities. Resolution of conflict allows them to concentrate on
their work, thereby facilitating accomplishment of the agency's mission
and underscoring the credibility and diligence behind the agency's
research projects.

*Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights*

The Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights provides agency-wide
leadership and advice on issues of diversity, civil rights, and
promotion of a supportive work environment for agency employees. The
agency uses ADR to resolve informal discrimination complaints and
improve communication.

*Office of Hearings*

The Office of Hearings mediation program is an alternative to the
Medicare/Medicaid formal provider reimbursement appeal process, and
gives the provider and fiscal intermediaries an opportunity to resolve
cases without going to hearing. The mediation program has a 90% success
rate. It is cost-effective, with a cost of approximately \$750 for a
mediation session as opposed to the cost of \$11,500 for a one-day
formal administrative hearing. The program is also an effective
time-saver, with final settlement generally occurring within 180 days
after successful mediation, as opposed to several years for the formal
appeal process (which then may be followed by a further appeal in
federal court).

[DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY]{.underline}

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is: leading the
unified national effort to secure America, preventing and deterring
terrorist attacks, and protecting against and responding to threats and
hazards to the nation thereby ensuring safe and secure borders;
welcoming lawful immigrants and visitors; and promoting the free flow of
commerce. The agency is committed to ADR, and to developing a robust and
proactive ADR program which serves approximately 160,000 employees. The
Department of Homeland Security currently employs ADR in a wide range of
areas, from disaster response to enforcement of regulations under the
Immigration and Nationality Act.

*Civil Rights and Civil Liberties*

The Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties ADR program improves the
morale and productivity of the workforce. Its Alternative Resolution to
Conflict Program has a 70% resolution rate for workplace disputes.

*Citizenship and Immigration Services*

The Office of Special Counsel for Immigration Related Unfair Employment
Practices (Customs and Border Patrol) offers conciliation services to
manage disputes between employers and workers involving possible
violations of the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. Resolution saves the jobs of workers and
work-authorized immigrants, and can encourage employers to change
personnel policies and address potential systemic problems and patterns
or practices of discrimination.

*Federal Emergency Management Agency*

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's mission is to protect life and
property through the coordination of disaster response and recovery.
This mission is best fulfilled through teamwork and partnership. The
agency's use of ADR facilitates quick and professional problem solving.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's ADR processes have enabled
participants to reach mutually satisfying alternatives to litigation,
including:

-   The agency created an arbitration program offered to more than
    20,000 Los Alamos fire victims who could pursue an alternative to
    court proceedings.

-   The agency uses arbitration to resolve disputes between itself and
    its insurance carriers under the National Flood Insurance Program.
    If these insurance companies use mediation to resolve state claims,
    they may use mediation in resolving their federal National Flood
    Insurance Program claims. The agency has helped to educate mediators
    and parties within some state-run mediation programs to resolve the
    homeowner claims.

-   The agency created an appeal process for the 9/11 Heroes Stamp
    semi-postal fund for families of emergency relief personnel killed
    or permanently disabled while serving in the line of duty for that
    event. The ADR Office administers this program.

-   The agency assists low-income disaster victims in securing
    appropriate legal services. People are helped to resolve their
    disaster-related problems quickly and without cost. They can seek
    counsel on estates, lost documents, consumer protection and fraud,
    landlord/tenant issues, insurance claims, home repair/contracting
    issues, and mortgage concerns.

-   The agency administers a vital workplace ADR program which is
    available to all managers and staff. This program serves both its
    permanent employees and its non-permanent staff such as the Disaster
    Assistance Employees.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is taking a broad approach and
applying ADR to a vast array of its activities. This enhances
productivity, morale, and customer service.

*Secret Service*

The U.S. Secret Service is responsible for the physical protection of
the President, Vice President, their families and a number of other
dignitaries both in this country and abroad, and for enforcement of
specific criminal laws. Their ADR program relates almost entirely to EEO
or other workplace disputes, which are addressed by the Ombudsman
Program serving the agency's 2,300 employees. Timely resolution of
workplace conflict enhances the productivity of the agency by
encouraging an early intervention which permits all employees to return
to work on the important mission of the Secret Service.

*Transportation Security Administration*

The Transportation Security Administration's mission is to protect the
nation's systems of transportation in order to ensure the safe passage
of people and commerce. The agency has developed an integrated and
proactive approach to managing conflict, both internally and externally.

Internally, the agency has an Integrated Conflict Management System for
workplace conflict, supported by its Model Workplace Office, the Office
of the Ombudsman and the Office of Civil Rights, to create optimal
communication and cooperation for issues, concerns, and decisions. The
Office of the Ombudsman, established in January 2003, serves as a
resource to employees with any concern relating to their workplace, and
tracks patterns of complaints in order to identify needed changes within
the organization. All EEO complaints are handled through the Alternative
Resolutions to Conflict Program which is committed to addressing the
root causes of any problem, in addition to resolving any alleged
wrongdoing or conflict, using mediation as their primary ADR tool.

Externally, the Transportation Security Administration offers informal
conferences to alleged violators of the Transportation Security
Regulations for possible settlement of proposed civil penalty actions.
Through its Contact Center, the agency's Office of the Ombudsman is the
central point of contact for all public complaints, including passenger
screening issues, and also is available as necessary to provide informal
and neutral problem resolution services to the traveling public. The
office provides a voice and an outlet to the public, and is in a unique
position to hear from a wide variety of people in real time. It also
collects and analyzes information for use in improving agency
performance.

The Agency's Office of Chief Counsel uses ADR to efficiently and
effectively resolve procurement disputes and protests before entering
into a formal adjudicative process. Only about three of every ten
matters proceed to formal adjudication.

[DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT]{.underline}

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is responsible for a
number of programs which foster the availability of housing and
community development, including funding and insuring mortgages,
developing and supervising financial support relating to housing, and
enforcing fair housing laws throughout the country. The agency primarily
uses ADR in resolving workplace disputes. The agency's Early Resolution
Program provides managers with the means to effectively and efficiently
address many types of workplace disputes, thereby decreasing the time
needed for conflict resolution and increasing the time dedicated to
accomplishing the agency's goals.

[DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR]{.underline}

The agency's mission is to: protect and manage the nation's natural
resources and cultural heritage; provide scientific and other
information about those resources; and honor its trust responsibilities
or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and
affiliated Island Communities. The Department's ADR initiatives directly
support these missions.

The Department is comprised of the Office of the Secretary, the Office
of the Solicitor and eight Bureaus: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Minerals Management Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface
Mining, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The agency issued a broad ADR
policy in 1996 covering all Offices and Bureaus and encouraging the
broadest possible use of early collaboration, ADR, and negotiated
rulemaking.

In 2001, the Secretary created the Office of Collaborative Action and
Dispute Resolution to coordinate and oversee implementation of its
policy on the use of ADR, negotiated rulemaking and collaborative
problem solving to prevent, manage, and resolve conflicts arising in all
areas of the agency's work including program areas, workplace and
employment, procurement, and policy/regulatory. To advance
implementation of the policy, that Office works closely with the Office
of the Solicitor to provide coordinated policy and legal guidance, and
support for the broadest possible use of ADR and negotiated rulemaking
processes, and provides leadership for the Interior Dispute Resolution
Council comprised of designated Bureau Dispute Resolution Specialists
from each of the Department's Bureaus and Offices.

The agency is expanding its workplace ADR program and used a
collaborative process involving all of its stakeholders to participate
in the design of an integrated conflict management system called CORE
PLUS. This system is being implemented by all Offices and Bureaus to
ensure that any type of internal employment conflict is recognized,
addressed and resolved at the earliest opportunity and the lowest
possible level. The use of ADR processes is one component of this
conflict management strategy.

The agency also has successfully used a variety of ADR, collaborative
decision making processes, and negotiated rulemaking to address a wide
range of natural resource and other external conflicts and disputes.
Each Bureau and Office in the agency is committed to increasing and
expanding the use of ADR processes to prevent, manage, and resolve
internal and external sources of conflicts and disputes.

The Bureau of Land Management, for example, uses ADR/conflict prevention
strategies and principles in working with all natural resources
stakeholders  tribal and state governments; communities; local,
regional, and national interests and interest groups; and the general
public  to provide opportunities for early public involvement in agency
decision making, to encourage early conflict prevention, and to ensure
conflict management and resolution. The community and stakeholder
participation processes have been effective in preventing or mitigating
the impact of litigation, appeals, and protests in a range of areas:
energy and mineral development; resource conservation; land health and
safety; grazing; timber; environmental protection versus development and
land/resource uses; and recreation.

The National Park Service has successfully used negotiated rulemaking
processes to develop driving regulations for several national seashores.
In each situation, a diverse group of stakeholders including federal,
state and local government entities, local residents, seasonal visitors,
environmental groups, and local businesses were included in the
negotiation process and reached consensus on regulations that addressed
their competing needs and interests in the resource protection, resource
use, and recreation on the national seashore.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has led a pilot project to engage tribes
and other interested stakeholders in one region in the collaborative
design of a system for resolving internal tribal government conflicts
and other disputes that otherwise would be resolved through
administrative adjudication and litigation or by senior agency
leadership. The conflict resolution process has been developed and all
stakeholders are committed to using it. This is a model that can be
exported to other regions of the country.

The Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance is committed to
increasing the use of collaborative decision making and ADR processes in
the implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, and the
U.S. Geological Survey is actively advocating the use of joint
fact-finding and other ADR processes to ensure that reliable, credible,
technical, and scientific information is available to stakeholders
engaged in environmental conflict resolution processes and collaborative
resource management efforts.

In the Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Board of Land Appeals
implemented an ADR program and is currently reviewing the data gathered
from the first year of operation to make any necessary adjustments to
increase the use of ADR to resolve matters on appeal. The Board of
Indian Appeals refers appropriate cases for ADR assessment.

[DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE]{.underline}

The Department of Justice serves as the nation's litigator in federal
courts throughout the country and handles a broad array of cases, both
defensive and affirmative. The Justice Management Division uses ADR
solely in EEO matters handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Staff.
Other components use a broad array of processes in litigation in their
various areas of specialty.

*Civil Division*

The Civil Division is involved in both affirmative litigation enforcing
the nation's laws, and defensive litigation to uphold the interests of
the United States.

In affirmative litigation, the use of ADR has advanced that mission in a
variety of appropriate cases, including civil health care fraud and
civil consumer fraud, in the following ways:

-   crafting creative and broad remedial relief not available through
    court adjudication;

-   developing a global settlement to resolve related disputes;

-   formulating resolution in one dispute that can set parameters for
    the resolution of similar future disputes; and

-   achieving significant savings in the costs and delay of litigation
    and discovery, thereby allowing use of saved resources to handle
    matters that cannot or should not settle.

In defensive litigation, the use of ADR has supported the mission of the
Civil Division with these beneficial results in a broad range of cases
such as aviation and admiralty, medical malpractice and wrongful death
actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act, class actions alleging
discrimination, and actions under the Freedom of Information Act:

-   significant savings in the costs relating to litigation and
    discovery which permits greater resources towards cases which cannot
    or should not settle;

-   significant savings in the dollar amounts of settlements;

-   creative solutions which can substitute for the payment of money or
    reduce potential monetary exposure; and

-   savings of both personnel and court time by resolving disputes more
    quickly than litigation.

*Civil Rights Division*

The agency's mission is to enforce the laws and defend the interests of
the United States, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of
justice for all Americans. In enforcement litigation, ADR has supported
that work in appropriate cases, as follows:

-   The Disability Rights Section offers an administrative mediation
    program for the Americans with Disabilities Act which allows the
    agency to achieve meaningful compliance with the law without having
    to allocate scarce resources to investigate or litigate these
    disputes. The ADA (Americans With Disabilities Act) Mediation
    Program enables the agency to more quickly respond to and resolve
    these discrimination complaints effectively, efficiently, and
    voluntarily, resulting in the elimination of architectural,
    communication, and attitudinal barriers for people with disabilities
    throughout the country. The agency's application of mediation to
    rights-based disputes is a significant shift away from the
    traditional adversarial, government-directed, "winner take all"
    method of resolution. The nature of mediation itself requires the
    parties to work together to resolve disputes. This cooperative,
    non-litigious approach preserves, rather than severs, the
    relationship between the parties, especially important for
    individuals with disabilities in rural areas who have few options
    for carrying out business, leisure, and government activities. The
    use of mediation in this area expands the reach of the statute at a
    minimal expense to the government.

-   The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section, in the Attorney General's
    words, "...open\[s\] doors for people as they search for
    housing.....\[and\] will not allow discrimination to serve as a
    deadbolt on the dream of safe accommodations for their family." The
    Section successfully utilized third party assistance to reach
    resolution in over 60% of the consent decrees it obtained in FY
    2005.

*Community Relations Service*

This agency is the Department of Justice's "peacemaker" for community
conflicts and tensions arising from differences of race, color, and
national origin. It deploys highly skilled professional conciliators to
assist state and local units of government, private and public
organizations, and community groups in preventing and resolving racial
and ethnic tensions and civil disorders, and in restoring racial
stability and harmony. The agency, through mediation and conciliation,
provides an effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism for
communities and is an alternative to costly and often protracted
litigation. As part of its results-oriented dispute resolution strategy,
the agency works with communities to build local capacity for dealing
with racial tensions and conflicts. Its work with communities includes
training on the formation of Human Relations Commissions to address
local conflicts, and training for law enforcement officers in basic
mediation skills.

The Ombuds Program facilitates problem solving between staff and
management at an early stage for non-EEO complaints and grievances. When
employees are distracted by workplace concerns, their performance may be
affected adversely. Having processes in place to address those concerns
helps the agency add value to its work product by assuring a consistent
quality of service to all of its customers.

*Environment and Natural Resources Division*

This component represents the United States in litigation involving
public lands and natural resources, environmental quality, Indian lands
and claims, and wildlife resources. The agency has made great use of ADR
to advance various facets of its mission in appropriate cases, as the
following examples illustrate:

-   In furtherance of its responsibility to reduce water pollution, the
    agency used ADR to reach an innovative settlement in a highly
    technical case involving the Clean Water Act. The resolution
    included a record \$34 million penalty and injunctive relief which
    addressed 5,500 miles of pipeline and protected the environment from
    the devastating impacts of oil spills.

-   In furtherance of its responsibility to reduce air pollution, the
    agency used ADR to reach a mediated Clean Air Act agreement with a
    wood products company and its plants which translated into cleaner
    air for the communities located near the company's facilities.

-   In furtherance of its responsibility to enforce fish and wildlife
    conservation laws, the agency used mediation in combination with
    bilateral negotiations over the course of eight years to reach
    agreement in a lawsuit involving over 180,000 highly contentious
    claims involving water rights and endangered species. The agreement
    established a 30-year framework for balancing interests in water use
    and non-federal timber management compliance under the Endangered
    Species Act, and can serve as a model for other ADR processes
    involving complex, multi-party claims.

-   In advancement of its responsibility to defend the United States
    against challenges to its cleanup and compliance actions, the agency
    successfully concluded pre-litigation mediation in a case seeking
    contribution to cleanup costs for contamination at chemical
    facilities. The mediation enabled the parties to exchange 100,000
    pages of relevant documents without the necessity for formal
    discovery or the deposition of expert witnesses. Use of ADR
    efficiently resolved all of the company's putative claims against
    the government at an early stage.

*Executive Office for United States Attorneys*

The Executive Office provides general executive assistance, policy
review, and administrative oversight to the offices of the 93 United
States Attorneys. The Equal Employment Opportunity staff of the
Executive Office handles EEO complaints from within all of the U.S.
Attorneys' Offices throughout the country as well as within the
Executive Office. Select employees from U.S. Attorneys' offices, as well
as from the Executive Office, are trained to serve as collateral duty
mediators. Mediation is employed at both the informal and formal stages
of the EEO process. Successful mediation enables agency personnel to
return to productive work more quickly without the distraction of
unnecessary litigation.

*United States Attorneys' Offices*

The U.S. Attorneys' Offices throughout the country defend civil cases in
which the United States is a party and institute affirmative litigation
to enforce the laws. These offices, which use ADR in both defensive and
affirmative litigation, comprise the largest "user" of ADR in the
Department of Justice. A statistical analysis of FY 2000 through FY 2003
showed that over 8,000 cases were referred to mediation.

In defensive litigation, ADR has: resulted in numerous settlements of
smaller amounts of money than the amounts originally sought in some
defensive lawsuits; facilitated more focused discovery; and resulted in
more efficient and expeditious case resolution in appropriate cases,
including tort and workplace discrimination. Illustrative examples of
benefits realized are:

-   avoidance of the expense of extensive discovery in employment
    discrimination cases;

-   avoidance of a substantial judgment in a false advertising case when
    the case settled for payment of no money from the government;

-   resolution of tort claims where continued litigation could have
    resulted in significant expert expenses and the possibility of
    increased loss of revenues through a judgment.

In affirmative litigation, the various offices prosecute civil cases in
which the United States is a party, and collect debts which are owed to
the federal government, but are administratively uncollectible. The
offices' successful use of ADR in appropriate cases has advanced that
mission, as described in the following examples:

-   resolution of a civil forfeiture case saved significant sums that
    would otherwise have been spent on expert witness fees;

-   resolution of a suit for false reporting on material used to build a
    road resulted in road repairs that increased safety and benefited
    the affected rural communities;

-   recovery of damages under a property insurance policy was
    accomplished many years sooner than would have been possible if the
    case had gone to trial; and

-   resolution of a health care fraud case involving a nationwide fraud
    scheme saved enormous amounts of staff and court time and attorney
    hours in trial preparation and trial time.

*Federal Bureau of Investigation*

The Bureau is the principal investigative arm of the Department of
Justice, investigating violations of federal law through gathering
evidence and interviewing potential witnesses. ADR is used throughout
the agency in appropriate cases involving workplace disputes in a
workforce of over 30,000 employees. By providing a venue to address
workplace disputes, especially those that are non-EEO, employees are
able to address issues earlier, in a non-adversarial environment, thus
preserving working relationships and enabling them to return to their
investigative duties.

*Federal Bureau of Prisons*

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is responsible for the safety, care and
housing of some 185,000 federal prisoners in 113 institutions and 28
community corrections offices, and employs approximately 35,000 people.
The agency uses ADR for EEO and other workplace disputes, concentrating
on swift and early, front-end resolution of disputes whenever possible,
before the dispute undermines effective and safe performance of
important duties. The EEO officer also serves as a full-time ADR
coordinator. The agency uses primarily mediation and has developed an
interagency agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use
FBI mediators at no cost. The agency has a dispute resolution program at
43 different prisons where a collateral duty employee, jointly selected
by the warden and the union president, will mediate other workplace
concerns. Additionally, the agency offers its dispute resolution program
to management staff in two of its six regions.

The agency has had a number of employees trained to present a course for
managers on appropriate workplace conduct and communication skills. The
focus on early recognition and resolution of disputes is very important
to the mission of the agency and decreases or eliminates the possibility
of disgruntled or distracted employees who are responsible for the
safety of co-workers and prisoners.

The agency also uses various ADR processes in the resolution of
procurement disputes, including partnering, mini-trial, early neutral
facilitation and mediation.

*Justice Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Staff*

The Justice Management Division serves as the management arm of the
Department of Justice. ADR is available during both the informal and
formal stages of the EEO process.

*Tax Division*

The Tax Division uses a number of ADR processes, primarily mediation and
some arbitration, in a broad array of civil litigation, including
individual, business and corporate taxation issues, in both federal
district and bankruptcy courts.

[DEPARTMENT OF LABOR]{.underline}

The Department of Labor enforces almost 200 different federal statutes
relating to a broad variety of working conditions. The agency's Office
of Civil Rights uses mediation to resolve EEO and labor relations
personnel issues.

For a period of several years in the early 1990's, the agency
established a program for independent neutrals to mediate cases
involving a broad range of statutes including Family and Medical Leave
Act, Wage and Hour Act, and whistleblower statutes. The program has
since shifted those functions to the Administrative Law Judges. The
current Settlement Judge Program uses sitting Administrative Law Judges
for all mediations conducted during pre-hearing conferences.

[DEPARTMENT OF STATE]{.underline}

The State Department uses formal ADR exclusively in the workplace. The
agency reports that the ADR process gives employees and management an
opportunity to address and resolve issues quickly and effectively,
thereby allowing parties to return their focus to accomplishing the
agency's mission of advising the President on all foreign policy. The
agency uses mediation in EEO proceedings and uses an ombuds process for
non-EEO civil service issues. With expanded video conferencing
capabilities, the agency can reach the broad geographic scope of its
employees.

[DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION]{.underline}

The agency's mission is to serve the United States by ensuring a fast,
safe, efficient, accessible, and convenient transportation system which
meets the vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of
the American people, today and into the future. In 2002, the agency
issued a Department-wide policy endorsing the use of ADR and
collaborative problem solving in advancing national transportation goals
by preventing, minimizing and resolving disputes among its employees and
with external parties, in a mutually acceptable and cost-effective
manner. Areas in which the use of various forms of ADR are encouraged
include: workplace issues; issuance of regulations; enforcement and
compliance in issuing and revoking licenses and permits; contract and
grant awards and administration; litigation and formal or informal
adjudication; and interactions with the public and regulated
communities.

The Department of Transportation has established the Center for
Alternative Dispute Resolution which works with organizations and
individuals Department-wide to increase the knowledge, quality, and use
of ADR. The Center provides ADR services and is an information resource
to both agency ADR providers and users. The Center, partnering with the
Department of Health and Human Services, offers awareness and
skill-based training. By working together, both organizations offer a
variety of courses, instructors, and coaches to employees and provide
them with opportunities to learn in a diverse environment and to
recognize the issues they face in a variety of organizational settings.
The Center develops and monitors ADR policy and implementation
throughout the Department's operating administrations.

The Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution also coordinates ADR
policy relating to negotiated rulemaking. The Department of
Transportation was the first federal agency to use negotiated rulemaking
in the early 1980's. Negotiated rulemaking continues to be used
Department-wide to enhance public participation in regulation
development.

The One DOT Sharing Neutrals Program, sponsored by the Departmental
Office of Civil Rights, is a Department-wide program that uses mediation
to resolve EEO complaints. The program maintains a cadre of collateral
duty mediators and contract mediators. The program also uses mediators
from the Federal Shared Neutrals Program and other ADR programs for use
in locations outside the agency's metropolitan area.

Several of the agency's operating administrations have established
specific ADR policies to advance their mission. Their actions are
highlighted below.

*Federal Aviation Administration*

The agency's ADR initiatives extend from contracts and procurement to
labor disputes between the agency and the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association. The Office of Dispute Resolution for
Acquisition is responsible for resolving all protests and contract
disputes arising out of procurements and contracts entered into under
the agency's Acquisition Management System. It is also responsible for
resolving contests involving competitive sourcing of "commercial
activities," i.e., activities deemed not inherently governmental under
the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act.

The agency also has instituted a new and rapidly expanding pilot
program, the Center for Early Dispute Resolution Pilot Program, which
will help employees and managers address workplace disputes at their
earliest stages, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the financial
impact of conflict on the agency. The Center is freestanding from the
EEO office, which also uses ADR. The Center sought to encourage early
contacts from management and employees relating to any and all brewing
disagreements. The program is specifically designed to address conflict
before it turns into an EEO or other formal complaint.

Additionally, the Federal Aviation Administration has instituted a
Neutral Evaluation program which is integrated into the negotiated
grievance process for all labor disputes between the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association and the agency. This program routes a
dispute to an independent neutral third party with expertise in the
particular subject matter at issue. The neutral gives a non-binding
decision reflecting how a dispute would be determined by a judge or
arbitrator. The program provides a powerful inducement to resolution,
promotes collaboration, and reduces the negative impacts of conflict
because it takes the focus off the people and places it on the issues.

*Federal Highway Administration*

The Federal Highway Administration regulates Department of
Transportation programs with a broad view towards safety, environment,
and operations. The agency has experience in using ADR in negotiated
rulemaking and regulatory compliance. For example, the agency conducted
regulatory negotiation on incorporation of physical fitness
determinations into the commercial driver's license process for state
enforcement of medical certification.

The agency also reviews and resolves environmental projects under the
National Environmental Protection Act process. For example, in
partnership with the Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution,
the agency sponsored eleven regional workshops for collaborative problem
solving in areas of tribal and citizen concern.

*Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration*

The agency's primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries, and
fatalities involving large trucks and buses. The agency uses ADR for
disputes involving civil sanctions against motor carriers. Its binding
arbitration program was developed to expand the options available to
motor carriers, brokers, shippers, freight forwarders, and other
individuals and entities engaged in the use of commercial motor vehicles
in interstate transportation. Through this voluntary program, carriers
may elect to submit cases that involve only the amount of a civil
penalty to an arbitrator rather than to the agency's Chief Safety
Officer.

*Federal Transit Administration*

The Federal Transit Administration seeks to improve mass transportation
operations, facilities, and equipment through public/private cooperation
and assistance for local and state government financing. The agency's
workplace ADR program is available for all matters of concern or
dissatisfaction. The program goals are to "enhance communication,
increase morale and help employees work as a more cohesive team to
accomplish the Federal Transit Administration's mission." The agency
reported that use of ADR saves time and money and has decreased the
number of formal complaints.

*Office of the Inspector General*

The Office of Inspector General performs all audit and investigative
functions in evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the
Department of Transportation's programs and operations. In 2005, the
Office of the Inspector General implemented a two-year pilot program to
increase effective and efficient communication within the organization.
The program offers voluntary ADR for all types of workplace-related
disputes or matters of concern, such as job assignments or
employee/supervisor relationships, to agency employees throughout the
country.

[DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY]{.underline}

*The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau*

The agency's mission is to enforce and administer laws covering the
production, use, and distribution of, and to collect excise taxes for,
alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and ammunition. The agency's Voluntary
Disclosure Program provides cooperative problem solving for civil
enforcement. Voluntary disclosure is the intentional disclosure to
authorized agency officials of material facts by industry members
regarding their non-compliance with the laws and regulations that the
agency administers. The Program is intended to encourage compliance with
agency laws and regulations and benefit industry members who voluntarily
identify and come forward with instances of non-compliance. It allows
the agency to expedite the decision-making process and to better manage
audit and investigative resources in its field operations. Voluntary
disclosures also provide benefits to industry members, e.g.:

-   reduction of cost (time and money) inherent in investigations to
    uncover violations;

-   mitigation of actions the agency takes in response to violations by
    reducing penalties or giving other special considerations when/if
    the agency proposes administrative action;

-   provision of an incentive for detecting and correcting errors early;

-   provision of an opportunity to obtain special guidance on future
    compliance; and

-   demonstration of credibility, good faith, trust, and confidence that
    fosters goodwill and a positive working relationship with the
    agency.

The Early Complaint Resolution Program encourages the use of ADR
techniques to expedite the informal resolution of employment disputes
raised in the pre-complaint EEO process. Because the Program helps to
resolve complaints quickly and at the lowest possible level, it enables
managers and employees to focus on their work. Additionally, overall
employee morale can be improved when agency management is viewed as
being open-minded and cooperative in seeking to resolve EEO disputes
through ADR. In resolving conflicts, ADR helps to create a positive
working environment where employees can thrive, resulting in the
advancement of the agency, its work, and its people.

*Bureau of Engraving and Printing*

The agency is responsible for the design and printing of various Federal
Reserve notes, postage stamps, and other Treasury securities or
certificates. The Bureau Resolution Center is a centralized organization
designed to address any type of workplace dispute, using a wide range of
ADR techniques including coaching, mediation, and organizational
development and team building. The Center's approach is based on the
perspective that "a reduction in life stressors is directly correlated
to an increase in workplace productivity."

*Bureau of Public Debt*

The agency administers the public debt through borrowing money backed by
marketable U.S. Treasury securities. The agency uses mediation to
facilitate dispute resolution in the EEO context and "get our employees
back to work quickly."

*Departmental Offices/Departmental Oversight Office*

Within the various bureaus throughout the Department of Treasury, the
Human Resources divisions routinely and effectively use ADR in EEO
cases. The Secretary of the Treasury issued a departmental policy
memorandum in 2003 which explicitly urged management, wherever possible,
to use ADR in the EEO complaint process, finding that a workplace which
encourages open communication and conflict resolution fosters a more
productive workforce.

*Financial Crimes Enforcement Network*

The agency fosters and supports investigative cooperation and
intelligence sharing among global law enforcement agencies enforcing an
array of laws protecting against financial crimes, including
money-laundering laws. The agency's Alternative Solutions Assistance
Program is available to address all non-EEO personnel matters in the
workplace. Overall employee morale is improved by the early resolution
of employment and employee concerns which enhances the overall working
environment and reduces stress and tension. The use of ADR processes
results in reduction of costs associated with processing workplace
disputes through formal channels.

*Financial Management Service*

With a staff of slightly over 2,000 employees, the agency: disburses
billions of dollars for almost a million federal payments including
Social Security, veterans' benefits, and income tax returns; collects
billions of dollars in federal revenues; and manages a daily cash flow
of around \$50 billion. The agency's Alternative Dispute Resolution
Program addresses and offers early resolution for workplace disputes.
The Program decreases the time, cost, and other resources expended in
resolving workplace conflict.

*Internal Revenue Service*

The Internal Revenue Service administers and enforces the country's
revenue laws and related statutes through the routine collection of a
proper assessment of taxes from the public by working efficiently,
effectively, and fairly. The agency has a Taxpayer Advocate Service
division which utilizes dispute resolution processes while acting as a
liaison between a taxpayer and the agency to resolve taxpayer issues.
The agency hosts an extensive and user-friendly Web site and provides
personal advisors for a taxpayer's individual issues. Additionally, the
Taxpayer Advocate Service collects data and taxpayer comments and input
to determine areas requiring systemic revisions.

In the workplace arena, the agency supports early resolution of
discrimination complaints in order to increase employee satisfaction and
workplace productivity. Employees who feel that their issues are not
only heard, but also resolved quickly and fairly, have a tendency to
extend this practice to customers (i.e., the taxpayers) and work
harmoniously with them to resolve their issues.

*Internal Revenue Service Appeals*

The mission of this agency is to resolve tax controversies, without
litigation, on a basis that is fair and impartial to both the government
and the taxpayer, and in a manner that will enhance voluntary compliance
and public confidence in the integrity and efficiency of the Internal
Revenue Service. As the dispute resolution forum for the Internal
Revenue Service, the agency used a form of negotiated rulemaking to
develop an ADR program that provides dispute resolution to customers,
whether involving traditional case resolution authority or ADR
techniques. The ADR options facilitate communication, enhance the
agency's services to taxpayers and tax practitioners, and offer prompt
and less expensive methods for taxpayers to resolve their disputes after
traditional negotiations have failed. When agreement between the
taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service is reached, the burdens and
costs to both of them are reduced.

The agency also uses ADR for the resolution of EEO complaints.

*Office of the Comptroller of the Currency*

The Comptroller of the Currency serves as the administrator and
regulator of all national banks. The agency has developed an ADR program
covering workplace disputes and has initiated, as well, an innovative
program to address consumer complaints involving the banks that the
agency regulates and supervises.

The agency has a range of ADR policies for resolution of workplace
disputes: mediation for the informal stage of the EEO complaint process;
the Fair Alternatives and Innovative Resolutions process for workplace
disputes that are not EEO-related; mediation in the pre-grievance
process to resolve workplace disputes for collective bargaining unit
members; and arbitration for the grievance process for collective
bargaining unit members. The resolution of workplace disputes, at the
earliest opportunity and lowest level possible, eliminates distractions,
promotes increased productivity, and ensures the mission of the agency
is accomplished in the most effective and efficient manner.

The agency's Office of the Ombudsman, through its Customer Assistance
Group, addresses disputes between consumers and national banks or their
subsidiaries. It hosts a user-friendly Web site which includes answers
to most consumer questions, as well as forms to submit for formal
complaints and Web site addresses for other federal agencies which cover
different areas relating to banking and credit. About 70,000 contacts
seeking customer assistance are received each year.

*Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration*

The agency provides audit and investigative services ensuring the honest
and reliable administration of the tax laws of the country. It uses ADR
in workplace and EEO disputes, and finds that the use of ADR techniques
increases the chances that workplace complaints and concerns are
addressed early in the dispute process. This enables the agency to focus
its resources on accomplishing its mission.

*United States Mint*

The Mint produces sufficient circulation coinage for current commerce
needs and safeguards the U.S. gold and silver reserves. ADR is used for
disputes in EEO, labor relations (including grievances), Merit System
Protection Board appeals, and Federal Labor Relations Authority actions.
The ADR processes improve communication in the workplace, ensure
accountability in resolving workplace issues, achieve mutually
satisfactory resolution of conflicts, and decrease the time, costs, and
other resources expended in resolving conflicts.

[DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS]{.underline}

The mission of the Department of Veterans Affairs is to serve the
nation's veterans and their families to ensure that they receive medical
care, compensation and pension, burial services, and other benefits
provided by Congress in recognition of the veterans' service to America.
The agency is committed to preventing, minimizing, and timely resolving
disputes among its employees and with third parties, and uses ADR to
address workplace, procurement, and other disputes.

The agency primarily uses mediation and facilitation to address
workplace disputes occurring within the workforce of over 235,000
employees. The emphasis on early resolution of workplace disputes has
resulted in a decrease in the number of EEO contacts and complaints,
thereby saving resources and promoting greater efficiency in
accomplishing the agency's mission.

The agency also dedicates resources to training its employees, managers,
and union officials on ADR and manages a roster of agency employees who
are certified to mediate workplace disputes voluntarily as a collateral
duty.

Finally, to improve the work environment and prevent workplace disputes,
the agency designed the Organizational Climate Assessment Program. This
program is a tool used to examine employee perceptions of the workplace
and assists management officials in understanding what drives employee
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The program's focus on early resolution
of employee concerns has helped to improve productivity and employee
satisfaction.

The agency's Procurement ADR Program uses ADR to resolve bid protests,
contract claims, or other procurement issues in controversy before a
third party files a related appeal with the United States Civilian Board
of Contract Appeals, established in January 2007, or the United States
Court of Federal Claims.

> [INDEPENDENT AGENCIES]{.underline}

*Commodity Futures Trading Commission*

The agency is responsible for regulation and enforcement of integrity
and fairness in futures trading, and uses ADR in workplace disputes. The
agency promotes early and informal resolution of all disputes insuring
minimal "down time" and enabling workforce personnel to return their
focus to mission accomplishment. The agency reports that improved
communication has resulted from dispute resolution efforts.

*Consumer Product Safety Commission*

The agency's mission is to protect the public from unreasonable risks of
serious injury or death from consumer products under its jurisdiction.
The agency utilizes ADR for EEO complaint activity. The primary method
of dispute resolution is mediation, using a neutral mediator from the
Shared Neutrals Program at no cost. The agency reports that its use of
ADR provides for a quicker resolution, which results in better
employment relationships, and enables all parties to return their focus
to productive work.

Additionally, the agency's compliance recalls and corrective action
process utilize a broad array of ADR techniques to achieve voluntary
compliance with agency-administered statutes and regulations. The
voluntary compliance activities result in better corporate compliance
with product safety issues, thereby saving lives. An example is the
agency's use of mediation to resolve a major dispute involving the risk
of carbon monoxide poisoning. After an extensive investigation, the
agency's staff had concluded that carbon monoxide could seep from
high-temperature plastic vent pipes attached to certain furnaces and
boilers, and threaten the lives of residents in up to 250,000 American
homes where they were installed. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution
Institute for Dispute Resolution gave the Consumer Product Safety
Commission its award for Significant Practical Achievement in
recognition of its use of mediation to achieve the product safety recall
in this case.

The agency's Small Business Ombudsman serves as an effective conduit to
facilitate communication between the small business community and the
agency. The Ombudsman advises businesses on compliance with applicable
statutes and regulations, provides technical assistance to businesses
trying to resolve Compliance and Hazard Identification/Reduction issues,
and maintains a "one stop shopping hotline" for assistance and
information on the agency's programs and regulations.

*Corporation for National and Community Service*

The agency provides a multitude of opportunities fostering civic
engagement for citizens of all ages in projects relating to education,
the environment, public safety, and other citizen needs. The workplace
ADR program is used to resolve or minimize the effect of disputes and
enhance productivity on the projects undertaken by their employees. The
agency's ADR policy covers all types of workplace issues, including
co-worker conflict as well as employee/supervisor disputes, and offers a
range of processes from facilitation to mediation and group
intervention. The agency provides important follow-up training to ensure
that agreed-upon modifications are sustained. The agency reports that
the use of ADR processes helps in resolving workplace disputes early and
that, in particular, the use of group interventions helps to identify
barriers to effective group work performance.

*Environmental Protection Agency*

The mission of the agency is to protect human health and the environment
and foster a cleaner and healthier environment for the American people.
ADR is used extensively throughout the agency, as described below.

-   Since the 1970s, the agency has been a pioneer in using ADR to
    prevent or reduce environmental conflicts and promote constructive
    collaborative problem solving in a wide range of activities and
    programs. During the past 30 years, the agency has sponsored or
    participated in environmental ADR cases addressing issues related to
    all aspects of its mission. The agency encourages the use of various
    ADR processes in environmental decision making contexts, including
    adjudications, rulemaking, policy development, administrative and
    judicial civil enforcement actions, permit issuance, hazardous waste
    and other site-related determinations, and the administration of
    contracts and grants. The agency's Conflict Prevention and
    Resolution Center in the Office of General Counsel provides
    environmental ADR services to the entire agency, administering
    agency-wide environmental ADR activities, assisting other agencies'
    offices in resolving environmental disputes, and coordinating with a
    network of ADR staff in the agency's ten Regional Offices on
    environmental dispute prevention and resolution initiatives. Since
    1988, the agency has maintained a dedicated contract vehicle to
    provide access to private sector neutral third parties for
    environmental ADR. The Conflict Prevention and Resolution Services
    contract, managed by the Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center,
    is available to all agency headquarters and regional offices and
    provides many of the agency's environmental conflict resolution
    services.

-   The ADR program in the agency's Office of Administrative Law Judges
    is used to facilitate settlements of administrative civil penalty
    enforcement cases under a set of federal environmental laws. Parties
    are offered an opportunity to participate in an ADR proceeding with
    an Administrative Law Judge serving as a neutral.

-   The Office of the Small Business Ombudsman reviews and resolves
    disputes between the agency and the small business community in the
    development and enforcement of environmental regulations.

-   The Regional Public Liaison Manager (formerly National Ombudsman)
    assists the public and regulated community in resolving problems
    concerning requirements under the agency's hazardous waste programs.

-   The agency uses mediation for cases which otherwise would be heard
    by the United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals. One of the
    Board judges points out strengths, weaknesses and common ground for
    each party's case, which normally results in the negotiation of a
    mutually satisfactory resolution of the case. An "outcome
    prediction" form of ADR is also used for contract protest cases,
    where the Government Accountability Office attorney who would
    participate in the agency decision informs the parties of the
    expected outcome (sustain or deny). If the prediction is that the
    case would not be sustained, both the agency and the protesting
    contractor can save money by not proceeding.

-   The agency's Workplace Solutions Staff is a "first stop" option to
    encourage resolution of workplace problems at the very earliest
    stage possible. Employees and managers have the opportunity to
    address concerns prior to utilizing any formal systems of redress.
    They are given information about avenues of redress as well as
    agency programs that could support their needs. The workplace
    initiatives have been very cost-effective, saving the agency
    resources that otherwise would have been used to process complaints,
    contributing to increased productivity, and preserving and
    encouraging effective working relationships.

*Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*

The agency's mission is to promote equality of opportunity in the
workplace and enforce federal laws prohibiting employment
discrimination. Promoting and expanding the use of mediation and other
types of ADR is the centerpiece of its framework for accomplishing the
agency's mission.

ADR is an important part of the agency's private sector enforcement
activities:

-   Negotiated settlement and conciliation are key components of its
    enforcement strategy for the private sector charge process.
    Negotiated settlement attempts often result in resolution of charges
    of discrimination before a determination is made on the merits of a
    charge. Conciliation efforts to resolve a charge after a finding of
    discrimination are undertaken as required by the statutes which the
    agency enforces.

-   Through its National Mediation Program, the Commission proactively
    promotes the use of mediation at any stage of the administrative
    process to resolve private sector charges of discrimination which
    may have merit. The Commission's program uses a combination of
    internal mediators as well as some external contract mediators. Many
    of the mediations result in creative non-monetary resolutions
    designed to meet the parties' needs and interests.

ADR also is an important part of the agency's EEO complaint processing
in the federal sector, where it uses various techniques to resolve
complaints at both the hearing and appellate stages of the complaint
process:

-   Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Administrative Law Judges
    achieve resolution through a variety of ADR techniques such as
    settlement, mediation, referral to an agency's mediation program,
    early neutral evaluation, and referral to an Administrative Law
    Judge acting as a "settlement judge." Thirty percent of complaints
    settle during the hearings stage of the process.

-   The agency's Federal Appellate Settlement Team program offers ADR
    techniques to resolve appeals from Final Agency Decisions on the
    merits.

The agency seeks to provide leadership and serve as a model for other
employers. The agency's model workplace initiative is intended to ensure
that the very principles and standards which it promotes to private
business and other federal agencies are readily apparent in its own
operations. The RESOLVE Program, which is a key component of the model
workplace initiative, is a comprehensive one-stop ADR program to resolve
all types of workplace disputes informally. The agency promotes the use
of ADR to provide faster, less expensive and contentious, and more
productive results in eliminating workplace discrimination.

*Export-Import Bank of the United States*

The Export-Import Bank facilitates and aids in financing exports of U.S.
goods and services. The mission of the Bank is to help American
exporters meet government-supported competition from other countries and
to correct market imperfections so that commercial export financing can
be accomplished. The Bank employs ADR in the EEO process, and is in the
process of revising its Administrative Grievance System from a grievance
model under collective bargaining agreements to a mediation model.

*Federal Communications Commission*

The mission of the agency is to regulate interstate and international
communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The
agency's use of ADR has resulted in, avoided, or reduced litigation
before the agency and appeals to the courts, thereby conserving its own
staff as well as private resources. Its regulations permit the use of
ADR in many of its jurisdictional areas:

-   damage complaint cases involving common carriers

-   wireless licensing disputes

-   collection of debts owed the government

-   cost-sharing plan for relocation of licensees

-   establishment and publication of standard or industry-wide generic
    requirements for telecommunications or customer premises equipment

-   complaints involving multi-channel video and cable services

-   price disputes for sale of existing wiring by multi-video program
    distributor in multi-dwelling unit

-   disputes concerning commercial leased access

-   amount of damages in program access disputes

-   interconnection disputes

-   cable home wiring disputes

Additionally, the agency uses mediation to resolve workplace EEO
disputes.

*Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation*

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation preserves and promotes public
confidence in the U.S. financial system by: insuring deposits in
financial institutions; managing risks to the deposit insurance fund;
and limiting the effect on the economy from depository institution
failures. The agency uses a broad range of ADR processes in a variety of
substantive areas and is one of the few agencies that also uses
voluntary arbitration. The agency established an ADR Steering Committee
which is responsible for ADR activities agency-wide and the coordination
of ADR policies and programs to ensure a consistent organizational
approach.

The agency has an EEO Mediation Program in which mediation is available
at both the informal and formal stages of the EEO complaint process.
There also is a Workplace Disputes Program which is designed to address
disputes arising between employees at all levels. The program is
intended to provide a mechanism for employees to resolve conflicts
through early intervention and without the need to file a formal
complaint.

The agency also has an Office of the Ombudsman that provides ADR
services and outreach largely to the public and regulated entities.

*Federal Election Commission*

The mission of the agency is to administer and enforce the Federal
Election Campaign Act which governs the financing of federal elections.
Agency responsibilities include enforcement of the statutory provisions
on limits and prohibitions on contributions. The primary ADR process
used by the agency is a variation on settlement negotiations -- a
bilateral process in which respondents engage in a dialogue with a
representative of the ADR office who explains the nature and cause of
the statutory violation. That dialogue provides respondents with an
opportunity to explain their committee's or organization's actions and
their perspective on the nature of the violation. The resulting
negotiations between the parties results in a settlement that both sides
find acceptable and achieves the agency's goal of promoting compliance
with the statute. The ADR program also frees up agency resources so they
may be devoted to more compelling and complex violations of the statute.

The agency also offers mediation in EEO and other workplace disputes.

*Federal Energy Regulatory Commission*

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an independent agency within
the Department of Energy, regulates the interstate transmission of
electricity, natural gas, and oil. The agency  and its predecessor, the
Federal Power Commission  have long endorsed and supported negotiated
settlements. In 1994, the agency reaffirmed its policy "to conclude its
administrative proceedings as fairly, effectively, and expeditiously as
possible." The agency also has embraced the opportunity inherent in the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act to further develop its policies to
"achieve less costly, less contentious, and timelier decisions in its
proceedings."

The agency's dispute resolution initiatives include:

-   The Dispute Resolution Service. This service is a neutral unit
    within the agency which was established in 1999 to provide and
    promote ADR services for parties engaged in agency-related disputes.
    The Dispute Resolution Service has mediated and facilitated
    two-party and multi-party disputes in a range of areas including:
    hydropower relicensing; gas certificates; electric, gas, and oil
    tariffs and rates; and business concerns in all arenas.

-   The Settlement Judge Process. Under this process:

    -   The agency strongly encourages ADR in most cases set for
        hearing, and typically refers over 85% of all cases set for
        hearing to an Administrative Law Judge other than the presiding
        judge for settlement purposes. Approximately 75% of these cases
        are settled.

    -   The use of settlement judges results in substantial savings of
        time and resources that would have been expended in costly
        litigation. Use of settlement judges also allows citizens to
        receive the refunds due much earlier than if the case had
        proceeded through litigation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Enforcement Hotline. The agency's use of early neutral
    evaluation through its Enforcement Hotline is an effective tool in
    addressing disputes prior to formal dispute filing with the agency.

*Federal Maritime Commission*

The agency's mission is to develop and administer policies and
regulations that foster a fair, efficient, and secure maritime
transportation system. It is the agency's policy to use alternative
means of dispute resolution to the fullest extent compatible with the
law and its own mission and resources. The agency considers using ADR in
all areas, including workplace issues, formal and informal adjudication,
issuance of regulations, enforcement and compliance, issuance and
revocation of licenses and permits, contract award and administration,
litigation brought by or against the agency, and any other interactions
with the public and the regulated community. Parties are encouraged to
pursue the use of alternative means through the agency's Office of
Consumer Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services in lieu of or prior to
initiating an agency proceeding. The Office of Consumer Affairs and
Dispute Resolution Services is responsible for developing and
implementing the agency's ADR program.

ADR helps resolve disputes with a minimum of government interference in
the marketplace, ultimately resulting in a fairer and more efficient
ocean transportation system. The agency's Office of Consumer Affairs and
Dispute Resolution Services is using ADR in a number of areas to avoid
the expense and delays inherent in litigation, and to facilitate the
flow of U.S. ocean commerce, including:

-   resolution of shipping disputes, e.g., attempts by carriers to
    increase rates after execution of a service contract;

-   provision of ombuds services to participants in ocean shipping
    transactions (e.g., transportation or handling of cargo, and
    complaints against cruise operators);

-   adjudication of small claims (up to \$50,000) for violations of
    shipping statutes (e.g., freight overcharges, extensive delivery
    delays, demand for excessive payments prior to delivery);

-   adjudication of applications for permission to apply other than
    tariff rates;

-   adjudication of applications to waive or refund freight charges
    arising from errors in tariff publications, inadvertent failure to
    publish an intended rate, or a misquotation of a rate.

*Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service*

The agency's core mission is to promote sound and stable
labor-management relations by providing mediation assistance in contract
negotiation disputes between employers and their unionized employees.
Their use of ADR promotes the adoption of collective bargaining
agreements upon the expiration and renewal of contracts and promotes
better employee/management relations.

As a result of the 1990 and 1996 Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts,
the agency's role was expanded beyond labor relations. The agency has
become a primary provider of mediation, facilitation, training, and
other assistance within the federal government. The agency has: convened
and facilitated over fifty complex, multi-party negotiations; mediated
thousands of federal sector workplace disputes; trained federal
employees in conflict prevention and resolution; and assisted with the
design and implementation of conflict management systems for over eighty
agencies. The agency also has spread the use of ADR overseas by
providing training, consultation, and other technical assistance in
dozens of countries around the world.

*Federal Reserve Board*

The Board supervises the Federal Reserve System which is responsible for
developing banking policy and regulating the banking industry. The
Board's ADR policy extends to general workplace disputes, as well as EEO
matters. Additionally, the agency's Ombudsman provides mediation and
other ADR processes in supervisory matters, permitting affected
stakeholders to contact a Board official to address issues of concern.

*Federal Trade Commission*

The Federal Trade Commission promotes healthy commercial competition
through the prevention of general trade restraints and safeguards the
public from fraudulent trade schemes.

The agency is committed to integrating ADR strategies in its
mission-related responsibilities to enforce several federal antitrust
and consumer protection laws. It uses mediation in civil enforcement
cases on an ad hoc basis. In furtherance of its consumer protection
mission, the agency is a strong advocate of ADR to help resolve many
different kinds of consumer disputes. The agency works to educate
consumers about ADR options available to them and works in conjunction
with a number of consumer-oriented organizations to ensure that the
public is aware of opportunities and rights to mediate and arbitrate
disputes concerning purchases of products and services.

The agency also uses ADR to help resolve workplace problems that can
interfere with its ability to perform its responsibilities, including
relationship problems between employees and managers, performance and
conduct-related issues, and labor management matters.

*General Services Administration*

An important mission of the agency is to hear and decide contract
disputes between government contractors and executive agencies of the
United States. Through the United States Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals, the agency offers ADR services as an integral part of the
contract appeals process, and uses ADR for the prompt, expert, and
inexpensive resolution of contract disputes and contract-related
matters.

The agency also uses ADR to identify and remedy concerns in the
workplace, thereby fostering increased employee productivity.

*National Archives and Records Administration*

The agency's mission is to: serve American democracy by safeguarding and
preserving the records of our government, ensuring that the people can
discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage; ensure
continuing access to the essential documentation of the rights of
American citizens and the actions of their government; promote civic
education; and facilitate historical understanding of our national
experience.

The agency uses mediation and facilitation in employment and workplace
disputes within its organizations throughout the nation so that problems
can be addressed and resolved, and the employees can get back to the
work at hand. Because the agency is highly citizen-centered, with much
of its mission focused on facilitating public access to materials and
exhibits, its workforce must be able to interact effectively with the
public. By learning through use of ADR how best to work with one
another, the staff can best improve its interaction with the visitors.

*National Labor Relations Board*

The agency administers the nation's principal labor laws, preventing
unfair labor practices and safeguarding employees' rights to organize
into labor unions. Its core function employs all of the ADR processes.
The agency also uses ADR in its own workplace disputes, allowing parties
to resolve their disputes more quickly and easily and saving both time
and money for them and the agency. The agency reports that ADR permits
parties to reach settlements which are better tailored to the parties'
particular circumstances, ensuring that the parties' disputes are more
fully resolved and less likely to recur.

*National Mediation Board*

The agency's mission is to mediate labor-management disputes in the
airline and railroad industries, and to minimize work stoppages by
facilitating harmonious labor-management relations for airlines and
railroads engaged in interstate commerce or travel. Its professional
mediators use ADR techniques to resolve the disputes. Since 1997, it has
mediated over 600 cases with only four work stoppages (including one
that lasted for less than 90 minutes).

*National Science Foundation*

The National Science Foundation promotes advancement in scientific
research and education. The agency uses ADR primarily in the workplace
arena and reports that use of ADR enhances communication, which fosters
a more productive workforce.

*Nuclear Regulatory Commission*

The mission of the agency is to protect the public health and safety and
the environment from the effects of radiation from nuclear reactors,
materials, and waste facilities. The agency also regulates these nuclear
materials and facilities to promote the common defense and security. One
of the agency's principles of good regulation is that nuclear regulation
is the public's business and it must be transacted publicly and
candidly, with the public being informed about and having the
opportunity to participate in the regulatory processes. The agency's use
of collaborative, facilitated ADR processes allows it to work faster and
better, and to establish stronger relationships with the public, in a
range of areas, e.g.:

-   identification of criteria for the recycling of radioactive
    materials;

-   revision of agency rules and guidance on emergency planning in light
    of the security issues raised by the 9/11 attack; and

-   adoption of rules and guidance governing the use of radioactive
    material in therapeutic and diagnostic medicine.

Additionally, the agency:

-   uses facilitation in public meetings on site-specific licensing
    issues conducted as part of a public outreach program; and

-   uses facilitation for a series of ongoing interagency management
    meetings to develop a strategy for agency cooperation in the cleanup
    of a decontamination/decommissioning site.

The agency also is using ADR in enforcement disputes:

-   between a licensee and the agency as the agency discharges its
    responsibility for licensing or certifying applicants to use nuclear
    materials or operate nuclear facilities; and

-   between a licensee and its employee (when the employee has alleged
    to the agency that the licensee has taken retaliatory action against
    the employee for raising a safety concern) as the agency discharges
    its responsibility to investigate violations of agency requirements
    and other wrongdoing.

Finally, the agency uses ADR as an effective management tool to resolve
employment discrimination claims at the earliest stage possible in an
expeditious and cost-effective manner.

*Office of Personnel Management*

The agency is responsible for the hiring and management of federal
workplace personnel throughout the country and uses ADR primarily in the
workplace arena. The agency promotes the resolution of EEO complaints
and other allegations of discrimination at the earliest possible stage
and reports that ADR enhances communication between employees and
managers.

The agency hosts a user-friendly Web site, and has included an on-line
and updated version of its 2002 report, "Alternative Dispute
Resolution - A Resource Guide", on that Web site
([www.opm.gov/er/adrguide_2002/index.asp](http://www.opm.gov/er/adrguide_2002/index.asp)).
The Guide provides a wealth of valuable information on ADR usage within
the federal government, along with comprehensive descriptions of a broad
range of ADR processes. The Web site describes in detail many federal
agencies' ADR programs and lists points of contact in the federal
agencies covered as well as specific agency Web site addresses.

*Peace Corps*

The agency, established in 1961, promotes world peace and understanding
through a global outreach to the poorest countries throughout the world,
placing volunteers who assist local communities with technical skills
and education. The agency's ADR policy covers all employees, Peace Corps
volunteers and applicants, both current and former, and addresses EEO
complaints as well as general workplace issues. The ADR policy requires
all management and supervisory staff to participate in EEO cases. The
agency's Office of American Diversity Programs provides more than 30
training opportunities each year for employees, supervisors, and
managers to learn to use ADR techniques, such as facilitation, in
addressing workplace issues proactively, before they grow into disputes.

*Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation*

The agency monitors, guarantees and administers private sector defined
benefit pension plans throughout the country. The agency uses ADR for
workplace disputes, and finds that ADR increases workforce productivity
by allowing quicker resolution of disputes, improving continuing
relationships with staff, and developing staff talents.

Additionally, the agency uses ADR in areas of agency action, including
civil claims by and against the agency, as well as contract and
procurement matters.

*Securities and Exchange Commission*

The agency's mission is to: protect investors; maintain fair, orderly,
and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. The agency uses
various ADR processes in different areas, including enforcement and
workplace.

The agency has reported success and savings in using ADR early in the
litigation of enforcement disputes while accomplishing the agency's
regulatory functions more efficiently.

In traditional formal workplace dispute processes, there was a
significant lag time between conflict initiation and conflict resolution
which provided a fertile ground for disputes to fester in an
ever-widening circle of conflict and poor morale. By using a variety of
ADR techniques, especially anticipatory dispute resolution processes,
disputes and resulting problems with productivity and workplace morale
are addressed much more quickly and effectively. Early resolution of
those disputes saves staff time, improves morale, and increases
productivity.

*Small Business Administration*

The agency's mission is to maintain and strengthen the nation's economy
by aiding, counseling, assisting, and protecting the interests of small
businesses and by helping families and businesses recover from natural
disasters. The agency encourages case-by-case mediation with its
participating lenders for regulatory issues such as denial of liability
under the agency's loan guaranty agreement with lenders. Use of ADR
minimizes conflict and ill-will in regulatory disputes, thereby
retaining lenders as participants in the program.

The agency's National Ombudsman assists small businesses with unfair and
excessive federal regulatory enforcement, such as repetitive audits or
investigations, excessive fines or penalties, retaliation, or other
unfair regulatory enforcement action by a federal agency. The National
Ombudsman receives complaints and comments from small business concerns
and acts as a "trouble shooter" between them and federal agencies. Small
business comments are forwarded to federal agencies for a high-level
review to consider the fairness of their action.

ADR processes encourage early intervention and resolution of disputes to
promote workplace cohesiveness, thereby decreasing potential litigation
and other costly means of resolution. Unresolved conflict hinders
quality service and diminishes the effectiveness of any organization.
ADR is used to improve communication and to achieve fast, efficient
resolution of conflict, thereby allowing employees and managers to
provide the highest quality of service to the American people.

*Social Security Administration*

This agency administers the nation's vast network of social insurance
programs and uses ADR processes to provide a more efficient and
cost-effective means of resolving workplace disputes. When ADR is used
successfully early in the dispute process, it significantly decreases
the negative impact of those disputes on employee morale and improves
employee satisfaction, thereby enabling the agency to devote more of its
resources to tasks directly related to its mission.

*Tennessee Valley Authority*

The agency's mission is threefold: provide affordable and reliable
power; promote sustainable economic development; and act as steward of
the Valley's natural resources. It utilizes consensus building and
public participation as an integral and inherent part of numerous areas
of its decision making, for example, in environmental policy matters. It
utilizes ADR procedures to conclude disputes expeditiously,
economically, fairly, and sensibly.

*U.S. Agency for International Development*

The agency's economic and humanitarian assistance in more than 100
countries provides a better future for those with greatest needs. About
one-half of the agency's contracts and grant awards are negotiated,
issued, and administered by its headquarters office in Washington, D.C.,
and the remainder is handled by staff located at its missions worldwide.
The acquisition and assistance programs can be huge in scope and impact.
For example, since March 2003, the agency has been allocated over \$5
billion for relief and reconstruction in Iraq. Its awards to different
entities are the vehicles for bringing food, security, health,
infrastructure, and economic development to Iraq. In sub-Saharan Africa,
the agency's program for Sudan totaled more than \$850 million for FY
2005, and its contract awards are supporting reconstruction,
humanitarian aid, and food assistance in Southern Sudan. In Afghanistan,
the agency is helping build the sort of safe and stable society that
eliminates the breeding ground for terrorism.

The agency administers workplace ADR, primarily using mediation, in its
Office of Equal Opportunity Programs, sometimes using trained mediators
on collateral duty from the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service.

The Office of the Acquisition and Assistance Ombudsman ensures equitable
treatment of all parties participating in the agency's acquisition and
assistance programs. It facilitates the resolution of specific
complaints, and handles cross-cutting issues such as procurement
integrity, consistency in the application of acquisition policies,
customer service issues, customer-access outreach, business process
improvement initiatives, and acquisition reform.

The Office of the Acquisition and Assistance Ombudsman also facilitates
and responds to external complaints about ineffective or unfair
contracting. Through its interactions with both external and internal
stakeholders, the office can identify vulnerabilities and
inconsistencies in the procurement system and become an agent for
change.

*U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution of the Morris K.
Udall Foundation*

ADR, in the context of environmental disputes, is the agency's primary
mission. The agency was established to assist the federal government and
other parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public
lands conflicts. All of its institutional practices and policies are
designed to promote the appropriate and effective use of ADR.

The agency's mission and ADR services pertain to a broad spectrum of
applications from public policy dialogues and planning settings to
site-specific permitting and broad development of regulations, to civil
enforcement and administrative appeals, as well as the litigation
context. Across these areas, the agency works to assist federal agencies
and other parties in reaching agreement and solving problems in a
collaborative, non-adversarial manner, sometimes with the assistance of
contracted facilitators or mediators.

The agency uses a range of methods or processes, from preliminary
consultations to convening and conflict assessment, process design and
guidance, large group facilitation, assisted negotiation and mediation,
and dispute system design and evaluation. These methods or processes are
used to advance the work of the agency to prevent and resolve
environmental, natural resource, and public lands conflicts. The process
of mediation, for instance, provides stakeholders with an opportunity to
work out their differences and arrive at joint solutions with the help
of an impartial mediator. Consensus-based processes, such as negotiated
rule-making, community-based collaboration, and policy dialogues engage
representatives from all groups affected by proposed federal policies or
actions in participating in their formulation, revision, or
implementation.

*U.S. Office of Government Ethics*

The agency was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 and
was originally part of the Office of Personnel Management. The agency
exercises leadership throughout the Executive Branch for prevention of
conflicts of interest on the part of government employees. In
partnership with Executive Branch agencies and departments, the agency
fosters and promotes high ethical standards and strengthens the
public\'s confidence in the integrity of the federal government and its
workforce. The agency promotes the effective use of ADR, primarily
mediation and facilitation, in EEO proceedings. Additionally, the agency
solicits public review and comments in some core areas of ethics
regulations such as application of the criminal conflict-of-interest
laws and financial disclosure laws.

*U.S. Postal Service*

The Postal Service processes and delivers millions of pieces of mail to
people and businesses throughout America. The agency's foresight
resulted in development of one of the earliest and most successful
dispute resolution programs for workplace disputes called "REDRESS"^®^
(Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly). The
innovative program uses transformative mediation to resolve an enormous
variety of workplace disputes. The Postal Service reports that when
disputes are resolved quickly and fairly, employees tend to feel
positive about their work environment, and this positive feeling
translates into higher morale and greater productivity.

**III. [Advantages of ADR]{.underline}**

Use of ADR in the Executive Branch has been instrumental in producing
these advantageous results for the agencies:

-   promotion of a citizen-centered government;

-   management of the costs of government; and

-   support of the strategic management of government resources.

This section of the Report ("Advantages of ADR") is an overview of ADR's
beneficial impact on federal agencies, coupled with a few specific
examples from individual agency programs which illustrate the direct
correlation between use of ADR and achievement of particular results.
The agency responses are reported more fully in the following section of
the Report ("Areas of ADR Programs and Use") where they are examined in
the context of the major substantive areas where ADR is most used: civil
enforcement and regulatory; claims against the government; contracts and
procurement; and workplace.

A. [Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government]{.underline}

A good government is citizen-centered. It is available to, and effective
in meeting the needs of, the citizens it serves, and it provides
opportunity for stakeholder involvement in its decision making. In
short, a government which is citizen-centered is:

-   accessible to the citizens it serves;

-   responsive to the needs of the citizens it serves; and

-   inclusive of the interests impacted by government initiatives.

The information submitted by the agencies shows that ADR programs are
designed specifically to be citizen-centered. The programs give
considerable attention to electronic tools, which are employed to
improve the ease, expense, time, and comprehensibility of citizen
interactions with the federal government.

> [Accessible]{.underline}

The first component of good government is access: a government must be
accessible to the citizens it serves. The Executive Branch spans an
enormous range of functions. While some of its agencies necessarily have
more direct interaction with the public than others, agencies across the
board are promoting initiatives to enhance their accessibility. Almost
every agency has developed a public Web page, which provides a single
point of access for the public to learn about agency programs and
accomplishments.

Public access points have proven to be valuable agency assets for
informing a broad public about agency initiatives as well as an
opportunity for more substantive involvement in agency processes. For
example, the **Department of Justice/Civil Rights Division** has
developed an interactive, comprehensive, and easily navigated Web site
for persons with disabilities and business owners who have questions
about their rights and obligations under Americans with Disabilities
Act, and about the agency's mediation program for disability rights.

Inextricably linked with access is the ease of an interaction with a
government agency. A citizen-centered government must ensure that the
entry points provided for citizen involvement are quick, easy, and
effective. A prime example of this is the telephone hotline, instituted
by many agencies to facilitate public input and involvement.

The **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** Enforcement Hotline
effectively serves citizens through providing early neutral evaluation
to address disputes early, before complaints are formally filed with the
Commission. The Enforcement Hotline is accessed by a widely-published
and easy to use toll-free number. Callers to the hotline are immediately
connected with a trained staff member who attempts to resolve the
caller's concerns quickly and completely. The Enforcement Hotline has
proven to be an efficient method for resolving commercial disputes, as
well as a valuable resource for individual landowners involved in a
dispute with natural gas pipeline companies. The Enforcement Hotline
signals to the public that the agency is committed to responding to the
needs of its citizens, and that in turn has a direct impact on the
public's confidence in the ability of the government to resolve
disputes. Similarly, the **National Mediation Board** staffs a Public
Affairs Line to enable the public to submit inquiries and have their
questions or concerns addressed in a timely manner. Those who return the
calls are trained to educate the general public about the agency's
jurisdiction and provide information on resources for callers whose
questions or concerns fall outside of the scope of the Railway Labor
Act.

In addition to the telephone, agencies are facilitating e-mail
interaction with the American public. The **Federal Maritime
Commission** ADR Program utilizes e-mail correspondence to assist the
public in learning about the services available and to facilitate
quicker global communication to resolve problems. The **Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission** conducts many of its ADR activities via e-mail,
eliminating inconvenience and expense for respondents located throughout
the United States who otherwise would have to come to Washington D.C.

The development of resources on the Internet has greatly increased the
accessibility of the agencies to citizens with a computer and a need for
information. Numerous agencies join the **National Mediation Board** in
utilizing the Internet to disseminate general information about ADR. For
example, the **Environmental Protection Agency** Web site provides
information to the public about the use of ADR at the agency, how to
access its ADR services, and relevant law and policy. The agency's Small
Business Ombudsman provides Web access for assistance, contacts, useful
publications, and additional information on the office. The **Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission** Web site provides information about ADR
and how to contact its Enforcement Hotline or the Dispute Resolution
Service staff if an early neutral evaluator or mediator is needed. The
**Federal Trade Commission** relies on the Internet to provide consumers
with ADR information, including how to use ADR when in dispute with
companies over the purchase of goods and services. The **Department of
Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency** ADR office
provides detailed information on its Web site about all of the ADR
services offered to the public. The public can contact the ADR Director
via e-mail with questions about dispute resolution. The **Department of
the Interior** Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution and
several Bureaus, including the **U.S. Geological Survey** and the
**Bureau of Land Management**, provide ADR information on their Web
sites to give staff and citizens an understanding of the ADR processes
available. The **U.S Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution**
maintains an on-line searchable database of more than 250 pre-qualified
environmental mediators and facilitators, available to agencies and the
public who are looking for neutrals to handle their environmental
conflict. It also hosts a national conference on environmental conflict
resolution every three years for stakeholders, agencies, and
environmental conflict resolution professionals. The **Federal Mediation
& Conciliation Service** Web site offers access to a variety of tools
for obtaining agency dispute resolution services and training, including
look-up tools for locating and contacting the nearest agency office. The
agency's Web users can: find information on mediation and other ADR
services; register for agency meetings, training sessions and
conferences; print brochures on agency services and programs; and
electronically query the agency.

Some agencies are also utilizing e-tools to disseminate ADR
process-related information. For example, the **Consumer Product Safety
Commission** provides Web-based ADR services including notifications,
evaluations, and decision making communications. The **Nuclear
Regulatory Commission** provides, as part of the collaborative process
in the area of regulatory policy development and for public meetings on
site-specific issues, electronic access to relevant background on the
agency Web page and, for large documents, on a compact disc. The agency
also has provided for the electronic submission of comments on proposed
agency actions. The **Federal Emergency Management Agency** created a
Web site for the public (particularly the claimants) to understand the
Cerro Grande arbitration process, access information about all of the
arbitrators, make their arbitrator selections, and fill out their forms
on-line. User-friendly, plain English guidelines were posted on the Web
site to help users understand the arbitration program in a clear,
step-by-step manner. The Web site provided personal contact information
to the public, and the ADR Director was available to answer all manner
of questions regarding the arbitration program.

Agencies recognize that  as the **Department of Defense/Department of
the Air Force** has expressed  "ADR is still one activity that requires
direct human involvement at a fundamental level." The approach to
implementing electronic government must be dynamic, with agencies
continually assessing the Internet-based tools and tweaking them to more
effectively serve employees and citizenry. The **Department of Homeland
Security/Transportation Security Administration** Office of the
Ombudsman, for example, is currently tracking the types of calls it
receives from the traveling public and using that information to include
more customer-focused information on its Web site.

The **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** pioneered the use of
on-line technology in collective bargaining through the creation of
partnerships and labor management committees. The agency's powerful
network of mobile computers and customized software: helps groups
brainstorm, gather and organize information, and prioritize, evaluate
and build consensus faster than in traditional group meetings; increases
the efficiency of group decision making by reducing the number of days
required for face-to-face meetings in dispute resolution processes; and
enables skilled mediators to solve problems more effectively. The
innovative work of the **National Mediation Board** in the area of
on-line dispute resolution showcases the dynamic use of technology to
improve access between and among the government and disputants. The
Board uses videoconferencing and document sharing software that enables
parties to meet on-line when they are unable to meet in person. This
allows parties to draft tentative agreements, approve language, and
resolve arbitration disputes without spending time or money to travel to
a different location. The Board also works with other federal agencies
to introduce the use of technology into mediation. To date, the Board
has delivered over a dozen presentations to other agencies about how to
integrate technology into ADR and has worked with mediators from the
Sharing Neutrals program, described in detail later, to allow for
mediations to take place without travel.

Additionally, there is growing interest abroad in the use of ADR by
federal agencies throughout the United States, and many agencies are
responding with educational and training programs for foreign government
officials. The **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** has an
entire section, International and Dispute Resolution Services, devoted
to such training and has offered training in the prevention and
resolution of collective and individual labor disputes in 12 countries
in the past three years. The **Department of Justice** Office of Dispute
Resolution regularly meets with foreign government officials who have
expressed interest in learning more about the use of ADR within the
United States government and court system. Similarly, the **Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission** meets with foreign government officials
to discuss the use of ADR within nascent civil enforcement and
regulatory systems. In this regard, the **Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission** Dispute Resolution Service has conducted workshops in the
use of ADR for the Dominican Republic's Superintendencia de
Electricidad, the South Asia Regional Regulators, China's State
Electricity Regulatory Commission, the National Energy Regulator of
South Africa, and other organizations.

> [Responsive]{.underline}

The second component of good government is responsiveness: a government
must be responsive to the needs of the citizens it serves. Agencies are
achieving this through instituting programs and processes that increase
direct interaction between the agency and the public.

A prime example of this kind of service  adopted by a number of
agencies  is the ombuds program. An ombuds office provides an
opportunity for citizens to talk directly with an agency contact  the
ombuds  to raise issues of concern and to solicit assistance in
resolving their concern with the agency. The ombuds inhabits a special
place outside of the routine bureaucratic channels and has authority to
approach high levels of leadership directly for immediate action or
decision making. One byproduct of the ombuds' efforts is that they gain
valuable information from citizens on the impact of the agencies'
programs and outreach efforts. The ombuds, in turn, are able to provide
ongoing feedback to their respective agencies on ideas for enhancing or
modifying programs and initiatives to better serve their citizens. They
are particularly well-positioned to disseminate information while at the
same time serving as a central clearinghouse to gather information on
trends or weaknesses in an agency's relationship with the public. Ombuds
serve an equally important function as monitors of overall agency
effectiveness as well as agents of change where necessary. One
illustration is the **U.S. Agency for International Development** Office
of the Acquisition and Assistance Ombudsman which serves as a liaison
between the private sector and agency personnel. That office fosters
good relationships with external business partners by providing a
channel through which their voices can be heard in a neutral and
confidential environment. The corrective actions instituted by the
office contribute to the credibility of the agency's business processes
and epitomize the agency's commitment to the principle of accountability
for, and transparency in, its operations.

Another good example is the use of ADR techniques to respond to the
issue of youth violence. In response to a Congressional mandate, the
expertise of the **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** is being
used to address youth violence prevention and develop conflict
resolution programs in the nation's schools. The agency has partnered
with communities and organizations nationwide in programs to teach
children and young adults the skills they need for the peaceful
resolution of conflict. In furtherance of these goals, the agency is a
sponsor of "Creating Harmony in the Classroom," a special classroom
guide which is designed to help students learn how to manage
successfully the conflict in their lives and which is offered without
charge to educators on the agency's Web site. In a related project, the
agency is developing a "Cool School" computer game which is designed to
teach conflict resolution skills to elementary school students and which
will be offered to classrooms nationwide for instructional play.

> [Inclusive]{.underline}

The third component of good government is inclusiveness: a government
must be inclusive of all stakeholder interests which are impacted by
government initiatives. Agencies are soliciting input and collaborating
with citizens and other stakeholders in the process of generating agency
policy. The challenges of managing these multi-party processes, however,
are far outweighed by the benefits of inclusiveness: innovative and
durable processes and outcomes that are reflective of agency -- and
citizen -- needs.

A number of agencies have involved stakeholders in collaborative
processes to discuss and/or develop policy on various agency issues. For
example, the **Nuclear Regulatory Commission** has convened
collaborative processes -- involving a broad spectrum of external
interests -- to develop regulatory policy on generic issues such as
regulations, guidelines, and policy statements. The range of issues
addressed includes the recycling of radioactive materials, the revision
of agency rules and guidance on emergency planning, and the rules and
guidance governing the use of radioactive material. The processes,
facilitated in a roundtable format to encourage dialogue among affected
interests, assist the agency in identifying the views of the affected
interests, potential problems with implementing particular approaches,
the extent of agreement or disagreement on a particular approach, and
the development of creative approaches to the issues that might meet the
interests of all participants.

The **Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration** uses consensus building and public participation in all
of its environmental compliance issues. A case in point is the agency's
Cooperative Assessment Process which uses participation between industry
and government, in concert with the public, to facilitate the
restoration of natural resources and associated services that were
injured or lost by hazardous substance releases and oil spills. The
agency convened industry representatives, environmental groups, and
federal, state, and tribal trustees to develop the process, which is
expected to strengthen partnerships with industry and other
stakeholders, and provide meaningful opportunities for public
involvement.

The **Department of the Interior** is committed to increasing and
expanding its use of public participation processes as a means to avoid
conflicts and potential litigation by seeking early input from local
communities. The National Park Service has used these processes in
developing its resource management plans.

The **Department of Energy** created public participation projects to
avoid conflicts and potential litigation. Part of the agency's mission
is to ensure the environmental cleanup of the national nuclear weapons
complex, and its Office of Environmental Management developed a public
participation process for stakeholders directly affected by those
cleanup activities  local governments, tribal nations, environmental
and civic groups, labor organizations, universities, industry, and other
interested parties. Future misunderstandings are minimized, and chances
of costly legal actions decreased, through discussion and resolution of
key issues in an efficient and cooperative manner. The Office of Legacy
Management developed a public participation process to target
populations  small towns, rural areas, minority and low-income
communities  that are limited in their ability to participate in
environmental decisions because they lack access to information,
technology, expertise, and decision-makers.

B. [Managing Costs]{.underline}

Use of ADR has promoted responsible allocation of limited federal
resources. The initial applications of ADR to backlogged court systems
demonstrated distinct cost savings advantages over litigation. As ADR
has expanded beyond the court system, however, it has become apparent
that monetary savings are just one component of ADR's impact.

In addition to monetary savings, ADR has demonstrated its effectiveness
in controlling other costs of conflict. Because parties are the
architects of their own resolutions, the results achieved through ADR
are generally longer lasting than those imposed through more traditional
mechanisms, and "repeat conflict" can be avoided. The likelihood of
conflict re-emerging is further lessened because, since the process of
ADR focuses on communication, parties engaged in ADR generally avoid the
relationship pitfalls inherent to a win or lose "fight to the finish."
ADR also has been demonstrated to save time.

Savings in money and time translate into more responsible allocation of
limited resources: agencies are able to redirect resources from conflict
management to promotion of the agency mission. As the **Department of
Defense/Army Corps of Engineers** noted: "In an era of tightening
budgets, the transactional costs that are avoided through ADR translate
into additional funding that can be available for mission execution...
\[fostering\] an environment where costs are more manageable and
predictable."

In short, ADR contributes to the effective conservation of limited
federal resources in several interrelated ways:

-   controlling the costs of conflict;

-   producing quicker and more durable results; and

-   preserving resources for the mission of the agency.

[Controlling the Costs of Conflict]{.underline}

When ADR is employed, conflict costs are controlled, as evidenced by a
number of indicators. The first is money saved, and the reasons for this
are clear. The costs associated with litigation have skyrocketed in the
past several decades as the complexity of cases, and correspondingly,
discovery and motions practice, has increased. The fees and travel costs
for expert witnesses  critical to litigating a complex case  have
compounded already exorbitant legal expenses. The **Department of
Defense/Department of the Army** recognizes ADR's impact on such
expenses: "Litigation expenses are directly factored into the billing
rates set by our working capital fund activities, such as our depots and
Army Corps of Engineers civil works projects. Early resolution of all
disputes reduces these expenses."

There are many examples of ways in which ADR options result in more
cost-effective resolution of disputes. The **Department of
Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation** has found the cost of
mediation in workplace disputes to be less expensive than an
investigation or a Final Agency Decision. At the **Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission**, regulated utilities and their customers who
were participants in dispute resolution service processes reported
substantial savings through use of ADR. For example, in two cases, four
out of ten parties reported that participation in the dispute resolution
process resulted in a cost savings of approximately \$400,000. The
agency also reports significant savings in avoided personnel costs and
time spent preparing for, and participating in, litigation.

In addition to monetary savings, however, ADR results in savings of
productive labor that is dedicated to, or lost, as a result of conflict
within the workplace. ADR programs provide parties a unique opportunity
to address the human emotions that are intertwined with conflict, which
is essential to future relationships. All too often, what is filed in
the administrative forum does not reflect the true issue between the
parties. ADR is designed to reach those underlying issues that are a
drain on the agency's resources and can linger for a significant period
of time irrespective of any EEO complaint or workplace lawsuit that
might be filed and/or withdrawn. The result is better agreements that
reach the real issues in relationships, something that is demonstrated
through experience. The **Department of Defense/Department of the Navy**
statistics show that 70% of employees participating in mediation agreed
that mediation improved the relationships in the workplace. One manager
in an ADR process at the **Federal Emergency Management Agency** said
that the process helped the employee and manager repair their
relationship and helped the employee see that the manager was "not out
to get him."

[Producing Quicker and More Durable Results]{.underline}

The use of ADR results in quicker and more durable resolutions. Integral
to this is the flexibility inherent to ADR. ADR provides parties a
unique opportunity to craft a process and a solution which are tailored
to their own needs.

In litigation, the length of time between the onset of a dispute and the
final adjudication by an appellate court is measured in years, due to
court scheduling constraints. In ADR, on the other hand, mediation or
other ADR processes are convened at the will of the parties. The impact
of this timing factor is substantial. In FY 2004, 8,086 charges were
resolved through the **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission**
National Mediation Program. Sixty-nine percent of the over 11,700
mediations conducted resulted in a settlement with an average closure of
82 days. In FY 2004, at the **Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of
Investigation** mediations were held within an average of 47 days from
the request for mediation, which is considerably faster than the
traditional process, which took an average of 180 days. The timeliness
of ADR is also critical to managing the relations of those involved in a
dispute. The **Securities and Exchange Commission** noted that in its
experience, the significant lag time between conflict initiation and
conflict resolution exacerbated the conflict.

ADR also provides parties an opportunity to craft a resolution that
addresses their interests, thus enhancing the durability of the
resolution. For example, the **Department of Energy** Office of Dispute
Resolution worked with legal counsel and contracting officers to include
ADR provisions in the closure contract for Rocky Flats Environmental
Technology Site, a former nuclear weapons site in Colorado slated for
cleanup and closure. The contract provisions included a partnering
agreement which focused on problem solving. The agreement stipulated
that the parties use a standing neutral and work to resolve disputes
early and, if necessary, engage in ADR before proceeding on any formal
complaints. All potential problems were addressed quickly and the
closure mission was accomplished in advance of the targeted deadline. As
the **Department of Defense/Defense Contract Audit Agency** reports:
"The use of ADR, which puts more outcome control in the hands of the
parties in dispute, almost always leads to improved financial
performance."

[Preserving Resources for the Mission of the Agency]{.underline}

The use of ADR preserves resources for agencies. Rather than funneling
resources to manage ongoing disputes, agencies employing ADR are able to
apply resources to achieving the mission of the agency. This finding is
reflected throughout the information submitted by agencies for this
Report.

One managerial participant in the ADR process of the **Department of
Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency** reported that
the efforts of the agency's Dispute Resolution Specialist in resolving
conflict provided "a major boost to our mission effectiveness...." The
**Department of the Treasury/Financial Management Service** emphasized
that employees who feel heard and valued are employees who remain
dedicated to the agency for which they work.

The impact of effective conflict resolution in conserving resources is
widespread. The **Securities and Exchange Commission** reports a
significant agency cost even if an employee decides not to pursue
his/her complaint via an administrative route, acknowledging that what
an agency saves in dollars, it will lose in human capital for that
unresolved workplace conflict. A distracted worker, one whose morale is
low, typically also is one whose productivity is reduced. The
**Department of Homeland Security/ Transportation Security
Administration** points out that conflict reaches even beyond employees
to "bystanders"  co-workers, other layers of management, and
confidantes of the people involved. Conflict can impact even the view of
the agency by outside parties. Thus, by resolving workplace disputes
early and effectively, the ADR process impacts more than the individuals
in conflict -- it can have a systemic impact on workforce morale as a
whole.

C. [Managing Strategically]{.underline}

Strategic management of government resources  both monetary and human 
encompasses efforts to maximize agency resources in a manner that
promotes innovation, improvement, and effectiveness.

A prime example of strategic management is the development of the
"Shared Neutrals Program" to help resolve workplace disputes. In order
to reduce the cost of using ADR to resolve workplace disputes, federal
agencies in different regions "share" a pool of federal employees who
have been trained as, and are experienced, neutrals. For example, an
employee of one agency may act as a mediator for a dispute in a second
agency and the second agency, in turn, would provide a
similarly-qualified employee to mediate a dispute in the first agency.
Shared neutral programs are coordinated through local Federal Executive
Boards in a number of regions of the country, for example, Chicago,
Dallas-Ft. Worth, Greater Los Angeles, Oregon, Washington State, and
Washington, D.C/Baltimore. In the Washington, D.C./Baltimore region
(where the program is known as "Sharing Neutrals"), it is the
**Department of Health and Human Services** which oversees the
administration of the program for sharing of low-cost, high-quality
neutrals among over 40 different federal agencies. Agency costs for
workplace mediations would be significant if they had to pay for outside
private neutrals charging market rates. Because the mediators are
federal employees performing collateral duty, they are available to
participating agencies at no cost except reimbursement of travel
expenses.

ADR contributes to the strategic management of government resources,
both monetary and human, by:

-   maximizing resources;

-   promoting innovation; and

-   fostering continuous improvement and expansion.

> [Maximizing Resources]{.underline}

Efforts to maximize agency resources reflect the understanding that not
all cases are appropriate for ADR. The issues at stake in some cases
demand litigation or a more formal administrative process. In order to
maximize agency resources, agencies must assess and identify cases which
are appropriate for ADR and those cases which require a more formal
disposition, thus ensuring strategic expenditure of effort. The
**Federal Election Commission** noted the benefits of early
identification: when matters are successfully resolved through ADR,
resources are conserved and can be redirected to other, more complex and
compelling violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Efforts to maximize agency resources also reflect the understanding that
the most valuable resource within the federal government is its human
capital. Maximizing agency resources thus encompasses actions to
increase the productivity of the federal workforce through the
development of, education in, and management over, ADR initiatives. For
despite this expansion of ADR use and services, lack of understanding of
how ADR can -- and should -- be used has been a persistent roadblock to
the continued advancement of ADR. The Dispute Resolution Service at the
**Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** is tackling this roadblock
through delivering educational presentations and workshops to internal
and external entities, advertising ADR achievements through
presentations and an ADR Newsletter, and promoting the use of neutrals
in ADR processes such as mediation and arbitration. The Dispute
Resolution Service also is working with other national, state, and
international regulatory agencies to advance the use of ADR, as shown by
the following examples. The Director of the Dispute Resolution Service
participated in the training of mediation and early neutral evaluation
which was presented to the administrative law judges at the California
Public Utilities Commission. The Dispute Resolution Service assisted the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska in developing an ADR program for its
regulatory activities, including the provision of training in
facilitation to the staff of Surface Transportation and the provision of
an annual ADR workshop to state and federal regulators at the Institute
of Public Utilities Annual Regulatory Program. The Dispute Resolution
Service also worked with Canada's National Energy Board on joint
projects to advance the use of ADR. In addition, the office's
representatives train employees in the development of skills to
recognize ADR opportunities and to more effectively work with others --
internally and externally -- to achieve resolution. Finally, the office
provides the employees with the procedural tools to look beyond their
positions in order to achieve and encourage creative solutions to their
disputes.

> [Promoting Innovation]{.underline}

The institutionalization of ADR is, in many ways, an innovative approach
to maximizing the resources of the federal government. The nature of ADR
capitalizes on this innovation by providing the opportunity for parties
to a dispute to control the terms of their resolution. The resulting
resolutions are varied, reflecting the needs and priorities of the
parties to the dispute. The results are also surprisingly creative,
reflecting options and ideas that may never have been explored through a
more formal process. The **Federal Maritime Commission** reports, for
example, that its ADR processes provide parties to shipping transaction
disputes the flexibility to draft innovative solutions that reflect
their assessment of the market as well as their respective
responsibilities, while avoiding an agency-mandated outcome.

Several agencies have programs that train employees to avoid and resolve
disputes as well as provide mediation and facilitation services. For
example, the Early Dispute Resolution Center in the **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** serves as a resource
within the agency to train others in resolving a broad range of
disputes. The Center focuses on getting involved early in any dispute,
before "collateral" damage is inflicted on others in the workplace. The
Center, freestanding from the agency's EEO office, facilitates
conversations and conducts mediations in both horizontal (peer-to-peer)
conflict and vertical (worker-to-supervisor) conflict. On occasion, the
Center has been called in to work with an entire section of employees,
paralyzed by a rift which began as a simple dispute between coworkers.
The Center has focused on ways to measure success and gather data in
order to study the best practices the office is developing.

> [Promoting Continuous Improvement and Expansion]{.underline}

To enhance the benefits of ADR in preserving resources to realize an
agency's mission  rather than manage conflict  efforts are underway to
improve responsiveness and effectiveness of ADR programs through
systematic analysis and evaluation. For example, the **Department of the
Interior/Bureau of Land Management** measures the cost-effectiveness of
its ADR-based stakeholder collaboratives and makes strategic
determinations of "where to spend funds so that they are most
efficiently utilized." They report that the ADR/Conflict Prevention
Program in the West is resulting in improved financial performance
through reduced or eliminated litigation, appeals, and protests. The
result is a more responsive decision making process and,
correspondingly, better decisions.

Agencies throughout the federal government strategically manage through
identifying opportunities to continuously improve and expand upon ADR
opportunities and successes. For example, at the **Environmental
Protection Agency**, ADR clients can choose from a variety of sources
for ADR services that will meet the needs of the particular case,
including the agency's own Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center.
The **U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution,** through
interagency agreements with 12 federal departments and agencies, also
provides environmental dispute resolution and collaborative problem
solving services to those engaged in environmental and natural resources
conflicts.

The **U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution** interagency
agreement also makes it easy for other federal agencies and non-federal
parties to contribute to shared ADR projects. The availability of
multiple options reassures parties that there is a process to suit the
needs of their particular case, and ultimately translates into increased
and more effective ADR use. The agency evaluates each of its
environmental conflict resolution cases and provides the results to its
program managers, mediators, and parties. Through this evaluation
program, the agency is able to give direct feedback on environmental
conflict resolution performance and practice that can lead to future
project and program improvements.

Another excellent example of an expanding ADR program is the Civil
Rights Disability Mediation Program in the **Department of Justice**
Civil Rights Division. The program began with a strong impetus in the
relevant statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act, enacted in 1990.
The law specifically encouraged the use of ADR in place of formal
adjudication. In 1993, under a federal grant, professional mediators
were trained in both the legal requirements of the statute and in
mediating disability rights-based disputes. Since that time, thousands
of mediations have garnered voluntary agreements between business owners
(such as hotels or restaurants), state and local governments, and
individuals with disabilities who seek access to those businesses or
services. The extraordinarily high resolution rate of these cases,
averaging around 78% since the inception of the program, is bolstered by
education provided to the parties before the mediation even begins and
the tailored training the mediators bring to the process. The
information relating to the rights and obligations of the parties is
initially accessed through a comprehensive and extremely popular Web
site, which recorded a high for FY 2006 of almost fifty million hits.
The mediations are conducted throughout the United States and, in
several instances which involved hearing-impaired complainants, were
conducted entirely on-line. The resulting agreements are tailored to
suit the parties' needs. Oftentimes, the newly-educated business owner,
for example, will address a business organization about the rights of
individuals with disabilities, or the individual will speak out
regarding the organization's responsive correction to inadequate access
for those with disabilities. No court in the land could compel these
sorts of successful remedies in response to a lawsuit and resulting
judgment.

**IV. [Areas of ADR Programs and Use]{.underline}**

This section of the Report describes the specific contributions that ADR
has made to the goals of good government. The discussion uses as a
framework the four major substantive areas of federal ADR applications:

-   civil enforcement and regulatory;

-   claims against the government;

-   contracts and procurement; and

-   workplace.

For the first three substantive areas where ADR is in common use --
civil enforcement and regulatory, claims against the government, and
contracts and procurement -- the discussion demonstrates, with specific
agency examples, how ADR programs contribute to:

-   promotion of a citizen-centered government by facilitating
    accessibility, responsiveness, and inclusiveness;

-   management of costs by giving better control over resources expended
    and achieving better outcomes; and

-   strategic management of the government's fiscal and human capital.

For the fourth substantive area where ADR is in common use -- workplace
-- the discussion demonstrates, again with specific agency examples, how
the use of ADR:

-   has a successful track record in resolving workplace disputes;

-   is cost-effective;

-   saves agency funds;

-   saves agency time;

-   is essential to strategic management of the workplace;

-   creates collateral benefits for the agency; and

-   makes workplace dispute resolution techniques available to all
    through e-government.

A. [Civil Enforcement and Regulatory]{.underline}

[Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government]{.underline}

In civil enforcement and regulatory disputes, unassisted negotiations
and litigation have focused traditionally on which party has the
stronger position. This is due, in part, to agency statutory and
regulatory obligations. Today, many agencies have accepted the notion
that their statutory obligations can be met through the use of ADR.
Leaders of these agencies have accepted the use of ADR as a supplemental
tool that enables them to avoid protracted litigation when unassisted
negotiations fail. Indeed, the public interest is often better achieved
when citizens, non-governmental organizations, corporations, state and
federal agencies, tribal nations, and other entities participate
directly in an ADR process that affords them the opportunity to develop
a result that meets the interests of all concerned. Stakeholders
(citizens and their government) who work toward a shared, positive
outcome often achieve better results than they would have received in
court and can create long-term productive working relationships.

Below are summaries of agency ADR programs and success stories in the
civil enforcement and regulatory community that demonstrate how ADR
promotes a citizen-centered government.

A number of agencies join the **Nuclear Regulatory Commission,**
discussed above, in convening stakeholder working groups to assist the
agencies in understanding different perspectives and/or developing
policy on specific issues. The **Department of the Interior** Bureaus,
such as the **Bureau of Land Management**, the **National Park
Service**, and the **Bureau of Reclamation**, strongly support and
foster the use of ADR in field locations throughout the West and
encourage the involvement of a broad array of stakeholder interests in
decisions involving natural resource issues. Issues addressed include:
development of resource management plans; energy and mineral
development; water management; resource conservation; environmental
protection; and many other issues that often cross organizational and
jurisdictional boundaries and require a cooperative approach to address
conflicts and resolve disputes over competing interests. Stakeholders
commonly include representatives of: federal, tribal, state, and local
governments; local communities; local, regional, and national interest
groups; and the general public.

The **Environmental Protection Agency** has convened the Brownfields
Mine-Scarred Lands Initiative, designed to be a multi-level effort to
engage a broad range of federal partners and local community members, to
address mine-scarred lands across the country. For example, a neutral
third party was engaged to assess the needs of six local demonstration
projects, including the provision of assistance from federal partners.
Each community requested further ADR services to facilitate and focus
re-use visions and to address more complicated land transfer or
liability issues through mediation.

The **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** encourages negotiated
settlement and assists parties in achieving settlement in pre-filing
collaborative processes. The collaborative processes, often involving
stakeholder representatives of licensees, Indian tribes, environmental
organizations, local citizens, commercial enterprises, and state and
federal agencies, allow license applicants and parties to take part in
fashioning terms and conditions for a license and, in the process,
foster a foundation of trust among the parties. Similarly, the
**Department of Energy** Office of Environmental Management has found
that ADR is a valuable way to involve stakeholders early and often in
decision making regarding the nuclear weapons complex cleanup program.
Agencies report an important by-product of increased citizen
participation through ADR processes: durable agreements that are
endorsed by impacted parties.

The **Commerce Department/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration,** acting as a trustee on behalf of the public, works
cooperatively with responsible parties at oil spills and hazardous waste
sites to restore coastal and marine resources. The agency also regularly
convenes industry, government, nongovernmental organizations, and other
stakeholder groups to identify methods for improving assessments and
cleanups, reducing costs, and restoring resources faster and more
effectively. It has found that the use of these innovative partnerships
is instrumental in reversing the effects of coastal contamination and
ensuring that the environment is protected and restored.

A number of agencies have established ombuds offices to improve
relationships between the government and its stakeholders. For example,
the **Environmental Protection Agency** Regional Public Liaison Manager
(formerly Ombudsman) elicits feedback and concerns from citizen
complainants through participation in public hearings representing the
agency or meetings with complainants in their homes (considered a less
intimidating setting for complainants). Established in 1998 by statute,
the Office of Federal Student Aid Ombudsman within the **Department of
Education** helps to resolve disputes between student loan borrowers and
their private lender, loan guaranty agency or servicing agency, or firm
collecting on their loan. The Ombudsman also provides senior leadership
at the Department with informal feedback about federal student aid
programs, enabling the Department to improve the programs and processes
for their stakeholders. The **Small Business Administration** National
Ombudsman assists small businesses with unfair and excessive federal
regulatory enforcement, such as repetitive audits or investigations,
excessive fines or penalties, retaliation, or other unfair regulatory
enforcement action by a federal agency. The Ombudsman receives
complaints and comments from small business concerns and acts as a
"trouble shooter" between them and federal agencies. Small business
comments are forwarded to federal agencies for a high level review and
federal agencies are requested to consider the fairness of their action.

Many agencies are employing a range of citizen-centered settlement
options. For example, both the **Environmental Protection Agency** and
the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** make use of their
Administrative Law Judges. At the **Environmental Protection Agency**,
ADR in the Office of Administrative Law Judges provides an opportunity
for respondents (persons, businesses, and others alleged to have
violated environmental laws) to informally and confidentially speak to
and present their arguments and defenses to an Administrative Law Judge.
Through this process, the judge/mediator can work with respondents who
are not represented by counsel, helping them to understand the strengths
and weaknesses of their positions and arguments.

At the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission**, the use of settlement
judges fosters settlements among parties in complex litigation,
resulting in amicable resolution of cases and preserving long-term
business relationships between business counterparts. Because the Chief
Administrative Law Judge allows parties to recommend the settlement
judge of their choice, the parties feel that they have a role in the
process and a say in who will assist them in resolving their
differences. The agency also provides a range of mediation and other
dispute resolution options to its stakeholders through its Dispute
Resolution Service which enables businesses to work with its customers
to craft business solutions to their problems. The dispute resolution
staff also assists licensees, Indian tribes, environmental
organizations, local citizens, commercial enterprises, and state and
federal agencies in resolving environmental disputes. To complement
these efforts, the office has become increasingly involved in outreach
activities, including: presentations about ADR; workshops and training
involving the use of ADR techniques; coaching for entities who want to
resolve disputes without the use of a third party neutral;
collaborations with federal and state entities to promote greater use of
ADR; consultations with other entities about ADR use; facilitations; and
publications involving ADR at the agency or generally.

Similarly, the **Federal Maritime Commission** Office of Consumer
Affairs and Dispute Resolution Services provides services to assist
parties in resolving disputes and shipping problems related to United
States ocean shipping commerce and international ocean cargo shipments.
These services are designed to be flexible and responsive to the needs
of its citizens. Neutrals are provided to assist parties in resolving a
dispute without the expense and delays inherent in litigation. The
efforts help to facilitate the flow of United States ocean commerce.

The **Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service Appeals** has
a comprehensive menu of dispute resolution options to assist citizens in
resolving tax controversies, without litigation, on a basis that is fair
and impartial to both the government and the taxpayer, and in a manner
that will enhance voluntary compliance and public confidence in the
integrity and efficiency of the service.

-   Under *early referral*, taxpayers with returns under examination may
    request early referral of one or more developed, disputed issues
    from Compliance or Collection to Appeals, while the other issues
    continue to be developed in Compliance.

-   Under *fast track mediation*, Small Business/Self Employed taxpayers
    pursue resolution of disputes resulting from examinations (audits),
    offers in compromise, trust fund recovery penalties, and other
    collection actions. An Appeals or settlement officer who has been
    trained in mediation helps the taxpayer and IRS discuss the issues
    involved in the disagreement, and possible ways to resolve it with a
    goal of reaching a jointly agreeable solution, consistent with
    relevant law, within forty days.

-   Under *fast track settlement*, Large and Midsize Business taxpayers
    expeditiously resolve disputes during an examination while their
    case is still in the compliance stage. Fast track settlement is also
    available for Small Business/Self Employed and other **Internal
    Revenue Service** Operating Division taxpayers on a case-by-case
    basis.

-   Under *post-appeals mediation*, an extension of the Appeals process,
    a mediator from Appeals  or a non-IRS mediator  assists parties in
    resolving a tax dispute after good faith negotiations in Appeals
    have been unsuccessful. Finally, there is *arbitration*  upon
    request by taxpayers  on factual issues that are already in the
    Appeals administrative process. The arbitration procedure excludes
    Collection cases and Compliance and Appeals Coordinated Issues. If
    settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the taxpayer and Appeals
    may jointly request binding arbitration.

The **Federal Election Commission** is employing a variation on
settlement negotiations -- a bilateral process in which respondents
engage in a dialogue with a representative of the ADR office who
explains the nature and cause of the Federal Election Campaign Act
violation. That dialogue provides respondents an opportunity to directly
explain their committee's or organization's actions and their
perspective on the nature of the violation. The ensuing negotiations
between the parties result in a settlement that is mutually acceptable
to the parties and achieves the agency's goal of promoting compliance
with the relevant statutes.

The **Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation** also provides dispute
resolution options. For example, recently, the agency's Community
Affairs staff facilitated discussions between community leaders and bank
owners regarding the community's protest against a bank acquisition. The
facilitated meetings helped to defuse the tension and anxiety in the
community. Bank and community leaders continue to meet quarterly to
discuss community reinvestment concerns, including gentrification and
foreclosure rates related to predatory lending.

The **Small Business Administration** encourages mediation with
participating lenders when it has regulatory issues with the lenders,
such as denial of liability under the agency's loan guaranty agreement
with the lender. For example, the **Small Business Administration**
resolved a major dispute with an Arkansas lender over a guaranteed loan
which that agency made.

> [Managing Costs]{.underline}

In the civil enforcement and regulatory arena, ADR programs also are
enabling better control over resources expended, as well as better
outcomes.

In an affirmative case handled by the **Department of Justice** under
the Food and Drug Act involving blood supply, a combination of mediation
and negotiation resulted in a revised consent decree saving three years
of litigation time. In an affirmative consumer litigation case involving
hazardous substances, ADR resulted in a savings of four months of
litigation time and \$400,000 in litigation expenses.

ADR processes allow for more effective management and allocation of
monetary resources. The **Department of Education** reports that the
Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative provides for a
more efficient and cost-effective use of Department resources, because
it saves litigation time and other costs associated with audit
resolution. The **Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency
Management Agency** emphasizes that for every lawsuit avoided, every
grievance not filed, and every complaint withdrawn because of the
services of the ADR office, the agency saves untold thousands of
dollars. ADR thus allows the agency to better manage its resources, as
opposed to leaving the resolution of disputes to a judge, jury, or other
entity outside the agency. The **Department of the Treasury/Internal
Revenue Service Appeals o**ffice notes that its ADR programs allow
Appeals officers to resolve disputes early in the administrative process
rather than waiting for the case to come to Appeals. This optimizes
their resources, as the amount of time to resolve the dispute with the
agency is dramatically reduced. Similarly, the use of settlement judges
results in the conservation of resources at the **Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission**. With 87% of all cases set for hearing referred
to settlement judges at the outset, the number of cases left for
litigation is drastically reduced. During FY 2003 and FY 2004, the
Office of Administrative Law Judges certified 168 settlements, while
issuing only 45 initial decisions on appeals. This translates directly
into cost savings. Because the resources required for conducting
settlement negotiations are not nearly as great as those required for
litigation, much more work can be accomplished with significantly fewer
resources. The **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** also reports
faster processing and savings on hydroelectric proceedings where
settlement agreements are reached during the pre-filing period. The
**Nuclear Regulatory Commission** reports that the enforcement and
investigative resources saved by a 2004 pilot ADR program in enforcement
freed those resources for use in other areas.

The timing of ADR responses is instrumental in controlling costs and
securing a quick result. Civil enforcement and regulatory agencies aim
for early, frequent, and informal dispute resolution at the lowest
possible management level and through informal means. For example, the
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order includes a dispute resolution process to
facilitate early and rapid resolution of disagreements between the state
of Idaho, the **Environmental Protection Agency**, and the **Department
of Energy** regarding cleanup activities pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The dispute
resolution process has been used successfully in a conflict over a draft
waste management plan, providing parties a cost-efficient and effective
resolution in a timely manner. The **Department of Transportation,
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation,** and the **Federal Maritime
Commission** likewise report that cases that are successfully mediated
generally cost less and resolve faster than those in more formal
government forums, resulting in better, more effective use of resources.

Even though pursuant to statute, the **Securities and Exchange
Commission** is unable to agree to a settlement at the mediation table
because its Commissioners must review and authorize settlement of all
enforcement matters, the agency has realized these types of positive
outcomes as the result of mediation in enforcement matters:

-   Mediation resulted in an agreement to recommend settlement that was
    later accepted by the Commission.

-   Mediation focused the parties and issues so they were able to reach
    settlement shortly after the mediation concluded.

-   Mediation streamlined the discovery process.

-   Mediation enabled the agency's attorneys to assess the defendant's
    demeanor and how the defendant would appear at trial.

-   The mediator alerted the agency to a weakness in its case that had
    not been sufficiently considered.

Additionally, because of the nature of ADR in focusing on improved
communication and party control over outcome, resolutions emerging from
ADR processes generally are more durable and informative. For example,
the **Department of Education** noted that the use of dispute resolution
services has helped to resolve long-standing audits in a way that both
promotes collaboration among participants in the audit resolution
process and encourages a resolution of audit issues that is responsive
and effective, thus preventing recurrence of the audit finding. This
approach improves the administration of federal education funding by
state and local educational agencies.

The **U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution** leadership
is developing and implementing a multi-agency performance evaluation
system on environmental conflict resolution which will directly
contribute to assuring long-term improvements in performance within the
federal government. The environmental conflict resolution processes
themselves are designed to improve environmental decision making by
engaging interested and affected parties in deliberating constructively
with shared, comprehensive information about potential impacts and
relative benefits of a given governmental decision (see the table
below). The agency's performance evaluation initiative will build upon
and enhance these processes.

**Capturing the Value of Environmental Conflict Resolution**

+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   | > Savings Realized  |                     |                     |
|   | > and Benefits      |                     |                     |
|   | > Accrued           |                     |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   | > *Tangible         |                     |                     |
|   | > \-\-\-\-\-\-\     |                     |                     |
|   | -\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\- |                     |                     |
|   | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\ |                     |                     |
|   | -\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\- |                     |                     |
|   | \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- |                     |                     |
|   | > Less Tangible*    |                     |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| # | ## Saved on direct  | > Avoided inflaming | > Avoided or        |
| # | process costs (e.g. | > relations and     | > reduced negative  |
|   | , the process costs | > escalating the    | > on-the-ground     |
| L |  to mediate were le | > conflict with     | > impacts (e.g.,    |
| o | ss than litigation) | > litigation or     | > environmental,    |
| n |                     | > unattended        | > social, economic) |
| g |                     | > conflict          |                     |
| e |                     |                     |                     |
| r |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| t |                     |                     |                     |
| e |                     |                     |                     |
| r |                     |                     |                     |
| m |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| \ |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| S |                     |                     |                     |
| h |                     |                     |                     |
| o |                     |                     |                     |
| r |                     |                     |                     |
| t |                     |                     |                     |
| - |                     |                     |                     |
| t |                     |                     |                     |
| e |                     |                     |                     |
| r |                     |                     |                     |
| m |                     |                     |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   |                     |                     |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   | > Likely reduced or | Better outcomes     | > Improved          |
|   | > avoided the       | were crafted (e.g., | > stakeholder       |
|   | > *direct* *cost of | less costly         | > commitment to the |
|   | > appeals* (e.g.,   | settlements, timely | > agreement and its |
|   | > the solution is   | project             | > implementation    |
|   | > less likely to be | progression,        |                     |
|   | > contested)        | innovative          |                     |
|   |                     | solutions, reduced  |                     |
|   |                     | monitoring)         |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   |                     |                     |                     |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|   | Created             | > Case used as a    | > Created the       |
|   | efficiencies that   | > prototype for     | > potential for     |
|   | reduce future       | > resolving other   | > stakeholders to   |
|   | *indirect process   | > similar problems  | > work together     |
|   | costs* (e.g., field | > or conflicts      | > productively on   |
|   | staff time dealing  |                     | > related issues in |
|   | with conflict)      |                     | > the future        |
+---+---------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

At the **Environmental Protection Agency,** the Conflict Prevention and
Resolution Center is developing a process to measure the environmental,
economic, and social impacts of collaborative problem-solving and ADR
and compare those to traditional processes. The agency plans to use this
process to assess the types of environmental decision making contexts
that are most amenable to the use of ADR, thus enabling the agency and
its stakeholders to invest resources in appropriate decision making
processes. Similarly, the **Department of the Interior** is forming a
team to analyze the costs of litigation and alternatives to litigation.
This team also will look at the possibility of measuring the results of
ADR processes and linking these results to agency mission and
performance goals under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993. The **Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land Management** has
introduced performance standards into the roles of the State ADR
Advisor, through the Bureau's budget process, in order to effectively
accomplish budget and performance integration to ensure appropriate
results for the resources expended. These efforts will provide the hard
numbers to support ADR expansion and assist in better allocation of ADR
resources into areas where they will be most beneficial.

[Managing Strategically]{.underline}

In the civil enforcement and regulatory arena, agencies are also
building internal capacity to maximize the benefits of ADR. For example,
the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** has developed training on
ADR procedures and negotiation, which it offers to its parties and
staff. While the overarching goal of the training is to enhance general
understanding of ADR by all employees, the more targeted goal is to
assist staff in taking a more proactive role in working with parties in
the collaborative pre-filing process. The agency has found that
pre-filing processes contribute to achieving settlements before any
significant amount of time is spent in developing the formal application
documents. The Conflict Resolution Training Program enhances the
potential for agreement through this process -- and others -- by
equipping staff with the tools to better understand the conflict,
barriers to resolution, and appropriate resolution techniques. More
importantly, the Program equips staff to further resolution efforts
through the application of an interest-based approach to the dispute.

The efforts of the **Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service
Appeals** to institutionalize ADR include an incentive-based training
program for mediators. To date, 400 Appeals officers have been trained
as mediators. Mediation is a collateral duty for Grade 14/13/12 Appeals
officers and it enhances their competitiveness for promotions.

The **Nuclear Regulatory Commission** efforts to institutionalize ADR
include the establishment of a 2004 pilot program on the use of ADR in
the enforcement arena. The program addresses disputes in two areas:
between a licensee and the agency; and between a licensee and its
employee when the employee has alleged to the agency that the licensee
has taken retaliatory action against the employee for raising a safety
concern. To ensure a source of skilled, unbiased neutrals, the agency
has engaged the Institute of Conflict Resolution at Cornell University
to select and oversee a roster of experienced mediators and to
administer the early ADR program.

Similarly, the **Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation** has developed
capacity through its Office of the Ombudsman, which provides a range of
dispute resolution services to staff and external parties. Recently, the
agency's Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection became involved
in a difficult situation with bank representatives as a result of a bank
examination dispute. The bank had written two letters to its state
senator, and was not satisfied with the agency's response to those
letters. The Division offered to meet with bank representatives at the
bank site to discuss the dispute and requested that the agency's Office
of the Ombudsman facilitate this meeting. Through the facilitated
meeting, the Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection and the
bank were able to resolve the issues at hand and identify a way to
potentially eliminate future roadblocks and improve the examination
process. The manner in which the dispute was handled resulted in a
better relationship between the bank and the agency as a whole. Both
sides stated that they thought the meeting was productive, and applauded
each other for their efforts in reaching a mutually agreeable solution.
Resolving the dispute in this manner resulted in time and cost savings
for both the agency and the bank. Moreover, using the internal expertise
of the Office of the Ombudsman to facilitate the resolution was a
cost-effective and efficient use of government resources.

The **Department of Transportation** Center for Alternative Dispute
Resolution offers ADR-related informational and skills-based workshops.
The agency offers a variety of courses, instructors and coaches to
employees and provides them with opportunities to learn in a diverse
environment and to recognize the issues that they face in a variety of
organizational settings.

Efforts to exchange resources and experiences have also been widely
supported in the civil enforcement and regulatory arena. For example,
the **Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense**, and **Interior**
and the **Environmental Protection Agency** are working in concert to
implement the President's Executive Order 13352, dated August 30, 2004,
on advancing Cooperative Conservation and the related guidance
memorandum from the President's Council on Environmental Quality/Office
of Personnel Management, dated November 28, 2005, to promote the hiring,
training, and rewarding of federal employees who implement the
principles of Cooperative Conservation. Through their Chief Human
Capital Officers, all five agencies have agreed to support a
competency-based approach to building collaboration and partnering
skills to accomplish conservation objectives consistent with their
agency missions and statutes. As one example of this, the **Department
of the Interior** Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution Office is
participating in the development of competencies and performance
measures required for effective collaboration and conflict management in
the context of natural resources management.

Civil enforcement and regulatory agencies are also working to increase
the capacity and understanding of external entities. The **Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission**, for example, has worked with the **U.S.
Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution**, the American Bar
Association, the Energy Bar Association, and energy-related trade
associations, to raise awareness about ADR and share the Commission's
experience with ADR as a process that provides for effective public
participation in government decision making, encourages respect for
affected parties, and averts future complaints.

Federal agencies are working to enhance the resources available for
civil enforcement and regulatory ADR processes. Due in large part to the
successes achieved through the use of ADR by both the private and public
sectors, and efforts by government representatives to work with outside
entities in the development of rosters, there has been an increase in
the use of private, third party neutrals. The **Department of
Agriculture** reports that some of its sub-agencies are "using contract
resources to provide cost-effective, cutting edge resources." As the use
of private third party neutrals in enforcement and regulatory settings
continues, federal agencies are working to identify those ADR
professionals with enforcement and regulatory experience and expertise.
For example, the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** Dispute
Resolution Service specialists are working with regulated utilities and
conflict resolution entities to help develop rosters of energy
specialists to serve as third party neutrals. Information submitted by
agencies for this Report have mentioned these sources which provide
choices in the environmental and natural resources arena:

-   The National Roster for Environmental Conflict Resolution
    Practitioners, maintained by the **U.S. Institute for Environmental
    Conflict Resolution** (and co-funded by **Department of the
    Interior, Environmental Protection Agency**, and the **Department of
    Transportation/Federal Highway Administration)**, is a public
    on-line searchable database of over 250 pre-qualified neutrals that
    is used internally by the Institute, by other federal agencies, and
    by other public and private sector parties.

-   The **Environmental Protection Agency** has a competitively-awarded
    prime contract for accessing and sub-contracting with pre-qualified
    professional neutrals.

These sources (working with the project managers and consistent with the
central ADR principle of party self-determination) enhance the quality,
responsiveness, and effectiveness of ADR services, and increase the
government's efficiency in selecting practitioners with the right skills
for a given conflict.

The by-product of all of these efforts is considerable. As the **Federal
Maritime Commission** notes, by "encouraging involvement of commercial
parties in finding solutions, many more matters can be resolved with
fewer resources." The **Department of the Interior/Bureau of Land
Management** reports that ADR-based stakeholder collaborations are
resulting in unique and innovative interest-based solutions to complex,
multi-party issues involving major resources and land uses, thus
allowing greater efficiency and gains for citizens in the communities.
The **Nuclear Regulatory Commission** reports that through its
collaborative processes, stakeholders and agency representatives are
identifying approaches that are better, and more acceptable, than what
the agency might develop without the benefit of the external input. The
use of best practices by the agency's licensees will give the agency
more confidence that the community participation performance requirement
in the decommissioning regulations has been met. This will result in
cost-savings for both the licensee and the agency.

The ADR process also equips agencies with information to continuously
improve and expand ADR options so they are responsive to the evolving
needs of their users. For example, the Office of the Acquisition and
Assistance Ombudsman at the **U.S. Agency for International
Development** reports that its efforts enable it to serve as a check and
balance for the agency by identifying types and trends of business
practice uses. The **Federal Election Commission** reports that the ADR
program itself is an innovative approach to addressing campaign law
violations, bringing the efficiency of dispute resolution processes to
the agency's task of enforcing federal election laws. The **Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation** Division of Supervision and Consumer
Protection reports on the results of a series of informal meetings with
bankers who had experienced the new consumer compliance examination
approach launched in 2003. The meetings, which took place in each of the
agency's six regions, were designed to supplement feedback gathered
through anonymous post-examination surveys. The Division knew from the
surveys that bankers found certain aspects of the examination process to
be particularly burdensome. Through facilitated discussions at the
meetings, the Division was able to gain insight into how to refine the
examination process to minimize the burden on banks while still ensuring
a thorough, high-quality examination. Building on this effort, the
**Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation** Office of the Ombudsman has
established an outreach program in which it will visit or call all 5,279
federally-supervised institutions over a five-year period. The program
offers bankers a way to provide confidential feedback without fear of
retaliation. The Office of the Ombudsman also publishes a semi-annual
report, the "Ombudsman Report to the Industry," to notify the industry
of common issues and concerns gleaned from outreach exchanges, and to
provide contact information for those wishing to use ombuds services.

B. [Claims Against the Government]{.underline}

Cases involving claims against the government are cases in which the
United States is a defendant in a civil action, and the **Department of
Justice** defends the interests of the United States. The use of ADR is
a fairly common practice in these cases, particularly since all of the
federal district courts now are required to offer some form of ADR
(typically mediation).

The district courts take different approaches in making ADR available.
Some courts require mediation in all civil cases through their own ADR
programs. Other courts select individual cases for referral to
mediation. Some courts use magistrate judges or retired judges as
mediators, while other courts have established a panel of attorney
mediators who in many cases work on a voluntary, pro bono basis. In any
event, private mediation always is an option at any stage of litigation
in any case in which the parties agree it is appropriate.

Additionally, many agencies make an initial determination as to whether
to settle a civilian claim before a lawsuit is actually filed, and they
use mediation to some degree at these early stages. For example, the
**Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation**, in one settlement of a class
action pension complaint, agreed to the creation of a bi-lateral appeals
board to expeditiously hear complaints by individuals disputing their
pension amounts, rather than insisting on a case-by-case litigation of
claims asserted by often elderly pension recipients. However, without
the rights to discovery which accrue with the formal filing of the
lawsuit, the parties in many cases may not yet have enough factual
information to support a knowledgeable settlement at the pre-filing
stage.

One of the goals of the Claims Against the Government Section is to
promote more and earlier use of ADR in appropriate cases. The advantages
of resolution through ADR are clear:

-   savings in costs associated with trials, such as fees and travel
    expenses for experts and other witnesses;

-   savings in time of attorneys, staff, and parties who are federal
    employees;

-   quicker resolution than a trial would offer and thus fewer days that
    the parties have spent under the cloud of pending litigation;

-   creative resolutions acceptable to the parties, but which a court
    could not impose;

-   lower monetary judgments than a jury or judge might impose; and

-   a durable and voluntary agreement without any appeals.

Moreover, even in the cases which did not result in resolution,
attorneys representing the government consistently have reported other
distinct advantages to the ADR process, including:

-   laying the groundwork for a subsequent settlement;

-   increasing clarification of the issues for trial;

-   addressing and evaluating the plaintiff, as well as the strength of
    the case from plaintiff's vantage point;

-   improving or preserving a relationship between the government and
    one of its citizens;

-   promoting a fair and responsive government; and

-   inspiring public confidence and trust in the government through a
    transparent process.

The goal of ADR in these cases is consistent: offering expedient
alternatives to citizens while at the same time pursuing the best
interests of the government. One **Department of Justice** attorney
described the obligations of an attorney representing the United States:
"Our mission is to zealously represent the United States in suits
brought against it or in suits brought on its behalf. However, we also
owe a responsibility to our citizens to act fairly to those litigating
with the United States."

Through an ADR process, citizens with claims against the government have
the opportunity to directly access government officials and receive a
more immediate response to their dispute than if the case proceeded to
litigation. Another **Department of Justice** attorney wrote that
because ADR speeds up the process "justice is served more effectively
because justice that is delayed can sometimes become justice denied."
While ADR is not appropriate for every dispute, even those agencies that
do not have citizen-centric missions -- such as the **Army** -- are
realizing ADR's potential in providing relief for their stakeholders.
The **Department of Defense/Department of the Army** reports, for
example, that ADR techniques have been used "to resolve disputes arising
over the accessibility of Army activities and facilities to the
disabled" (e.g., accessibility of waterways managed by the **Department
of Defense/Army Corps of** **Engineers**).

ADR can serve the best interests of the government and can enhance its
relationship with its citizens. In cases alleging injury caused by
government negligence, a mediator can help educate a plaintiff about the
appropriate economic evaluation of his/her case, which can streamline
the issues and diminish unrealistic expectations about the potential
outcome of the case. As one **Department of Justice** attorney wrote,
"Usually, if a case that should settle fails to settle at mediation, it
is because the plaintiff has unrealistic expectations. Most people just
want what is fair. If you are able to meet their needs in mediation,
\[parties\] view the government in a positive light and often view the
agency as being responsive to their concerns that resulted in their
filing the lawsuit in the first place." Another attorney from the
**Department of Justice** noted in the settlement of a case: "If a
citizen is satisfied with the outcome of a matter without the expense of
trial, and the disruption to business and personal lives, then I
consider that a success story that reflects well on that citizen's
government."

The use of ADR in appropriate cases affords the government more control
over its limited resources while producing satisfactory results for all
parties. While it is difficult to quantify the difference between a
mediated agreement and a judgment because of so many trial variables, it
is relatively easy to compare the costs of each process. Litigation
costs are fairly predictable and include: attorney and paralegal or
staff hours throughout discovery, pretrial motions, and trial; costs of
expert witnesses, both for time spent at an evaluation as well as time
spent for preparation and trial; and discovery costs including
depositions. The costs of mediation are much more limited. A single hour
in mediation costs approximately what a single hour of just one
deposition costs. Given the other costs of litigation and considering
the advantages of mediation, it is clear that use of mediation in
appropriate claims against the government contributes to better control
over limited agency resources.

Attorneys throughout the federal government are lauding the use of ADR
in appropriate cases to effect resolutions that meet the needs of the
parties -- and the government. The **Department of Justice** Civil
Division reports: significant savings in discovery and litigation costs;
advantageous settlements resulting in substantial savings in defensive
litigation; and large monetary recoveries in affirmative litigation. For
FY 2005, in a major civil fraud accounting case, the government
recovered \$62 million through the use of mediation and saved four
months of trial preparation. In another civil fraud case, use of ADR
saved 2,000 hours of discovery time, resolved the case two years sooner
than litigation would have done, and prevented other future similar
disputes. In FY 2004, the use of mediation in a class action employment
discrimination case saved 1,500 hours of discovery time and two years of
litigation time. In earlier years, in an admiralty case, the Civil
Division reports that the government avoided five days of trial and
trial preparation time through a one-day mediation that settled the case
for \$500,000 notwithstanding the plaintiff's earlier settlement demands
of several million dollars. Mediation in an aviation case resulted in a
settlement of \$825,000 which was well below the amount sought by
plaintiff.

Engaging in ADR processes saves resources for other agency work through
streamlining or eliminating issues in dispute. The **Department of
Justice** Civil Division emphasizes that even if a case does not settle,
involvement in an ADR process routinely results in a narrowing of
contested issues and the scope of discovery. An example was its use of
neutrals to negotiate case management and discovery plans in a massive
multi-party case, which served to expedite the litigation process to a
large degree and thereby saved trial expenses. A related benefit is the
impact of a third party intervention in cases with *pro se* plaintiffs
who have unrealistic expectations about the value or strength of the
case. A neutral mediator can provide a "reality check" for plaintiffs
and assist them in understanding their alternatives.

A number of attorneys report that ADR can be particularly useful in
certain types of cases. A **Department of Justice** attorney noted: "In
employment discrimination, even if \[the\] plaintiff doesn't get a large
award at trial, the attorney's fees which can be awarded after trial can
be a significant expense for the government. Mediation greatly reduces
that exposure." Resources that are saved  through a faster resolution
process or avoided payments  can be used to handle other matters that
cannot or should not settle.

The availability of ADR in appropriate cases provides opportunities to
achieve a resolution while maximizing the limited government resources
that are available to defend cases. As several divisions within the
**Department of Justice** emphasized, "By resolving cases that can be
resolved through ADR, attorneys are able to focus their resources and
work efforts on the cases that need to be fully litigated. ADR thus
strategically allocates ... attorneys' workload. In addition, resolving
cases on behalf of the Department's federal agency clients frees our
clients to expend their workload and resources on the core missions of
their agency rather than on time-consuming litigation." To enhance the
benefits of ADR, some federal district courts utilize the services of a
Magistrate Judge or other non-case assigned judges to serve as
mediators, fostering both efficiency and cost savings in resources.

The benefits of ADR are realized in the results. A **Department of
Justice** attorney reports that ADR has been "helpful especially in
higher dollar medical malpractice cases." ADR's focus on interests
enables parties to move away from their positions -- often expressed
solely in dollar figures -- to their interests, which often reflect more
varied considerations such as a timely resolution. An attorney
representing the government reflects: "In all ... we can say without
hesitation that the cases we have settled using ADR have resulted in a
significant savings to the government over what could be reasonably
expected to have resulted at trial, and often at a savings of millions
of dollars." More than that, application of an ADR process may result in
more creative resolutions that are tailored to meet the parties' needs
and which may go beyond the jurisdiction of a court to order. ADR
fosters solutions that may substitute for the payment of money or reduce
potential monetary exposure. Even where a case does not settle, ADR can
be valuable in narrowing the issues, or helping parties move closer to
settlement (or facilitate a later settlement) by demonstrating good
faith, improving their relations, or making progress in the
negotiations. ADR also may be beneficial in resolving several related
disputes in one global settlement, or in settling one dispute that can
set parameters for the resolution of similar future disputes.
Additionally, ADR can contribute to effective case management by
resolving discovery disputes or facilitating the informal exchange of
critical information.

An additional benefit of using ADR for claims against the government is
that the parties can agree to a wide range of remedies which simply are
not available pursuant to a judicial adjudication. Mediated settlements
can include reversionary trusts or structured settlements which can
provide a better, more tailored settlement than a judge could provide.

**Department of Justice** attorneys have used ADR in appropriate cases
in a wide range of litigation including the following areas:
admiralty/maritime, medical malpractice, wrongful death, class action
discrimination, and natural resources. The results shown in these
illustrative examples demonstrate the significant resources that ADR can
conserve, as well as its role in achieving a better resolution than
would have been likely in traditional litigation:

-   In an environmental defense case, mediation saved \$150,000 in
    litigation/discovery expenses, saved 2,500 hours of attorney/staff
    time and at least six months of litigation/discovery time, produced
    a better settlement than would have been likely without ADR, and
    avoided adverse precedent.

-   In an environmental natural resources case, mediation saved
    \$200,000 in litigation/discovery expenses, saved "hundreds of
    hours" of attorney/staff time and 18 months of litigation/discovery
    time, improved the relationship between the parties, and resulted in
    a better settlement than would have been likely without ADR.

-   A case involving federal water rights claims and Endangered Species
    Act issues was staggering in its scope, complexity, and impact. It
    involved 180,000 claims to water rights and three sovereigns (state,
    tribal, and federal), including numerous different federal agencies.
    The case was pending for 17 years, and direct negotiations had been
    ongoing for three years when a mediator was appointed. The mediator
    worked with the parties for five years. An agreement was reached
    which has a 30-year term and should provide a model for future
    settlements of water rights and endangered species issues in the
    western United States. (A Department of Justice attorney in the
    Environment and Natural Resources Division received the Attorney
    General's John Marshall Award for ADR in 2004 for his representation
    of the Department in the negotiations and his work in ensuring that
    all federal interests were addressed in the mediation.)

-   In two complex aviation wrongful death cases, mediation saved \$3
    million in litigation/discovery expenses, saved 2,800 hours of
    attorney/staff time, and 10 months of litigation/discovery time,
    avoided adverse precedent, and resulted in a better settlement than
    would have been likely without ADR.

-   In a maritime personal injury case, mediation saved \$150,000 in
    litigation/discovery expenses, and resulted in a better settlement
    than would have been likely without ADR.

-   In nine tort cases, mediation achieved a better settlement than was
    likely without ADR, saved \$1,540,000 in litigation/discovery
    expenses, saved 2,240 hours of attorney/staff time, and 31 months of
    litigation/discovery time.

-   Mediation in a Federal Tort Claims Act case avoided a potential loss
    of over \$6 million and saved 480 hours of attorney and staff time.

-   In a discrimination/sexual harassment case, mediation saved 780
    hours of attorney time and six months of litigation/discovery time,
    and resulted in a better settlement than would have been likely
    without ADR.

-   In an employment discrimination case, the mediator's objective
    assessment of the plaintiff's claims prevented the government from
    having to engage in full discovery and summary judgment briefing in
    a non-meritorious case.

-   In another employment discrimination case, mediation saved \$350,000
    in litigation and discovery expenses, and nine months of litigation
    and discovery time, and avoided adverse precedent.

-   Mediation in a Fair Labor Standards Act collection action saved over
    \$100,000 in expert witness and deposition costs, "hundreds" of
    hours of attorney/staff time, and one year of litigation/discovery
    time.

-   In adversary proceedings in a bankruptcy court case, mediation
    avoided a potential loss of \$22 million in litigation against the
    United States, saved years of litigation, and avoided bad precedent.

-   The use of ADR in litigation facilitated a settlement which ensures
    the preservation of the world's oldest stand of old-growth redwood
    trees for timber holdings, and led to settlement of a 50-year old
    tribal dispute claim related to the decline of the tribe's timber
    resources. (An attorney in the Department of Justice's Environment
    and Natural Resources Division received the Attorney General's John
    Marshall Award for ADR in 2001 for his work on this litigation.)

Reports submitted by **Department of Justice** attorneys in the two most
recent fiscal years estimated that mediation saved almost \$18 million
in litigation/discovery expenses, almost 67,000 hours of attorney/staff
time, and over 1,350 months of litigation/discovery time.

C. [Contracts and Procurement]{.underline}

This Administration has given special recognition to federal agencies
and their private sector federal acquisition partners for their
outstanding efforts in fostering the use of ADR to resolve both
procurement bid protests and disputes under existing government
contracts, through an annual Federal Procurement ADR Awards Program
sponsored by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal
Procurement Policy. The Awards Program was initiated in 2002 at the
suggestion of the Interagency ADR Working Group Contracts and
Procurement Section and has been maintained and expanded with the
assistance of the Section's leadership. The public sector award winners
to date have included: the Department of the Air Force; the Armed
Services Board of Contract Appeals; the Army Corps of Engineers; the
Defense Logistics Agency; the Federal Aviation Administration; the
General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals; and the
Department of the Navy. Detailed descriptions of the specific
accomplishments of the Awards Program winners are set forth in Appendix
F.

[Promoting a Citizen-Centered Government]{.underline}

The agencies have made federal procurement-related ADR a transparent
process and one which is much more accessible to the American citizenry,
particularly to individuals and business entities who regularly do
business with the government. Those business entities, when confronted
with a contract and/or procurement dispute, seek prompt and fair
resolution, something that is in the interest of the government as well.
Agencies have designed ADR programs to meet this need, allowing citizens
to resolve bid protests and contract disputes at the lowest level and
least cost. For example, the **Department of Defense/Department of the
Air Force** ADR program seeks to empower its business partners and
employees to play an active role in resolving disputes through
interest-based collaborative problem solving processes. This increases
the sense of teamwork, focuses on sensible outcomes, and creates a
shared sense of ownership in dispute resolution processes. The **General
Services Administration** "Fuss Busters," a group of mediators in the
agency's Southwest Region, voluntarily mediate contract and other
disputes. The "Fuss Busters" have shown that volunteer efforts truly
serve the taxpayer and sometimes may be more effective than paid
programs**.**

In addition to providing vehicles for dispute resolution, a number of
agencies have invested in the establishment of "ADR infrastructure" to
inform citizens about their ADR options and ensure that these options
are accessible. For example, the **Department of Defense** (the
**Department of the Air Force,** the **Department of the Navy,** and the
**Defense Logistics Agency),** as well as the **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration,** have developed
user-friendly ADR Web sites that provide complete descriptions of
available ADR techniques, sample forms, training in how to engage in
interest-based collaborative problem solving processes, and success
stories illustrating how and when ADR has been used to create "win-win"
solutions that have benefited both the agencies and their private sector
partners. Many agencies include information about the use of ADR in
contract disputes.

Several agencies also are creatively utilizing the Internet to provide
information about and provide access to their procurement ADR resources.
The **Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force** uses the
Internet "as the principal means of disseminating ADR information and
\[it\] is engaged in new initiatives to promote ADR and negotiation
skills training via Web-based e-learning tools, knowledge management
systems, and collaborative software." The Air Force ADR Web site
consistently ranks in the top ten in page hits, as measured by the
"Google" Web search engine using the search terms "ADR" and "Alternative
Dispute Resolution." The **Department of Defense/Department of the
Navy** ADR Program Web site "has extensive explanations of ADR
processes...\[and\] an on-line training program that allows the public,
contractors, and employees to hear from \[its\] senior leadership
concerning how ADR can resolve disputes efficiently for all parties."
Information about the Program and its services is clearly set forth with
links and contacts to other pertinent dispute resolution programs and
contacts within and outside the agency. Likewise, the **Department of
Veterans Affairs** reports that it has expanded initiatives in
electronic government to make government operations more comprehensible
and of greater use to contractors and government employees alike, and to
make dispute resolution easier, quicker, and cheaper for persons who
have disputes with the agency.

Finally, the **Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation
Administration** Office of Dispute Resolution Web site contains a
user-friendly guide to its dispute resolution process, including access
to model ADR agreements and other forms, ADR success stories, specific
filing and contact information, and thorough explanations of the ADR
services available to public and private parties.

> [Managing Costs]{.underline}

In the contracts and procurement arena, ADR also provides tools to
promote the management of conflict in a manner that avoids many of the
transactional costs of traditional processes.

Agencies in this arena have begun to demonstrate the monetary savings
achieved through ADR, and the results are impressive. For example, the
**Department of Defense/Army Corps of Engineers** reports: "In the past
three fiscal years, the Corps has resolved 117 claims and appeals using
ADR techniques, and the cost savings have been consistent with the
historical data. Also during that time, the Corps has resolved 156
claims and appeals without resort to third party neutral assisted ADR.
In this venue, the Corps has realized savings of over \$76 million,
paying only \$37 million, including interest, on over \$113 million in
claims not including interest."

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.9166666666666665in"
height="1.5923611111111111in"}The **Department of Defense/Department of
the Navy** ADR program estimates that ADR achieves significant savings
over litigation. As shown in the accompanying table, for 41 cases
analyzed, the program estimated about \$1.8 million in direct expenses
that were avoided by using the ADR processes. Further, assuming the same
outcome on the merits, the program estimates that the agency avoided
about \$1.1 million in potential interest because ADR was faster than
the administrative process.

The **Department of Defense/Defense Logistics Agency** also cites
financial benefits from ADR: "The...acquisition ADR program covers both
pre and post award disputes. It has an impressive success rate; in FY
2005, 87% of matters taken to ADR were either entirely or partially
resolved through ADR. Significant dollar savings have resulted, an
estimated \$1.4 million for FY 2005." Also, the **Department of
Defense/Department of the Air Force** reports that its "ADR First"
policy in contract disputes has enabled it to avoid an average of \$57.6
million in liability in each of the most recent five years (FY 2002
through FY 2006).

Agencies also acknowledge the time savings achieved through ADR. The
**Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** Office
of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition reports that the use of ADR
techniques is resulting in short resolution timeframes. Bid protests are
resolved through ADR in an average of 24 calendar days, while contract
disputes have been resolved by ADR in an average of 67 calendar days.

The use of ADR processes also is contributing to more durable
resolutions that reflect the needs of the parties and the government
agencies. For example, the **Department of Defense/Department of the Air
Force** reports that: "Unlike almost all non-ADR dispute resolution
processes, ADR keeps decision making with the parties (one of whom is
always the Air Force), thus fostering positive business solutions,
rather than ceding it to an outside decision-maker who can only impose
win/lose outcomes." The **Department of Veterans Affairs** states that
as the result of its ADR program: "decisions affecting ... resources can
be made more quickly and with greater certainty in achieving the
\[agency's\] mission and meeting the requirements and deliverables
\[necessary to\] accomplish its mission."

As in other areas, agencies within the contracts and procurement arena
are quantifying the effect of ADR. The **U.S. Agency for International
Development**, the **Department of Defense/National**
**Geospatial-Intelligence Agency**, the **General Services
Administration**, the **Department of Homeland Security/Transportation
Security Administration**, and the **Department of Interior**/**Bureau
of Land Management** currently are developing metric systems to measure
the impact of ADR use in contracts and procurement disputes as well as
issues in controversy in other areas. This will enable them to more
effectively allocate ADR dollars to areas where they will be most
beneficial.

[Managing Strategically]{.underline}

In the contracts and procurement arena, ADR efforts are also focused on
enhancing existing resources to encourage responsive and innovative
dispute resolution processes and outcomes. As in other arenas, training
is a significant focus, and agencies have implemented training programs
to minimize roadblocks to the institutionalization of ADR. For example,
the **Department of Defense/National Guard Bureau** Contracts Section
delivers annually a series of three or four Claims Avoidance workshops
(in addition to other training) to its contracting officers and other
Guard personnel. The workshops are designed to avoid contract disputes
in ongoing contracts, and routinely are attended by 40-50 people. The
**Department of Defense/National Guard Bureau** Contracts Section
strongly believes that these workshops have resulted in a decrease of
problems and disputes arising from the implementation of contracts.

Some agencies suggest that the ADR process itself enhances the capacity
of parties -- internal and external -- to manage conflict. For example,
the **Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force** reports that
ADR processes encourage better relationships between the agency and its
private sector partners. One by-product of the improved relations is the
greater chance that the parties will successfully fashion their own
solutions to their future disputes. Similarly, the **Department of
Defense/Defense Logistics Agency** reports that its ADR program:
**"**supports constructive problem solving and fosters positive
relationships with its contractors. The ADR program advances these
objectives while reducing agency costs." The **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition expressly recognizes in its mission statement
that "it is in the best interests of the agency and its business
partners to work together to avoid and resolve acquisition-related
controversies in a timely and fair manner."

The innovation of contracts and procurement ADR initiatives is evident
in both program design and outcome. For example, the **Department of
Agriculture** demonstrates its program innovations through the use of
internal neutrals to minimize travel costs, the consolidation of travel
assignments, the contracting of the ADR neutral at the most reasonable
possible rates, and the use of telephonic and video-conferencing in
place of travel, where possible. The **Department of Veterans Affairs**
reports on the innovations in ADR outcomes, noting that it has realized
substantial benefits through the use of ADR in contract disputes. The
agency reports that it fosters efficiency and innovation by encouraging
parties to a dispute to work in partnership to find creative,
cost-effective resolutions that will address the needs of the government
and other parties to effectively use money, time and other resources.
Such processes foster the efficient use of these resources  and more 
by encouraging prompt resolution and avoiding undue litigation delays
and costs.

Another innovative program, one which has generated appreciation from
the private sector, is that of the **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition to make ADR available to parties even
*before* they file formal bid protests or contract disputes. This
program enables parties to address and resolve their contract and
procurement concerns before the dispute has escalated to the "formal"
level and resources have been invested in building a case. The results
are impressive: the office reports that of 79 "pre-dispute" cases where
ADR was employed, only three proceeded to formal litigation.

ADR also has been used creatively  and proactively  to promote the
goal of competitive sourcing by expanding ADR options into that area.
Illustrative are the efforts of the **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** Office of Dispute
Resolution for Acquisition, which is charged with the responsibility for
adjudicating contests arising from competitions pursuant to Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76, and which has developed and
implemented A-76 Contest Rules that expressly call for the voluntary use
of ADR in these cases. To date, the office has been involved in four
contests and has resolved two of them through use of ADR. The successful
use of ADR in the two contests resolved significant disputes about the
terms of the competition, which allowed the competitions to proceed on
terms acceptable to the interested parties, avoided probable litigation
delays, and led to completion on schedule. The office also creatively
utilized ADR during a contest challenging the outcome of a competition
and, while use of ADR did not resolve the contest, it did settle several
issues and resulted in a streamlined and timely adjudication process
which the parties viewed as fair.

D. [Workplace]{.underline}

Across the federal government, agencies have found that the availability
of workplace ADR increases the ability of employees and managers to
resolve internal disputes quickly and effectively, at the earliest
possible time, and at the lowest possible level. This is especially
important in the workplace, where festering disputes may distract an
employee or manager from fulfilling essential work responsibilities. ADR
provides an alternative for employees and managers to address concerns
relating to their employment and reach a quick resolution so that they
may return to their jobs of serving the public.

Federal agencies also have found that use of ADR for management of
workplace conflict is cost-effective -- it saves money and time because
resources are not spent on long investigations and protracted
litigation, but rather on resolving disputes more quickly outside of the
courtroom. In addition, agencies have found that involvement in the ADR
process often forces supervisors to deal directly with the outcome of
their, or their subordinate's, actions. This results in important
lessons being learned that have long-term positive effects on the
organization's efficiency. Finally, direct supervisor interaction with
employees often opens avenues of communication that had been closed,
resulting in improved working relationships and improved productivity.

In measuring the success of its own internal workplace mediation
program, the **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission** found that 94%
of participants would use the program again if they were involved in
another workplace dispute. Even where managers resist participating in
mediation, it is not because they take issue with the concept of
mediation as an effective tool to resolve workplace disputes. Rather,
the **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission** has found, when managers
decline to participate in mediation, it is because they perceive that
the complainant's case is completely lacking in merit.

[Background History of Workplace Alternative Dispute
Resolution]{.underline}

Mediation in workplace discrimination complaints represents an early
broad use of ADR by the federal government. In 1991, the **Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission** began a pilot mediation program that
ultimately became the key component in its private sector enforcement
strategy. Based on the success of the pilot, the agency concluded that
mediation was a viable alternative to the traditional investigatory
methods it had used to resolve charges of employment discrimination it
received, and that an ADR program should be implemented. The result
became the agency's National Mediation Program which was fully
implemented in 1999. Through the National Mediation Program, the agency
proactively promotes the use of mediation at any stage of the
administrative process to resolve private sector charges of
discrimination which may have merit. At the beginning stage of the
process, the agency uses ADR in negotiated settlement attempts to
resolve charges of discrimination before a determination is made on the
merits of a charge. Again at the ending stage of the process, in
accordance with the statute it enforces, the agency uses ADR in
conciliation efforts to resolve a charge after a finding of
discrimination. The agency's emphasis on use of ADR in lieu of formal
adjudication enables the parties to reach an agreement which addresses
their respective concerns. Since an adjudicating court is limited in the
kinds of remedies it can render, parties often prefer to craft a
resolution which is better tailored to their needs, particularly if the
work relationship is ongoing.

Another federal pioneer in workplace mediation is the **U.S. Postal
Service** REDRESS^®^ Program (Resolve Employment Disputes Reach
Equitable Solutions Swiftly) which was instituted as a pilot project in
1994 in three locations in Florida. The program was initiated in
response to a settlement agreement for a class action in which
complainants argued that the traditional equal employment opportunity
complaint process was slow and ineffective. The agency has found that
REDRESS^®^ provides critical assistance in response to the disruption
and other costs associated with addressing discrimination complaints
throughout an enormous workforce (over 700,000 in 2006). The REDRESS^®^
program over time has expanded to encompass a broad range of workplace
issues even if they do not rise to the level of illegal discrimination.
The focus of the mediation program is to give the parties an opportunity
to thoroughly address their concerns and hopefully to resolve them.

Together, the mediation programs of the **Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission** and the **U.S. Postal Service** have launched a number of
lessons learned:

-   On the whole, many managers felt less threatened when they
    participated in a "problem solving" mediation to resolve a
    work-related dispute, rather than being put on the defensive in
    response to allegations of illegal discriminatory conduct.

-   The earlier the mediation occurs, the better the chances are that
    the parties will reach a voluntary settlement, and that the
    collateral negative impact of the dispute on co-workers and the
    organization as a whole will be minimized.

-   Mediation should be made available at many different stages of a
    dispute so that it is at all times a viable alternative to
    continuing with the formal dispute process.

-   Voluntary agreements reached through mediation provide a more
    enduring

> solution to the issues underlying the dispute than a court
> adjudication could.

The impact of early intervention is significant because it helps to
contain the conflict at an informal stage and prevent it from escalating
and draining agency resources. The value of early containment is
enhanced when the long-term benefits are considered. ADR promotes both
efficiency and durability because it gives parties the opportunity to be
actively involved -- at an early and informal stage -- in negotiating an
outcome that effectively meets their interests. As they negotiate a
resolution, the parties exchange information that ultimately leads to
better decisions. As they craft their own resolution, they are better
able to control their own resources and the outcome of their dispute.
Additionally, a decision crafted in an ADR process has the buy-in of the
parties and hence is likely to last much longer than a decision made by
others in an administrative forum. That conclusion is borne out by the
fact that there are fewer "return customers" to an ADR program than
there are to an administrative forum.

Workplace conflict resolution programs are designed to enhance
fundamental agency values at the core of their missions, including
workplace diversity, trust, personal and professional growth, mutual
respect, and open communications. By offering ADR programs, an agency
demonstrates to its staff that management values its human capital as
much as its fiscal capital. The **National Archives and Records
Administration,** for example**,** reported the comments of employees
who view the agency's dedication to the dispute resolution program as
evidence that the agency values the employees and their contribution.

Lastly, while some agency programs have integrated EEO disputes with
other workplace disputes, other agencies have found more success in
developing a freestanding workplace dispute resolution center which is
separate from the office which addresses EEO complaints. One reason is
that they found managers approached a freestanding dispute resolution
center more cooperatively than the EEO office. Some agencies discovered
that managers were more reluctant to participate and more defensive
about their behavior in an EEO proceeding where they had been accused of
unlawful conduct. Other agencies provide mediation services for general
workplace disputes even if the presenting complaint is narrowly labeled
as an alleged "EEO" violation. Nevertheless, all agencies have
consistently found that early intervention is the key factor.

[ADR Programs Are Successful in Resolving Workplace
Disputes]{.underline}

The **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission** reported the national
settlement rate of EEO cases through ADR was 49%. In favorable contrast,
in their information submitted for this Report, agencies reported ADR
settlement rates all above 50% and some reaching 75% and above, with
significant cost savings.

The **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission**'s own EEO program
**(**RESOLVE) reports excellent resolution rates. In FY 2004, 48
**EEOC** employees came to the program for assistance. Twenty-one of
those cases were EEO cases referred to the program by the agency's EEO
office; 27 were non-EEO cases. The resolution rate for EEO cases was 72%
and for non-EEO cases was 60%. Moreover, 94% of the participants
indicated that they would use the program again.

The **Department of Defense/Washington Headquarters Service** reports
that 60% of EEO cases accepted into mediation achieved resolution. The
**Department of Defense/Department of the Navy** reports an average
resolution rate, for all types of dispute resolution efforts, at 83.5%.

At the **Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service,** ADR is
implemented and actively marketed to resolve EEO complaints more quickly
and effectively. The latest figures show that approximately 50% of their
EEO cases were resolved through ADR.

Dispute resolution processes allow disputes to be resolved at the lowest
possible level without escalating the problem. When agreements are
reached they usually last longer because they meet all parties' needs.
When parties can "own" the agreement, there is better buy-in and
increased satisfaction with the result, as well as increased
accountability from both management and employees.

[ADR Programs Are Cost-Effective]{.underline}

ADR programs aimed at resolving workplace disputes conserve human
capital in a number of ways. Good communication promotes agency
productivity in the workplace. Productive and satisfied employees are
less likely to quit their jobs, requiring new expenditures for
recruitment and training. A positive work environment impacts new
workers and creates loyalty and longevity in the agency's own work
environment.

The **Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force** notes that ADR
typically resolved workplace disputes in less than one-eighth the time
used for formal processes, using one-eighth the resources. Also,
settlement agreements that arise out of the use of ADR are likely to be
more innovative than those developed through litigation because they can
resolve matters that could not be addressed sufficiently with money. Use
of ADR promotes higher morale, lower absenteeism, and employee
productivity, and provides positive alternatives to filing EEO
complaints.

[ADR Saves Agency Funds]{.underline}

The **Department of Justice/Federal Bureau of Investigation** calculated
that in FY 04, its cost was \$2,648 for each EEO investigation and over
\$250,000 for a Final Agency Decision. In contrast, its average total
cost is \$1,800 for each mediated case. The **Social Security
Administration** calculated that the average cost of processing a
complaint through the traditional EEO process is approximately \$40,000.
In contrast, most of its mediated cases are handled by a shared neutral
source and cost under \$50 per case, but even when an outside vendor is
used the average cost is only \$1,500 per case. Similarly, the
**Department of Defense/Defense Logistics Agency** has calculated that
it saves, on average, \$20,000 per EEO case mediated. The approximate
savings to the **Department of Defense/Washington Headquarters Service**
by using ADR in FY 2004 was \$42,000, and about \$210,000 since the
inception of ADR in March 2001. The **General Services Administration**
notes that every EEO case resolved in mediation saves the agency
approximately \$3,500 to \$4,500 in investigation fees alone.

At the **Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service,** ADR is
implemented and marketed to more timely resolve EEO complaints.
Generally, approximately 50% of all mediated cases are resolved. In
actual dollars, traditional case processing costs \$1,000 per case, as
compared to half of that amount where mediation is used.

The **Department of Defense/Department of the Army** pointed out that
litigation expenses are factored into the billing rates of working
capital fund activities within the Army, and early resolution of
disputes reduces these expenses thereby reducing overhead to allow
components to remain competitive with other sources.

[ADR Saves Agency Time]{.underline}

Typically, not only are the formal, administrative processes more
fiscally costly, but they are also more time-consuming. Time spent by
the agency on employment-related issues is time taken from accomplishing
agency missions. An ADR session usually can be scheduled and completed
within a few weeks while a typical EEO case which proceeds to a hearing
may linger for several years.

The **Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force** has compiled
statistics that demonstrate that dispute resolution processes resolve
nearly one-third of all complaints (formal and otherwise) in an average
of 27-40 days versus an **Air Force** average of 390 days for EEO cases
which proceed to the formal administrative phase. Thus workplace
conflict is eliminated 13 times faster than it would have been in a more
traditional process. In total, the **Air Force** refers almost half of
its civilian workplace disputes to an ADR process which averages 30 days
or less, achieving full resolution in an average of 75% of those
disputes. As a result, the **Air Force** ADR Program disposes of about
1/3 of its annual total of workplace disputes using fast, inexpensive,
collaborative processes in lieu of litigation.

One contributor to the time savings realized by ADR processes is the
flexibility to identify and attempt resolution of problems much earlier
than would be feasible in a more formal administrative forum. The
**Department of Defense/Washington Headquarters Service** noted that the
average number of processing days for EEO formal complaints
(federal-wide) was 469 days in FY 2004. In contrast, its own ADR
processes took an average of 39 days. This resolution timeframe, which
is twelve times faster than the formal EEO complaint process, fosters
active problem solving, interest-based outcomes, and improved working
relationships between the parties. In the **Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission's "**RESOLVE" program, the average processing time for all
cases was 72 days. At the **Department of Housing and Urban
Development,** case processing is reduced from 802 days in formal EEO
cases to 53 days in mediation. In the **Department of Defense/Department
of the Navy**, the average time between a request for mediation and the
first session is around 40 days, which is a significant savings in time
spent on cases that otherwise would have gone through a formal
administrative process.

[Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs Are Essential]{.underline}

[to Strategic Management of the Workplace]{.underline}

Agencies' descriptions of their workplace ADR programs demonstrate the
essential role these programs play in the strategic management of human
capital. ADR provides the tools to efficiently and effectively manage
workplace conflict at the lowest level and at the earliest time before a
dispute can ripen or escalate. The availability and use of ADR programs
promote a positive work environment, lower absenteeism, and promote
higher morale and employee productivity. Agencies are using
cost-effective approaches in their conflict management programs and
soliciting feedback to identify areas where the programs can be even
further improved.

The intervention of ADR at an early stage of conflict, before parties
have built strong emotional attachments to their positions, is
particularly valuable. **T**he **General Services Administration**'s
Greater Southwest Region has developed a mediation training program for
managers and other staff to serve as program coordinators to handle the
initial stages of the process and provide a free, easily accessible
opportunity for disputants to resolve their issues quickly and
efficiently. The **Department of Homeland Security/Transportation
Security Administration** has developed an Integrated Conflict
Management System which aims to align its internal culture (behavior and
practices) with its customer service practices. As part of this system,
the agency is providing to its employees a four-hour "conflict
management essentials" class, which focuses on respectful and effective
communication and cooperative problem solving skills and has been given
to over 15,000 employees. Institutionalizing effective communication and
problem solving skills is better equipping employees to prevent disputes
or, at least, to recognize warning signs and address disputed issues
early before the conflict escalates.

The ADR options that agencies provide to employees yield internal
benefits that reverberate throughout the agency. At the **Department of
Defense/Army Corp of Engineers** and the **Department of Defense/Defense
Contract Management Agency**, the availability of ADR demonstrates a
concrete commitment to fostering and maintaining a positive long-term
working environment for all employees. The **Department of Health and
Human Services/Food and Drug Administration** sees less absenteeism and
increased focus on mission-related work as two clear by-products of an
effective ADR process.

An added benefit of ADR use is the re-direction of agency resources from
settling disputes to furthering the achievement of agency goals. The
**Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of
Health** Office of the Ombudsman notes that the provision of a forum to
resolve workplace differences frees an agency to make programmatic
decisions based on needs rather than personal antagonisms or workplace
disputes. The **Department of Defense/Defense Commissary Agency** finds
that, because its activities are evaluated based upon unit costs, every
instance of quick and efficient resolution through ADR directly affects
the financial performance of those units -- and the agency's
productivity.

Benefits that are unique to ADR programs extend beyond the immediate
dispute. ADR processes are designed to identify and address recurring
issues that lead to systemic problems. Through an ADR process, parties
have the opportunity to work on the recurring issues, while at the same
time working on their relationship and developing the communication and
problem solving skills that, hopefully, will enable them to avoid
similar disputes in the future. When staff feel they have a voice in
resolving conflict, they will feel more vested in the end product and
more motivated to help it succeed. When managers participate in dispute
resolution processes or attend related training, they develop conflict
analysis skills which ultimately will help them make more knowledgeable
and appropriate decisions.

The cost-effectiveness of workplace ADR programs across the federal
government is enhanced by the use and sharing of internal government ADR
expertise. For example, costs are reduced when agencies follow the
example of the **Department of Defense/Department of the Navy** and
develop an internal cadre of qualified neutrals who can provide ADR
expertise. Other agencies, such as the **Department of Justice,** use
collateral duty mediators from one agency component to provide ADR
services to another component, thereby maximizing their beneficial use
of ADR while conserving resources.

Another cost-saving approach is demonstrated by the allocation of
resources government-wide in the federal Sharing Neutrals Program, which
is administered in the Washington, D.C. region by the **Department of
Health and Human Services**. A number of years ago, as the demand for
mediators and other talented neutrals was outpacing the supply, some
federal agencies decided to join forces, train volunteers, and develop a
roster of agency employees who could be used anywhere in the federal
government where there was a need for ADR services. Today, the roster
includes over 200 trained neutrals who serve on collateral duty to
provide ADR services to other agencies as the neutral's own work load
permits. In FY 2006, there were almost 250 requests for the services of
a shared neutral, and the caseload has been trending upwards recently.
The program's database has information about each neutral, including
expertise in ADR areas (e.g., mediation, coaching) as well as
substantive expertise (e.g., information technology, EEO or union law,
and more general human resources issues). Employee mediators report
satisfaction with their participation in the program.

The community of federal agencies has developed other mechanisms to
collaborate and share resources. An example is found with the
**Departments of Transportation** and **Health and Human Services**
which have formed a partnership to conduct management training that
shares resources, knowledge, and experiences to promote a diverse
learning environment. The training gives managers an opportunity to
collaborate with other managers facing similar issues, and the result is
an effective skills class that enhances the managers' ability to manage
at very little cost to either agency.

A key tool for any dispute resolution program is the evaluation of the
process so that ADR services can be improved or expanded as appropriate.
The **Department of Housing and Urban Development** analyzes customer
satisfaction surveys which are given to all ADR participants in order to
identify ways to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the ADR
program. The **Department of Education** evaluates the staff of its
Informal Dispute Resolution Center by how well they are reducing
work-related complaints and how well they are helping employees improve
their performance and communication skills. The **Department of Homeland
Security/Transportation Security Administration** Office of the
Ombudsman is staffed by a contractor. The contractor is "rewarded" for
improved responsiveness to customers according to measurable standards,
which encourages the contractor to identify ways of increasing
efficiency and quality of service.

[Workplace ADR Programs Create Collateral Benefits for the
Agency]{.underline}

The use of ADR produces collateral benefits for the agency. ADR programs
can serve to improve workforce relationships with customers and the
public, and to further agency programmatic needs.

When the bureaucracy is compressed, and disputes are resolved,
information can flow freely between layers of government. Effective
communication ensures that management at all levels has key input from
the employees working with the issues that potentially can pose problems
for the agency as a whole. A workforce that communicates effectively is
more productive and provides a better product for the agency. A good
example is the **Commerce Department/National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration** which opens communication, by using facilitation in
internal meetings among its staff and/or across its programmatic line
offices, in order to identify and address problems. In a related vein,
the **Department of Veterans Affairs** uses an Organizational Climate
Assessment Program, which it designed to examine employee perceptions of
the workplace, to improve productivity by addressing employee
dissatisfaction.

The use of ADR brings external benefits as well. The **Department of
Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration** reports that
its ADR Program, by improving relationships between managers and
employees and increasing employee productivity, generates more positive
external perceptions toward the agency in particular and the federal
government in general. It also may increase the public's confidence in
the ability of the government to resolve disputes. Similarly, the
**National Archives and Records Administration and** the **Department of
Defense/National Security Agency** report that the use of ADR helps
staff learn how to better work together, which in turn improves their
ability to work with the public and respond to customer needs.

In addition, agencies which partner with their employees to anticipate,
and overcome, problems before they occur can in turn help their
customers and clients achieve a stronger and more competitive position.
Consider the **National Mediation Board,** which fulfills the mission of
mediating labor management disputes in the airline and railroad
industries. In the past eight years, the Board has mediated over 600
cases in both industries with only four work stoppages (one of which
lasted for less than 90 minutes). This is especially important -- for
employees and customers alike -- given the impact that a work stoppage
would have on the country. The Board is continually striving to improve
the quality and timeliness of its services to avoid an industry
stoppage.

Another good example of the value added by ADR is revealed by the role
of the **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** in the collective
bargaining of U.S. businesses. The agency commissioned a study to assess
the impact of mediation on collective bargaining negotiations. The study
was conducted by the Employment Policy Foundation, a nonprofit
nonpartisan public policy research foundation that focuses on workplace
trends. The results of the study underscore the benefits for both
companies and employees when mediation is used to resolve labor disputes
in a timely fashion. The study analyzed six years of case data from the
**Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** and determined that
mediation saved \$9 billion in workers' wages and company profits
between 1999 and 2004. The savings resulted from the agency's role in
preventing or shortening work stoppages. The average annual savings
included \$80.7 million in retained company profits, \$640.5 million in
retained union members' wages, and \$781.8 million in retained workers'
wages among workers in ancillary industries. The study also demonstrated
that early involvement by a **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service**
mediator reduces the duration of any work stoppage that does occur.
Where mediation began before the contract expired, work stoppage
duration was reduced by an average of 46% and this reduction in work
stoppages resulted in an average annual benefit of \$217.9 million.

[E-Government Makes Workplace ADR Accessible to All]{.underline}

Agencies with workplace dispute resolution programs report that they
view the use of technology as an essential component in their
distribution of information about ADR programs, including placing ADR
model documents on-line to help educate prospective parties. They also
are employing e-tools to conduct parts of the process and facilitate
access to it, and to effectively manage the process. Further, they are
using technology to ease the transition to e-government.

The Web provides a vehicle for sharing substantive process information,
as illustrated by the comprehensive Web site which is maintained by the
**Department of Energy** Dispute Resolution Office and can be accessed
by all employees. Technology also makes it possible for an agency to
offer on-line training which increases the number of staff who can
participate and makes attendance easier. A good example is the
**Department of the Treasury/Comptroller of the Currency** which
developed an on-line training course with an ADR component that meets
the No Fear Act requirement. The course will be required training for
all new employees and it is available through the agency's automated
learning system.

The **Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service** uses a specially
developed network of Internet servers, mobile computers, projectors and
software in mediations in order to promote better decision making
through broad dissemination of information and input of different
viewpoints. Agencies also are using electronic case-tracking systems and
electronic messaging to report all mediation activity for various
statistical reports. The **Department of Defense/Department of the
Navy** uses a unique docket system that connects the Human Resources
offices worldwide. In addition to standardizing the convening process,
this system provides metrics used in program management and reporting.

Several agencies mentioned using e-tools to streamline various aspects
of the process such as on-line intake procedures to populate basic data
fields more quickly and easily, and on-line evaluation tools to ensure
quick and easy feedback on the process. These tools assist agencies in
managing and synthesizing aggregate data. It is particularly important
that the evaluation form be user-friendly so that the agency can
maximize the return of timely responses from participants and have the
feedback necessary to effect appropriate improvements in the program.
Another tool, video conferencing, is enabling agencies to reduce travel
costs and increase effective communication with regional facilities.

Numerous agencies recognize the need to ease employees' fears and
concerns about transitioning to an electronic government. ADR processes
have helped to smooth this transition. For example, the **National
Archives and Records Administration** is facing not only its own
conversion to electronic government, but it is also considering how best
to meet the needs of its external agency customers who are converting to
an electronic world, and the needs of its public customers who want to
dealing with the agency through the Web and other electronic means. The
changes to an electronic world signal a new way of doing business for a
workforce accustomed to working with paper. Various ADR processes have
been, and will continue to be, used to elicit staff's input into
appropriate decisions about transitioning to an electronic approach and
streamlining the conversion process.

**V. [The Future of Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}**

A. [Capitalizing on the Potential of ADR]{.underline}

Alternative dispute resolution has become well-accepted in federal
agencies as an effective and efficient method for resolving disputes and
has been readily adopted as part of a sound business model. All of the
agencies responding to the survey convey the fundamental belief that
conflict is reduced wherever and whenever communication is improved and
acknowledge the positive impact of ADR on both reducing conflict and
enhancing communication.

While workplace dispute resolution -- particularly in the EEO arena --
still represents a significant portion of ADR activity in the federal
government, many agencies have broadened their application of ADR into
other areas. As more data are collected and analyzed in those areas, it
is becoming clear that ADR has met and exceeded the challenge of
providing parties a cost-effective and time-efficient approach to
resolving conflict.

However, some agencies still describe their workplaces as more
conflict-focused than resolution-oriented. Many agencies report a
pervasive culture of reacting to crisis rather than taking pro-active
measures to prevent it. People often turn to ADR only after the problems
have become intractable. Success can be a bit more difficult to attain
at this point in the process.

Thus, the Executive Branch is still a long way from employing ADR to its
full potential. Alternative dispute resolution is still being used to
"fix problems" as they occur; it has not been fully harnessed to address
the underlying causes of disputes in order to decrease the actual
incidence of conflict. ADR in the next decade needs to grow into a
system of pro-active conflict management as opposed to a one-shot
reaction to a presenting dispute. The key to reducing conflict is early
intervention and anticipatory dispute resolution which prevent an
escalation of a mere disagreement into a public dispute, draining agency
resources and impeding agency work. Strategic business plans need to
address a system which can manage any and all disputes involving the
agency: any dispute, at any time, from anyone who in good faith
disagrees with an agency action. A citizen or employee who cannot get
the attention or "ear" of the agency will otherwise pursue the
traditional approach -- litigation -- as the only way to force the
agency to attend to the matter.

There are, however, a number of agencies that have developed programs to
focus on early intervention, including: the **Department of
Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration** Early Dispute
Resolution Center; the **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** Dispute
Resolution Service and Enforcement Hotline; the **Department of the
Interior** Collaborative Action and Conflict Resolution Program; the
**Department of Justice** ADA Mediation Program for disability rights;
and the **U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution** work
with the other federal agencies on engaging stakeholders early in the
process of resource planning or environmental review. All agencies can
learn from these trailblazers to recognize the power of conflict, using
early recognition of a brewing dispute to diagnose potentially larger
and more serious problems in an agency's management. The early
intervention in conflict management recognizes that conflict is a
symptom of a system that is out of balance -- and that a disputant might
have information on the imbalances and potential remedies. Successful
conflict resolution programs recognize this and value the diversity of
viewpoints. Simply put, when more minds tackle a problem, more creative
and responsive resolutions can emerge. Conflict is thus transformed,
from a negative interaction into a cooperative activity which can infuse
value, flexibility, and adaptability into business decisions.

A goal of the Interagency Working Group Sections and Steering Committee
is to take dispute resolution to the next level: to help agencies
develop integrated systems of conflict management so that disagreement
is no longer a drag on the efficient management of agency administration
but an opportunity for learning about and valuing different viewpoints.
Conflict is endemic to our pluralistic, democratic society and open form
of government. Poorly managed disputes, however, reflect a system that
is not working optimally. Any organization which is stuck in addressing
problems individually rather than systematically will be challenged to
stay ahead of the usual and normal disagreements which arise every day
in the normal course of business. Instead of making problems "go away"
one by one, a smarter organization will adapt to use the information
gleaned early on to resolve the systemic issues underlying the
presenting problem. The most difficult challenge in developing such an
integrated conflict management system is that it necessitates some
uncertainty because it must be flexible and responsive to continuous
change and innovation. But the benefits are plentiful: in an integrated
conflict management system, each employee will be accountable as a
problem solver, working with others to ensure the efficient and
effective accomplishment of agency business.

B. [Challenges and Opportunities]{.underline}

We offer a roadmap of challenges and opportunities that could assist in
fulfilling the promise of ADR in the coming years.

[Leadership]{.underline}

Policy direction and prioritization are powerful tools. Vehicles such as
executive orders, policy statements, proclamations, letters of
recognition, and awards provide the leadership that can nourish ADR and
encourage the results that ADR can produce. A good example is the
Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution which was jointly issued
by the Office of Management and Budget and the Council on Environmental
Quality on November 28, 2005. Through its executive-level call for
increasing the effective use of environmental conflict resolution, the
Memorandum has: raised the level of awareness about the application of
ADR to environmental conflict issues across the federal government;
fostered greater interagency learning; focused the attention of managers
on the essential principles of environmental conflict resolution; and
guided managers in the value of demonstrating performance outcomes.

ADR is an important business application which can benefit the
performance management of all federal agencies. As the use of ADR is
broadened in the coming years, similar appropriate expressions of
leadership commitment would be very valuable in maximizing the
beneficial impact and results of ADR throughout the Executive Branch.

*[Proclamation by the President of a National Conflict Resolution
Day]{.underline}*

Alternative dispute resolution has become the framework for management
of conflict in both the public and private sectors. It is lessening the
cost of business, government, and educational institutions and
delivering better results to financial stakeholders and the taxpayer.
Conflict resolution has become part of the fabric of our society.

A Proclamation by the President for a National Conflict Resolution Day,
which recognizes the societal value of conflict management, would
inspire and motivate federal employees and all others who work in the
field of, or use, alternative dispute resolution. The message may also
encourage citizens and private industry to request ADR as a supplement
to traditional forms of adjudication.

A draft text of a Proclamation by the President is offered for
consideration as Appendix G.

*[Letter of Greetings and Commendation From the President to Federal
Employees Responsible for Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}*

This Report conveys many success stories that have been made possible by
the dedication and effort of federal employees who have utilized
alternative dispute resolution programs for the benefit of the
government and the public. An imprimatur from the highest level of
government would send an unequivocal message of support for continued
and expanded use of ADR. A Letter of Greetings and Commendation from the
President to federal employees responsible for ADR programs in the
Executive Branch would serve as that imprimatur and inspire those
employees to more and greater achievements.

A draft text of a Letter of Greetings and Commendation from the
President is offered for consideration as Appendix H.

*[Establishment of a Federal Council and Annual Conference]{.underline}*

*[for Agency Dispute Resolution Specialists]{.underline}*

The Office of Management and Budget or the Attorney General, as the
official designated by the President to coordinate interagency efforts
to promote and facilitate the use of ADR, could consider constituting a
Federal Council of all Dispute Resolution Specialists, who are the top
ADR officials designated by the Executive Branch agencies pursuant to
the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996. The Council would
serve as the forum for issuance of appropriate government-wide ADR
policy and positions. The Interagency ADR Working Group Sections and
Steering Committee would provide the staff support for the Council and
would offer expertise, policy recommendations, and other assistance as
needed or requested.

An annual conference for members of the Council, and agency lead
attorneys and senior managers, would be effective in raising the level
of awareness about the application of ADR across the Executive Branch,
and foster greater interagency learning. If the President issues a
Proclamation for a National Conflict Resolution Day, the timing of the
Council conference could be coordinated with the issuance of the
Proclamation.

Establishment of the Federal Council and/or the conference would send a
strong message of support for ADR.

*[Government-Wide Biennial ADR Achievement Awards Program]{.underline}*

Instituting a government-wide biennial ADR achievement awards program
would encourage innovative applications of ADR and the demonstration of
performance outcomes. The awards program could be under the auspices of
the Office of Management and Budget, or the Attorney General who is the
official designated by the President to coordinate interagency efforts
to promote and facilitate the use of ADR, and staffed by the Interagency
ADR Working Group Sections and Steering Committee. Inclusions of awards
for the following areas would encompass the range of federal ADR
programs:

-   Alternative Dispute Resolution Award in Civil Enforcement and
    Regulatory Work. This award could recognize federal organizations
    using ADR to resolve liability and related enforcement or regulatory
    issues, and to ensure collaborative stakeholder participation in
    regulatory decisions. The award program could be staffed by the
    Interagency ADR Working Group Civil Enforcement and Regulatory
    Section.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alternative Dispute Resolution Award in Contracts and Procurement.
    There is already an annual Alternative Dispute Resolution Award in
    Acquisition for which the competition is conducted by the Office of
    Federal Procurement Policy in the Office of Management and Budget.
    The award, which is the only current government-wide ADR award,
    recognizes federal and private sector organizations that are
    innovatively and effectively utilizing ADR to resolve disputes
    relating to federal acquisitions and contracts. The award program is
    staffed by the Interagency ADR Working Group Contracts and
    Procurement Section. The annual program could be continued in its
    current form, or folded into the proposed biennial government-wide
    program.

-   Alternative Dispute Resolution Award in the Workplace. The Office of
    Personnel Management used to have a Director's Award for Outstanding
    ADR Workplace Programs. The program was discontinued after the 2002
    competition and reinstituting it is not currently under
    consideration by the agency. The new proposed award could recognize
    federal organizations using ADR as part of their strategic
    management of human capital to foster a positive working environment
    for all employees and to improve workplace productivity. The award
    program could be staffed by the Interagency ADR Working Group
    Workplace Section.

-   Alternative Dispute Resolution Award for best new ADR program
    initiated by an agency. The award would recognize innovative or
    unique new applications of ADR either in new programs or in new ways
    that make existing programs more effective and efficient. The award
    program could be staffed by the Interagency ADR Working Group
    Steering Committee and Sections.

[Performance Management]{.underline}

Appropriate commitment by agency leadership to the beneficial impact and
results of ADR can be instrumental in maximizing those benefits for the
agency. One clear manifestation of that commitment is the agency's
integration of conflict management principles into its performance
management structure. Agency managers will focus on and use the
performance management structure and, where it includes conflict
management elements, the uses and good outcomes of ADR are more likely
to be maximized.

*[Conflict Management As a Selection and Performance Appraisal
Criterion]{.underline}*

*[for Executive and Management Positions]{.underline}*

Agencies may or may not have conflict management elements in the
selection criteria they use for recruiting and hiring and the
performance appraisals of their managers. However, executives and
managers who are themselves well-versed in conflict management
principles will be more likely to recognize their benefits and apply
them in their areas of responsibility. The best way to insure
familiarity with conflict management principles is to include them in
selection and performance appraisal criteria.

Agency management starts with the Senior Executive Service. The Office
of Personnel Management has recently led the way with its Executive Core
Qualifications, which define the competencies needed to build teams,
serve customers, and produce results. The second Executive Core
Qualification is Leading People, and it had long included a generic
standard of "support \[for\] constructive resolution of conflicts." That
Qualification was amended effective October 2006 and now includes a
pro-active focus which requires these conflict management competencies:

-   encourages creative tension and differences of opinions

-   anticipates and takes steps to prevent counter-productive
    confrontations

-   manages and resolves conflicts and disagreements in a constructive
    manner

Since the Office of Personnel Management's Executive Core Qualifications
are required for entry into the Senior Executive Service, new waves of
executive-level leadership in all of the federal agencies can be
expected to have a conflict management orientation. In addition, many
agencies choose to use those same Executive Core Qualifications for
their own selection, performance management, and leadership development
for both management and executive positions. As this trend continues and
grows, so does the likelihood of a positive and productive workforce.

*[Conflict Management As a Key Element in Recruitment, Training, and
Planning]{.underline}*

A good example of the integration of leadership commitment into
performance management is found in the Memorandum issued jointly on
November 28, 2005, by the Chairman of the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management
concerning a Competency Based Approach to Collaboration and Partnering.
The Memorandum is addressed to five agencies (Departments of the
Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Defense and the Environmental
Protection Agency) on a specific topic (the principle of "cooperative
conservation" which specifies that federal decision making will provide
opportunities for local inclusion and be conducted in cooperation with
tribal, state, and local governments).

However, the Memorandum transcends both the specific topic and
addressees, and instead establishes a government-wide beacon for
integration of conflict management principles into the performance
management of an agency. The Memorandum gives an imprimatur to an
agreement of the Chief Human Capital Officers "to support a
competency-based approach to developing within their organizations the
collaboration and partnering skills necessary to ensure the...
objectives." The concepts behind the Memorandum's illustrative examples
are relevant here and can be used in whole or in part by agencies across
the Executive Branch:

-   In recruiting and hiring: include in the selection criteria for
    appropriate positions relevant conflict management attributes such
    as a commitment to working collaboratively or experience in
    consensus-building;

-   In training: identify the competencies necessary for effective
    collaboration in the areas of agency responsibility and develop
    employee training programs to advance those attributes; and,

-   In strategic and management planning: incorporate the competencies
    for effective collaboration into performance measures for positions
    that are responsible for program and project planning, development,
    and implementation.

*[Programmatic Reviews and Evaluations]{.underline}*

If ADR programs are to function optimally, an agency should undertake a
baseline programmatic review and periodic evaluations that show measures
of improvement and progress in implementing ADR programs. The agency
also should be ready to adapt the programs in response to changing needs
-- of the agency and/or of its stakeholders.

Any ADR programs could benefit from efforts to better articulate program
goals and, more importantly, measure progress toward those goals. Many
agencies are striving to do so, but it is admittedly a difficult task.
To substantiate performance, agency data should be collected and
analyzed. While many ADR programs are subject to an ordinary
cost-benefit analysis to show the advantages of ADR use, some are not
subject to any easy analysis.

There is a great need for research and development of new methods and
criteria for evaluation of ADR success in relation to reaching specific
agency goals. Public/private partnerships for research purposes have
proven valuable in a number of instances in the effort to collect and
analyze data. Federal agencies, because of their size, breadth, and
centralized leadership, are in an optimal position to collect data
relating to the use, effects, and success of their use of ADR within
their programs. In several instances, a university has performed
research with data supplied by a particular agency. Some examples of
successful collaboration efforts are these partnerships:

-   between the **Equal Employment Opportunity Commission** and Cornell
    University;

-   between the **National Mediation Board** and the University of
    Massachusetts; and

-   between the **Department of the Interior** and the Community Based
    Collaboratives Research Consortium.

More active outreach by federal agencies to promote research and
cooperation with universities and other private institutions could yield
valuable information for the future of ADR.

[External Promotion and Facilitation]{.underline}

One barrier that stands in the way of realizing the full potential of
ADR in the enforcement and regulatory arena is the fact that
representatives of regulated and other entities may not understand,
fully or at all, how ADR works and the benefits it can produce. Agency
efforts to educate the entities subject to its jurisdiction, and to
promote and facilitate their use of ADR in appropriate cases, would go a
long way toward fulfilling the promise of ADR. The experience of
agencies using ADR, which are discussed in this report, demonstrates how
its use in civil enforcement and regulatory matters can reduce the
expenses of adversarial processes, increase inclusiveness and
stakeholder participation, and resolve conflict collaboratively.
Expanding the ADR knowledge base of the regulated constituencies, and
increasing their use of conflict resolution tools, is likely to produce
only positive consequences.

The staffing of external promotion and facilitation efforts is likely to
be dependent on the availability of resources to do so. With leadership
and coordination, federal agencies with regulatory and enforcement
responsibilities could conserve their resources -- and accomplish more
with less -- by sharing outreach planning, promotion, and facilitation
efforts to the benefit of all.

[Training]{.underline}

In providing information for this report, agencies consistently stressed
that the provision of ADR training is a key to success in conflict
management. For example, the **Department of Transportation** sees a
positive correlation between training and the use of its ADR programs.
As a result, many agencies make ADR training as easily-accessible and
widely-available as possible. The **Department of Defense/Department of
the Navy** takes advantage of information technology to provide on-line
ADR training. The **Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency
Management Agency**, the **Peace Corps**, the **Department of**
**Veterans Affairs**, and the **Department of the Treasury/Bureau of**
**Public Debt** include ADR in training sessions and orientations. The
**Department of the Treasury/Office of** **Comptroller of the Currency**
provides a mediation DVD to help managers explain ADR benefits and
procedures to all employees. The **Department of Justice/Federal Bureau
of Prisons** gives training in "civil treatment" communication skills
for managers. The **Federal Energy Regulatory Commission** provides ADR
training, internally and externally, for agency staff and for those who
participate before the Commission.

All agencies can expect to benefit from the provision of training in ADR
techniques including communications skills. At the very least, agencies
should consider providing communication skills training for all new
employees, and communications skills and conflict management training
for all new managers and supervisors. Some agencies currently mix
management and employees in the same ADR course, an approach that can
have long-term benefits as they gain insight about the perspectives of
"the other side" and learn how best to work together. Regardless of how
they provide their training, or what they include in it, agencies should
consider capitalizing on information technology to make the training
available on-line and "on demand" and at minimal cost.

Many agencies offer training through in-house providers, while other
agencies utilize external ADR training providers. Regardless of the
source of the trainers, the availability of funding for training is a
challenge for many agencies. With leadership and some coordination,
agencies could conserve resources by sharing in interagency training
planning and delivery. Such sharing, perhaps modeled after the Shared
Neutrals program, could save overall expenses by increasing the use of
internal ADR professionals rather than more costly outside providers.
Agencies could also inventory their own training material and create an
interagency "lending library" of resources which could be used by any
agency and shared by all.

[Interagency Sharing of Federal Resources]{.underline}

Availability of resources is a challenge for all agencies. Finding ways
to share resources and tools with other federal agencies can reduce
administrative redundancies and improve efficiencies while meeting
common needs. The Shared Neutrals program is one example. With
leadership and coordination, agencies can consider sharing in many
interagency projects beyond those already suggested in this report, such
as:

-   ADR tracking and evaluation tools;

-   Blanket Purchase Agreements to make procurement quicker and easier;

-   identification of a cadre of subject matter experts (internal or
    external) who have, or can develop, ADR expertise to handle disputes
    that require technical knowledge;

-   expansion of the Shared Neutrals program to provide services beyond
    mediation, e.g., partnering, facilitation, coaching, and mentoring;
    and

-   creation of entry or continuing education for the Shared Neutrals
    program that would ensure continued high standards and consistent
    performance for federal mediators.

> [Management Support]{.underline}

*Institutionalization of the ADR Program*

As the contributions of ADR continue to grow and become an essential
feature of effective management across a growing number of agencies,
there is a corresponding need to ensure that the ADR programs themselves
are properly and effectively managed. Historically, many ADR programs
began as incidental, temporary assignments. In some agencies, this
remains the case, even though the ADR portfolio has extended well beyond
initial expectations. It is time for all agencies to integrate and
institutionalize their ADR programs within their organizations, budgets,
and strategic program planning.

It is important for agencies to provide a viable foundation for the
offices which manage their ADR programs. Too often, ADR offices have no
dedicated, or insufficient, funding. Several agencies stated that they
do not even have enough money to send their own mediators to mediations
that have been requested by the parties. Other agencies noted the irony
of their situation where, since they lack adequate in-house resources,
they must pay the higher cost of contracting outside the agency for
skilled ADR assistance. Too often, ADR offices have no dedicated
personnel either. Instead, they are dependent on "borrowed" space and
"detailed" employees temporarily assigned from other components. This
ad-hoc approach is particularly difficult in the workplace arena where,
while ADR is almost always offered, it is not always accepted. Managers
often distrust the process, or feel that participation might be
construed as an admission of wrongdoing. Many agencies also report a
limited employee buy-in. The struggle of ADR program managers to change
this culture is even more difficult when their own offices have no
continuity of personnel handling the workplace ADR processes.

Having an ADR office operate on a "catch as catch can" basis is
counter-productive for the agency and is often short-sighted It has an
adverse impact on the stability of an ADR program, drains its
credibility, and diminishes the savings and other beneficial results the
agency could otherwise expect. It is difficult, or impossible, to
evaluate program results effectively, implement program improvements,
and formulate strategic or long-range planning.

Continuity of staff and funding will go a long way toward
institutionalizing and ensuring successful, well-developed programs. As
part of the agency's leadership commitment, an ADR program/office should
be given dedicated funding and staffing. Dedicated funding ensures the
stability and effective program management of the ADR office. Dedicated
staffing ensures the independence of an ADR program, which is essential
to the stakeholders and users who must trust the neutrality and
confidentiality of the program operations. Institutionalization of the
ADR operation would also insure that settlement agreements are properly
and consistently vetted, and that data collection and analysis is
ongoing, accurate, comprehensive, and used to improve program results.

*[Integration or Coordination of ADR Programs]{.underline}*

In agencies which have established a firm foundation for ADR programs,
some have opted for a centralized approach and others have preferred a
decentralized one. There is no "one correct answer" but it is important
for agencies to consider the advantages and disadvantages of different
approaches in deciding what will work best for their own operations. On
the one hand, a centralized ADR office can permit easy access for
assistance for all types of disputes and facilitate sharing of training
and other resources. On the other hand, a decentralized approach can
help to ensure that ADR is not over-emphasized in one particular
application to the detriment of other areas, and can ensure that ADR is
used differently in different settings where appropriate. A middle
course can be a "network" approach where different ADR programs share a
common leadership vision. One example of the network approach is the
**Department of the Interior's** establishment of the Office of
Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution in the Office of the
Secretary to provide leadership for an agency Dispute Resolution
Council. The Council is comprised of designated Dispute Resolution
Specialists for every component to ensure increased leadership support
and shared commitment, improved coordination, and reduced administrative
redundancy. Another example of the network approach is the **Department
of Defense** ADR Coordinating Committee which is chaired by the
Department of Defense Dispute Resolution Specialist and composed of the
Dispute Resolution Specialist or designee from each component.

Regardless of approach, one overriding principle is that ADR should be
integrated into the way people do business in all areas of the agency's
responsibilities where use of ADR is appropriate. A second best practice
is that decentralized ADR programs should at least share communication.
Where independent ADR programs share an agency roof, but no
inter-program communication, their opportunity for shared expertise and
resources is lost, to the detriment of all.

**VI. [Conclusion]{.underline}**

Alternative dispute resolution is a tool for appropriate cases, not a
panacea for all cases. The interests of the United States often are
unique. Federal officials can resolve cases only in ways that will not
undermine important legal issues, jurisdictional defenses, or policy
interests. In appropriate cases, ADR has become a common sense option
for the federal agencies. It is cost-effective and time-efficient, it
gives the parties control over the outcome, and it involves stakeholders
in decisions that affect them.

Today, ADR is an important part of our work, and tomorrow the promise of
ADR will be an integral part of our government, business and society.

Twenty years ago, the Internet was not part of our daily lives. Today,
we cannot imagine business without the World Wide Web, and indeed
business has accelerated to keep pace with the speed of the Internet.
The prospect of waiting several years for a dispute to be resolved in a
civil action has become unacceptable. Tomorrow's business demands
time-efficient dispute resolution.

Twenty years ago, geographic boundaries were defined. Today, the
Internet has made them porous. Tomorrow, the global community will need
resolution mechanisms that can deal with disputes quickly and well in a
multi-cultural, international environment.

Twenty years ago, dispute resolution was not part of judicial
operations. Today, ADR is being used every day in the courts of the
United States.

Twenty years ago, ADR was just the beginning of an idea. Today, ADR has
come of age. It is a framework for management of conflict for both the
public and private sectors. It is lessening the cost of business and
government, and delivering better results to the American people.

ADR has become so much more than just an "alternative" to litigation.
Rather, it is accepted as an "appropriate" dispute resolution technique
for an endless array of conflicts. It is the smart approach, it is
accepted, and it has become part of our universe. Tomorrow will bring
ever-expanding uses of appropriate dispute resolution.

**APPENDIX A**

**[Definitions of Alternative Dispute Resolution
Processes]{.underline}**

**Appendix A**

Definitions of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes

# 

# [MEDIATION]{.underline}

A process wherein a third party neutral (independent, impartial, and
acceptable to all parties), assists the parties in reaching a mutually
acceptable resolution and agreement.

[ARBITRATION -- BINDING AND NON-BINDING]{.underline}

An adjudicatory process that involves presenting a dispute to an
impartial individual who then issues a decision, either binding or
non-binding per prior agreement of the parties.

[FACILITATION]{.underline}

A process in which a facilitator, who is substantively neutral and has
no decision making authority, intervenes to help a group improve the way
it identifies problems and makes decisions in order to increase the
group's effectiveness.

[SETTLEMENT CONFERENCES]{.underline}

A process often used in court or administrative proceedings, court
proceedings, EEOC hearings, and FLRA hearings, and increasingly in civil
enforcement and regulatory disputes, and always conducted by a
settlement judge. The settlement judge can employ any of the many
alternative dispute resolution approaches in the settlement negotiation.
Many settlement judges serve as mediators, working with the parties to
find a mutually acceptable resolution to their dispute. Some settlement
judges serve as evaluators, providing specific substantive and legal
information regarding the strengths and/or weaknesses of the parties'
positions in the case should it go to a formal adjudication.

# [PARTNERING]{.underline}

A process which allows stakeholders with divergent views to manage
conflict effectively and engage in a series of mutual consensus-building
processes.

[CONFLICT COACHING]{.underline}

In its simplest terms, a coach is a thinking partner, someone who can
assist others in identifying and exploring options, support risk taking,
and, if necessary, develop the skills necessary to move forward.

[NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING and]{.underline}

[CONSENSUS BUILDING/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION]{.underline}

ADR professionals bring together representatives of various
"stakeholder" or interest groups and officials and managers from a
federal agency in order to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The
ADR professional convenes a series of meetings among a well-balanced
group representing the regulated public, public interest groups, state
and local governments, and any other stakeholders and, working with a
representative of the agency, manages an ordered discussion of the
responsibilities, rights, and interests of all of the represented
organizations.

[OMBUDS]{.underline}

Although there are several types of Ombuds, the workplace or
organizational ombuds facilitates fair and equitable resolutions of
concerns that arise within an entity. The essential characteristics of
an ombuds are independence, impartiality in conducting inquiries and
investigations, and confidentiality.

[OTHER PROCESSES]{.underline}

-   **Dispute Panels:** A process whereby a panel of more than one
    impartial individual (usually three members: a management official,
    a union official, and one member who is jointly selected by
    management and union) hears arguments, receives evidence, and
    submits a recommendation to the appropriate deciding official.

-   **Early Neutral Evaluation:** A process that provides to the parties
    an early, honest, and independent evaluation of the merits of a case
    (both potential outcome as well as reasonable settlement value) by
    an objective third party hired by mutual agreement of the parties.

-   **Fact-Finding:** A process wherein a neutral third party
    fact-finder studies issues in dispute and reports a finding of
    substantiated facts to the disputing parties.

-   **Consultation:** A process wherein a neutral third party explores
    the issues, positions, and interests of the parties in an effort to
    help diagnose the issues and assess the situation. It is a tool for
    framing and clarifying issues in dispute.

-   **Team Building:** Team building is a type of facilitation process
    in which a third party neutral assists a team or a group of
    individuals with interrelated roles and responsibilities. The team
    members operate within a set of norms and rules and define the goals
    and guidelines for a group to effectively achieve stated goals.

**APPENDIX B**

**[Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes Reported by Agencies
2005-06]{.underline}**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><p><strong>CABINET</strong></p>
<p><strong>AGENCIES</strong></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><u>Department of</u></p>
<p><u>Agriculture</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><u>Department of</u></p>
<p><u>Commerce</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><u>Department of Defense:</u></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>1. Department of the Air</p>
<p>Force</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x (some)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>2. Department of the Army</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x (some)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>3. Army Corps of</p>
<p>Engineers</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>4. Department of the Navy</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>5. Defense Commissary</p>
<p>Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>6. Defense Contract Audit</p>
<p>Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><blockquote>
<p>7. Defense Contract</p>
<p>Management Agency</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>8. Defense Finance and</p>
<p>Accounting Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ol start="9" type="1">
<li><p>Defense Information Systems Agency</p></li>
</ol></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>10. Defense Logistics</p>
<p>Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>11. Department of Defense</p>
<p>Education Activity</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ol start="12" type="1">
<li><p>National Geospatial-</p></li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Intelligence Agency</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>13. National Guard Bureau</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>14. National Security</p>
<p>Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>15. Uniformed Services</p>
<p>University of the Health</p>
<p>Sciences</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>16. Washington</p>
<p>Headquarters Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><u>Department of Education</u></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><u>Department of Energy</u></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><p><u>Department of Health and</u></p>
<p><u>Human Services</u></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>1. Agency for Healthcare</p>
<p>Research and Quality</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>2. Centers for Disease</p>
<p>Control and Prevention</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>3. Centers for Medicare &amp;</p>
<p>Medicaid Services</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>4. Departmental Appeals</p>
<p>Board</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>5. Food and Drug</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>6. Health Resources &amp;</p>
<p>Services Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>7. National Institutes of</p>
<p>Health</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><ol start="8" type="1">
<li><p>Office of Equal</p></li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Opportunity and Civil</p>
<p>Rights</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>9. Office of Hearings</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><u>Department of Homeland</u></p>
<p><u>Security</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>1. Citizenship and</p>
<p>Immigration Services</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>2. Civil Rights and Civil</p>
<p>Liberties</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>3. Federal Emergency</p>
<p>Management Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4. Secret Service</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>5. Transportation Security</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><u>Department of Housing</u></p>
<p><u>and Urban Development</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><u>Department of the</u></p>
<p><u>Interior</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><u>Department of Justice</u></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1. Civil Division</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2. Civil Rights Division</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>3. Community Relations</p>
<p>Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>4. Environment and</p>
<p>Natural Resources</p>
<p>Division</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>5. Executive Office for</p>
<p>United States Attorneys</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>6. United States Attorneys</p>
<p>Offices</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>7. Federal Bureau of</p>
<p>Investigation</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>8. Federal Bureau of</p>
<p>Prisons</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>9. Justice Management</p>
<p>Division</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>10. Tax Division</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><u>Department of Labor</u></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><u>Department of State</u></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p><u>Department of</u></p>
<p><u>Transportation</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td colspan="10"><p><u>Department of</u></p>
<p><u>Treasury</u></p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ol type="1">
<li><p>Alcohol and Tobacco,</p></li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Tax and Trade Bureau</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>2. Bureau of Engraving</p>
<p>and Printing</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>3. Bureau of the Public</p>
<p>Debt</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>4. Departmental Offices</p>
<p>(Department Oversight</p>
<p>Office)</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>5. Financial Crimes</p>
<p>Enforcement Network</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>6. Financial Management</p>
<p>Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><ol start="7" type="1">
<li><p>Internal Revenue</p></li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Service</p>
</blockquote></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>8. Internal Revenue</p>
<p>Service Appeals</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>9. Office of the</p>
<p>Comptroller of the</p>
<p>Currency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>10. Treasury Inspector</p>
<p>General for Tax</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>11. United States Mint</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p><u>Department of Veterans</u></p>
<p><u>Affairs</u></p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x (some)</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="10"><strong><u>INDEPENDENT AGENCIES</u></strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Commodity Futures</p>
<p>Trading Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Consumer Product Safety</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Corporation for National</p>
<p>and Community Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Environmental Protection</p>
<p>Agency</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Equal Employment</p>
<p>Opportunity Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Export-Import Bank of</p>
<p>the United States</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Federal Communications</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Federal Deposit Insurance</p>
<p>Corporation</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Federal Election</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Federal Energy</p>
<p>Regulatory Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Federal Maritime</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Federal Mediation &amp;</p>
<p>Conciliation Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Federal Reserve Board</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Federal Trade</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>General Services</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>National Archives and</p>
<p>Records Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>National Labor Relations</p>
<p>Board</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>National Mediation</p>
<p>Board</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>National Science</p>
<p>Foundation</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Nuclear Regulatory</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Office of Personnel</p>
<p>Management</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Peace Corps</td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Pension Benefit Guaranty</p>
<p>Corporation</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Securities and Exchange</p>
<p>Commission</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Small Business</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>Social Security</p>
<p>Administration</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 21%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 9%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td>Mediation</td>
<td><p>Arbitration</p>
<p><em>(other than labor union grievances)</em></p></td>
<td>Facilitation</td>
<td>Settlement Judges</td>
<td><p>Consensus Building/</p>
<p>Public</p>
<p>Participation</p></td>
<td>Partnering</td>
<td>Conflict Coaching</td>
<td>Negotiated Rule Making</td>
<td>Ombuds</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>Tennessee Valley</p>
<p>Authority</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>United States Agency for</p>
<p>International</p>
<p>Development</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>United States Institute for</p>
<p>Environmental Conflict</p>
<p>Resolution of the Morris</p>
<p>K. Udall Foundation</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td><p>United States Office of</p>
<p>Government Ethics</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td><p>United States Postal</p>
<p>Service</p></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>x</strong></td>
<td><strong>X</strong></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**APPENDIX C**

**[Past and Current Leadership]{.underline}**

**[of the]{.underline}**

**[Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}**

**[Working Group Sections and Steering Committee]{.underline}**

**Appendix C**

**[Current and Past Leadership of the]{.underline}**

**[Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}**

**[Working Group, Sections, and Steering Committee]{.underline}**

[Background, Genesis and Authority]{.underline}

Congress, by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act ("ADRA") of 1996,
authorized the President to "establish an interagency committee to
facilitate and encourage agency use" of alternative means of dispute
resolution in the administrative process. 5 U.S.C. § 573(c)

Pursuant to the statutory authority, the President (by Memorandum dated
May 1, 1998, for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies)
directed the United States Attorney General to convene an interagency
"Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group" which would serve as the
interagency committee authorized by the ADRA. The President's Memorandum
provides that:

● The Working Group consists of representatives of the heads of the
Cabinet Departments and, as determined by the Attorney General, "other
agencies with a significant interest in dispute resolution."

● The mission of the Working Group is to "facilitate, encourage, and
provide coordination for agencies" in, among other things, the
development of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs and the
training of agency personnel in "when and how to use alternative means
of dispute resolution."

● The Attorney General may designate a representative(s) to convene and
facilitate meetings of "subgroups" of agencies to address "particular
issues or subject areas, such as disputes involving personnel,
procurement, and claims."

In accordance with the President's directive, the Attorney General, at a
meeting of senior agency officials held on September 14, 1998,
officially convened the Interagency ADR Working Group. Those in
attendance were advised that the Working Group would "devolve" into four
subject matter Sections (Workplace, Contracts & Procurement, Civil
Enforcement, and Claims Against the Government) and the Attorney General
subsequently approved Chairs of the four Working Group Sections.

At the Attorney General's meeting of September 14, 1998, the attendees
were advised that, in addition to the Sections, the Working Group would
also "devolve" into a "forum" for discussing "best practices" in the
field of ADR. The Interagency ADR Working Group Steering Committee has
staffed the work of the Working Group and has served as the "forum"
envisioned by the Attorney General. From its creation, the Steering
Committee's membership has included the Chairs and leadership of the
four Working Group Sections.

[Chairs of the Working Group Sections]{.underline}

*[Civil Enforcement and Regulatory Section]{.underline}*

Richard L. Miles

Director, Dispute Resolution Service and the Office of Administrative
Litigation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

September 2002 -- present

Robert Ward

Senior Counsel for ADR and Dispute Resolution Specialist

Environmental Protection Agency

December 1998 -- July 2002

David C. Batson

Senior ADR Liaison Specialist

Environmental Protection Agency

October -- November 1998

*[Claims Against the Government Section]{.underline}*

Office of Dispute Resolution

U.S. Department of Justice

October 2005 - present

Jeffrey M. Senger

Deputy Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Office of Dispute Resolution

U.S. Department of Justice

February 2002 -- September 2005

Peter Steenland

Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Office of Dispute Resolution

U.S. Department of Justice

November 1998 -- January 2002

> *[Contracts and Procurement Section]{.underline}*

Anthony N. Palladino

Associate Chief Counsel and

Director, Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

January 2000 - present

Brig. Gen. Frank J. Anderson, Jr.

United States Air Force

October 1998 -- December 1999

*[Workplace Section]{.underline}*

Cindy Mazur

Alternative Dispute Resolution Director

Federal Emergency Management Agency

March 2004 - present

Andrew Colsky

ADR Attorney

United States Postal Service

May 2000 -- February 2004

Martha McClellan

Counsel

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

February 1999 -- May 2000

Mary Elcano (Co-Chair)

General Counsel

United States Postal Service

Erica Cooper (Co-Chair)

Deputy General Counsel

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

October 1998 -- February 1999

[Chairs of the Steering Committee]{.underline}

Jerry W. Jones, Jr.

Director, Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

November 2006 - present

Gregory A. Burke

Ombuds

Office of Resolution Management

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

May -- October 2006

Anthony N. Palladino

Associate Chief Counsel and

Director, Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

April 2005 - April 2006

Richard L. Miles

Director, Dispute Resolution Service and the Office of Administrative
Litigation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

October 2004 -- March 2005

John A. Dietrich

Alternative Dispute Resolution Counsel and

Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist

U.S. Department of the Navy

April - September 2004

D. Leah Meltzer

Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist

Securities & Exchange Commission

October 2003 - March 2004

Sarah Rudgers

Director, Dispute Resolution Program

National Archives and Records Administration

April -- September 2003

Andrew Colsky

ADR Attorney

United States Postal Service

August 2002 -- March 2003

Christine M. Kopocis

Department of Defense ADR Liaison

February 2002 - July 2002

Eileen B. Hoffman

Commissioner, International and Dispute Resolution Services

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

July 2001 -- January 2002

Hon. Richard C. Walters

Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition

Federal Aviation Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

January 2001 to June 2001

(now Board Judge, United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals)

Jody Lee

Dispute Resolution Specialist

Office for Civil Rights

U.S. Department of State

July 2000 -- December 2000

David C. Batson

Senior ADR Specialist

Environmental Protection Agency

March -- June 2000

Peter Steenland

Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Office of Dispute Resolution

U.S. Department of Justice

Charter Chair

[Vice-Chairs of the Steering Committee]{.underline}

(Note: The Steering Committee created the position of Vice-Chair, and
incorporated it into the Steering Committee Governance Document, in July
2006)

Dale Gentry

Director, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center

Department of Agriculture

November 2006 - present

**APPENDIX D**

**[Current Membership]{.underline}**

**[of the]{.underline}**

**[Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}**

**[Working Group Steering Committee]{.underline}**

**Appendix D**

**[Federal Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution]{.underline}**

**[Working Group Steering Committee Membership]{.underline}**

**[April 2007]{.underline}**

**[Executive Office of the President/Cabinet
Representatives]{.underline}**

Office of Management and Budget/Executive Office of the President:

Robert A. Burton

Associate Administrator

Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Department of Agriculture:

Dale Gentry

Director, Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center

Department of Commerce:

Brian D. DiGiacomo

Chief, Employment and Labor Law Division

Department of Defense:

Christine M. Kopocis

Department of Defense ADR Liaison

Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force:

Kenneth Lechter

Associate General Counsel (Dispute Resolution)

Department of Defense/Department of the Army:

Dennis Dean Kirk

Special Assistant to the General Counsel

Department of Defense/Department of the Navy:

John A. Dietrich

Assistant General Counsel (ADR)

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Education:

Kathryn A. Ellis

Senior Counsel to the Deputy General Counsel for Program Service, and

Agency Dispute Resolution Specialist

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Energy:

Kathleen M. Binder

Director, Office of Dispute Resolution

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Health and Human Services:

Neil H. Kaufman

Chief, Alternative Dispute Resolution Division

Departmental Appeals Board

Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency:

Cindy Mazur

Alternative Dispute Resolution Director

Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration:

Deborah A. Katz

Model Workplace Program Executive

Department of Housing and Urban Development:

Jerry W. Jones, Jr.

Director, Alternative Dispute Resolution Program

Office of Departmental Equal Employment Opportunity

Department of the Interior:

Elena Gonzalez

Director, Office of Collaborative Action and Dispute Resolution

Department of Justice:

Linda A. Cinciotta

Director, Office of Dispute Resolution

Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Department of Labor:

Annabelle T. Lockhart

Director, Civil Rights Center

Department of State:

Jacqueline A. Canton

Chief, ADR and EEO Counseling Section

Chief, Complaints Management Division

Department of the Treasury:

\[awaiting designation of agency representative)

Department of Transportation:

Judith S. Kaleta

Senior Counsel for Dispute Resolution and

Dispute Resolution Specialist

Department of Veterans Affairs:

Rafael A. Torres

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Resolution Management

Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist for Workplace ADR

**[Independent Agency Representatives]{.underline}**

Environmental Protection Agency:

David C. Batson

Senior ADR Specialist

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

Douglas A. Gallegos

Attorney Advisor

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation:

Marianne Robb

Counsel, Alternative Dispute Resolution Team

FDIC Legal Division

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:

Richard L. Miles

Director, Dispute Resolution Service and the Office of Administrative
Litigation

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service:

Kimberly Y. Beg

Director, FMCS Institute

General Services Administration:

Brenda F. Ward

Senior Assistant General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

National Archives & Records Administration:

Gary M. Stern

General Counsel

National Mediation Board:

Rachel Barbour

ADR Program Specialist

Office of Personnel Management:

Ana A. Mazzi

Deputy Associate Director for Workforce Relations and Accountability
Policy

Securities and Exchange Commission:

D. Leah Meltzer

Deputy Dispute Resolution Specialist

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution:

Kirk Emerson

Director

U.S. Postal Service:

Patricia Morgese Richter

Manager, National EEO Compliance and Appeals Program

**[Additional Representatives Currently Serving on the Steering
Committe]{.underline}**

**[Who Are Initial/Grandfathered Members of the Steering
Committee]{.underline}**

Howard Gadlin

Ombudsman

Department of Health and Human Services/National Institutes of Health

(grandfathered at National Institutes of Health, Department of Health
and Human Services)

Eileen Hoffman

Commissioner, International and Dispute Resolution Services

Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

(grandfathered at Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service)

Fern Feil Kaufman

Counsel for Dispute Resolution

Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution

Department of Transportation

(grandfathered at Federal Labor Relations Authority)

Anthony N. Palladino

Associate Chief Counsel and Director

Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition

Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation Administration:

(grandfathered at Federal Aviation Administration/Department of
Transportation)

Hon. Richard C. Walters

Board Judge

United States Civilian Board of Contract Appeals

(administratively organized in the General Services Administration)

(grandfathered at Department of Transportation/Federal Aviation
Administration)

**[Recorder/Archivist]{.underline}**

Terry Fenton

Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center

Environmental Protection Agency

**APPENDIX E**

**[Federal Agencies Which Provided the Information Used in This
Report]{.underline}**

**Appendix E**

**[Federal Agencies Which Provided Information Used in This
Report]{.underline}**

***[Cabinet Agencies]{.underline}***

**[Department of Agriculture]{.underline}**

**[Department of Commerce]{.underline}**

**[Department of Defense]{.underline}**

1.  Department of the Air Force

2.  Department of the Army

3.  Army Corps of Engineers

4.  Department of the Navy

5.  Defense Commissary Agency

6.  Defense Contract Audit Agency

7.  Defense Contract Management Agency

8.  Defense Finance and Accounting Service

9.  Defense Information Systems Agency

10. Defense Logistics Agency

11. Department of Defense Education Activity

12. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

13. National Guard Bureau (Air Force and Army)

14. National Security Agency

15. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

16. Washington Headquarters Service

**[Department of Education]{.underline}**

**[Department of Energy]{.underline}**

**[Department of Health and Human Services]{.underline}**

1\. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

2\. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

> 3\. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

4\. Departmental Appeals Board

> 5\. Food and Drug Administration

6\. Health Resources & Services Administration

7\. National Institutes of Health

8\. Office of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights

9\. Office of Hearings

**[Department of Homeland Security]{.underline}**

1\. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

2\. Citizenship and Immigration Services

3\. Federal Emergency Management Agency

4\. Transportation Security Administration

5\. Secret Service

**[Department of Housing and Urban Development]{.underline}**

**[Department of the Interior]{.underline}**

**[Department of Justice]{.underline}**

1\. Civil Division

2\. Civil Rights Division

3\. Community Relations Service

4\. Environment and Natural Resources Division

5\. Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and United States
Attorneys' Offices

6\. Federal Bureau of Investigation

7\. Federal Bureau of Prisons

8\. Justice Management Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Staff

9\. Tax Division

**[Department of Labor]{.underline}**, Office of the Administrative Law
Judges

**[Department of State]{.underline}**

**[Department of Transportation]{.underline}**

1\. Federal Aviation Administration

2\. Federal Highway Administration

3\. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

4\. Federal Transit Administration

5\. Office of Inspector General

**[Department of the Treasury]{.underline}**

1\. The Alcohol & Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau

2\. Bureau of Engraving and Printing

3\. Bureau of the Public Debt

4\. Departmental Offices (Departmental Oversight Office)

5\. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

6\. Financial Management Service

7\. Internal Revenue Service

8\. Internal Revenue Service Appeals

> 9\. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
>
> 10\. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

11\. United States Mint

**[Department of Veterans Affairs]{.underline}**

***[Independent Agencies]{.underline}***

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Consumer Product Safety Commission

Corporation for National and Community Service

Environmental Protection Agency

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Export-Import Bank of the United States

Federal Communications Commission

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Federal Election Commission

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Federal Maritime Commission

Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service

Federal Reserve Board

Federal Trade Commission

General Services Administration

National Archives and Records Administration

National Labor Relations Board

National Mediation Board

National Science Foundation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Peace Corps

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Securities and Exchange Commission

Small Business Administration

Social Security Administration

Tennessee Valley Authority

U.S. Agency for International Development

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

U.S. Office of Government Ethics

United States Postal Service

**APPENDIX F**

**[Office of Management and Budget]{.underline}**

**[Office of Federal Procurement Policy]{.underline}**

**[Procurement ADR Awards Program]{.underline}**

> **Appendix F**

**[Office of Management and Budget]{.underline}**

**[Office of Federal Procurement Policy]{.underline}**

**[Procurement ADR Awards Program]{.underline}**

In 2002, the Contracts and Procurement Section of the Interagency ADR
Working Group worked with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
(OFPP) and the Procurement Executives Council to develop and implement
an award program that would recognize federal agencies and private
sector companies that have used ADR effectively to resolve government
contracts disputes. The OFPP has been presenting awards on an annual
basis every year since 2002. The awards are made on a competitive basis
after nominations are judged by a disinterested panel of public and
private sector ADR experts.

The award program serves the important functions of recognizing agencies
and contractors who have distinguished themselves in their effective use
of ADR for the avoidance and resolution of federal procurement disputes
and of encouraging other agencies and companies to utilize ADR to the
maximum extent practicable to resolve public contracting disputes.

The following are highlights of programs and accomplishments of the
agency recipients of the OFPP Procurement ADR Award.

**1. Department of Defense**

**a. Air Force**

The Air Force ADR Program is now heading into its thirteenth year. In
1998, the Air Force began executing ADR agreements with its top 25
contractors, and in 2000 it implemented the "ADR First" policy in place
to this day. As a direct result, large disputes that took an average of
five years to resolve through litigation are now being resolved by the
use of ADR in an average of just over 12 months. In the past six years,
the program has won six national awards for excellence, and has grown to
encompass the highly successful use of ADR to resolve workplace disputes
in one tenth the time and at one tenth of the cost of traditional
litigation.

The challenge is to keep the Air Force ADR Program's core acquisition
and workplace ADR programs strong while encouraging change and
innovation in Air Force business processes that will reduce the
potential for disputes to arise in the first place. The concept of an
Integrated Conflict Management System (ICMS) is critical in balancing
these elements. The Air Force ICMS is composed of, first, a robust ADR
system to resolve disputes as efficiently as possible, and second, a
conflict management system that works to prevent disputes from arising
in the first place. Key to making such a conflict management system work
is training in negotiation and communication skills. The Air Force ADR
program office is currently conducting large scale negotiation training
for supervisors of civilian personnel, and has spearheaded the
establishment of the Air Force Negotiation Center of Excellence, which
will ensure that effective negotiations becomes a core competency of the
Air Force across all functional areas.

##### [Overview of ADR in Air Force Contract Disputes]{.underline}

Of the 644 appeals pending at the ASBCA in FY 2005, the Air Force
contributed only 80---or 12.4 percent. The Army Corps of Engineers had
183 appeals, or 28.4 percent, the Navy had 125 or 19.4 percent, DLA/DCMA
had 107 or 16.6 percent, and the Army had 105 or 16.3 percent. However,
there was a slight uptick in the AF's docketed appeals in 2005 from the
2003 and 2004 levels.

Prior to institution of the Air Force "ADR First" policy, less than 10
percent of Air Force contract disputes were resolved by ADR. Afterwards,
over 28 percent of disputes, on average, are resolved by ADR. This
number is misleadingly low, however, since it does not include disputes
that settled after the ADR process had begun (those are included in a
"negotiated settlement" category). From July 2005 on, disputes that
settle after an ADR agreement is entered into will be shown as resolved
through ADR. In addition, this statistic does not include ADR
resolutions reached before an appeal is docketed. These early ADR
resolutions are becoming a significant percentage of the total.

One key metric for any ADR program is cycle time---that is, how long it
takes to resolve disputes. That is because prolonged disputes are costly
and disruptive to ongoing programs regardless of the ultimate outcome.
For FYs 2000 through 2005, average cycle times for Air Force contract
disputes from docketing to resolution were as follows:

-   Trial and decision 37 months

-   Negotiated settlement 19.8 months

-   ADR 17.9 months

The most important statistic, though, is that from the time the parties
**agreed to use ADR** until the dispute was resolved, an average of only
**8.2 months** elapsed.

In recent years, the Air Force has emphasized early resolution of
contract disputes. We want to resolve disputes prior to the issuance of
a contracting officer's final decision, and preferably prior to the
submission of a formal Contract Disputes Act claim. Therefore, the Air
Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) instructs contracting officers to submit
proposed final decisions to the Directorate of Contract Dispute
Resolution at Wright Patterson Air Force Base for review prior to
issuance. AFFARS 5333.291. Final decisions in excess of \$500,000 are
also to be submitted to the Deputy General Counsel for Dispute
Resolution for review. [Id.]{.underline} A primary purpose of the review
in both instances is to ascertain whether ADR should be used to resolve
the dispute before it enters the formal disputes process. Air Force
policy is to use ADR techniques once unassisted negotiations have
reached an impasse. AFFARS 5333.090.

**b. Army Corps of Engineers**

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been a pioneer in the use of ADR
and was the first federal agency to establish an ADR program in
acquisition. The Corps began this initiative in 1984, six years before
the enactment of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990. This
initiative was the result of the Corps' recognition of the need for an
alternative means to litigation for the resolution of contract disputes,
because the Corps was experiencing a dramatic increase in its litigation
case load and the concomitant transactional costs associated with this
litigation.

The Corps' ADR program is managed by the Engineer Chief Trial Attorney
and implements a three-prong approach designed to alter the prevailing
mindset and to provide the means to use alternative means of dispute
resolution. This program consists of the training of managers and
attorneys, the publication of instruction manuals, and technical support
in designing ADR processes and drafting ADR agreements.

Engineer Trial Attorneys are encouraged to evaluate claims and appeals
for resolution through ADR procedures constantly throughout the process
from submission of a claim, through issuance of a final decision by the
Contracting Officer, and through proceedings before the Armed Services
Board of Contract Appeals.

The Corps has employed the full range of the continuum of ADR methods,
but the use of the Settlement Judge in a mediated format has been
employed over 80 percent of the time. In addition, ADR has been employed
at all phases in the claims and appeals process. The Corps recently has
used ADR at the "pre-appeal" stage and successfully resolved claims
without incurring the significant transactional costs associated with
litigation. Similarly, use of ADR in the early, pre-discovery, stage of
proceedings has led to successful early resolution of claims and
appeals.

In the last ten fiscal years, the Corps has processed 248 claims and
appeals using ADR procedures, and has settled 235 of those matters, for
a 94.7% settlement rate. Through use of ADR, the Corps has realized
savings of more than \$260 million, paying only \$198 million, including
interest, on over \$460 million in claims not including interest.

In the past three fiscal years, the Corps has resolved 117 claims and
appeals using ADR techniques, and the cost savings have been consistent
with the historical data. Also during that time, the Corps has resolved
156 claims and appeals without resort to third party neutral assisted
ADR. In this venue, the Corps has realized savings of over \$76 million,
paying only \$37 million, including interest, on over \$113 million in
claims not including interest.

Over the past three fiscal years, the Corps has litigated 77 claims and
appeals to decision before the ASBCA and the United States Court of
Federal Claims. In those cases, the claims and appeals aggregated more
than \$81 million, and the tribunals returned findings of liability of
only \$3 million. The Corps views these results as validating the
evaluations by trial attorneys as to the appropriate venue for
resolution of claims and appeals.

In an era of ever-tightening budgets, ADR represents an invaluable tool
to the Agency in resolving claims and disputes in a time-efficient and
economical manner. The Corps continues to recognize when resolution can
be obtained through means other than litigation, the associated cost
savings represent an important step in allocation of resources.

**c. Department of the Navy**

The Department of the Navy embraces the use of alternatives to
litigation in procurement disputes. The formal policy of the Navy is:

> [Using ADR to the Maximum Extent]{.underline}. ADR techniques shall be
> used as an alternative to litigation or formal administrative
> procedures to the maximum extent practicable. Use of these techniques
> may resolve the entire issue in controversy or a portion of the issue
> in controversy. The goal is to resolve disputes and conflicts at the
> earliest stage feasible, by the fastest and least expensive method
> possible, and at the lowest possible organizational level prior to
> litigation. Every issue in controversy, regardless of the subject
> matter, is a potential candidate for ADR.

SECNAV Instruction 5800.13A, \"Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Policy and Mission of the DON ADR Program Office,\" 22 December 2005, at
¶7.a.

[Protests, Claims and Appeals]{.underline}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in"
height="1.5833333333333333in"}The table below summarizes procurement ADR
activity for several past fiscal years for claims, appeals and protests.

*(Table 1)*

While recognizing that the language of FAR Part 33 could support
counting cases that settle without the services of a neutral, the DON
generally only tracks those cases that use a neutral of some sort. The
trend in numbers is downward, but at the same time, it should be noted
that across the government, appeals at the Boards of Contract Appeals
are down.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="3.08125in"
height="1.7993055555555555in"}The DON ADR program estimates that ADR
achieves significant process savings. As shown in table 2, for 35 cases
analyzed, the program estimated about \$1.4 million in direct expenses
that were avoided by using the ADR processes, and another \$1.7 million
saved if the trial schedule had proceeded as expected.

> *(Table 2)*

![](media/image4.wmf){width="2.5368055555555555in"
height="1.5215277777777778in"}The figures in table 2 do not include
costs that cannot be monetarily quantified. For example, writing a
typical ASBCA post-hearing brief can be an expensive effort that
produces hundreds of pages, and involves the input of clients,
witnesses, experts and attorneys. But quantifying "costs avoided" for
briefs that were never written, about trials that never occurred is not
possible. Likewise, the costs of responding to a discovery request
cannot be reliably estimated without knowing the scope of the request.
So, the program simply tabulates the reported documents that the DON did
not have to produce, and recognizes that each represents a significant
but non-quantifiable cost avoided. *See* Table 3.

[Collaborative Methods]{.underline}

The DON encourages the use of collaborative efforts in resolving and
preventing disputes. Examples include its renewed effort in construction
partnering, and recent training provided to FAR 16.505 Task and Delivery
Order Ombudsman.

[Construction & Facilities Support Partnering]{.underline}

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAFVAC) issued a revised
partnering policy in December, 2004. The policy requires the use of
partnering for all construction and Facilities Support Contracts, and
defines partnering as the result of "mindset + commitment + process."
The mindset element is described, in part, as:

> ... working together with the other partners to remove unnecessary
> roadblocks that stifle success. To a great degree, this is
> accomplished through effective communication, proactive contract
> administration, mutual trust, honesty, integrity, cooperation,
> open-mindedness, and the courage to do the right thing.

The DON is committed to ADR for all issues in controversy, including
procurement matters. ADR clearly saves money and other resources. It
promotes collaboration and the best outcome for both the DON and its
contractors.

**d. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals**

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA or Board) is an
independent tribunal that for over fifty years has been responsible for
resolving contract disputes across the entire spectrum of federal
government construction, supply or service contracting activity, from
the acquisition of major weapons systems or complex construction
projects to routine items of supply or service. The ASBCA is currently
responsible for resolving contract appeals for all elements of the
Department of Defense and designated civilian agencies, including the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Agency for International
Development and Department of Health & Human Services.

From 1995 forward, the Board has aggressively advanced the use of ADR,
and willingly experimented with various techniques, albeit with due
regard to the voluntary nature of ADR. In the process, the ASBCA has
quietly refocused its dispute resolution processes. Consistent with the
mandate of the Contract Disputes Act to "provide to the fullest extent
practicable, informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of
disputes,\" the Board has placed ADR on a par with its other traditional
litigation-type procedures, while urging that it be the first choice of
the parties for resolving their dispute.

The initial focus of the ASBCA's ADR efforts was its own docket. In
recent years, the Board has been approached with requests to provide its
ADR services in other, "off-docket," matters. One category of requests
involves pre-appeal disputes where the parties seek mediation. This
category often carries a greater risk to a successful outcome because
the record is typically less developed. Nevertheless, the ASBCA is
willing to undertake the higher risk, if it can be assured of the
parties' good faith commitment to trying to make the process work, and
has done so with success.

Another source of off-docket ADR matters is a request from organizations
not subject to the Board's Contract Disputes Act jurisdiction. This
category includes: requests under the Interagency Neutral-Sharing
Arrangement, discussed *infra;* requests by the Department of Justice
and private parties for mediation assistance in contract matters pending
in the United States Court of Federal Claims or, in one instance, a
civil fraud matter peripheral to a contract dispute; and a request by a
state and local governmental entity for mediation services in connection
with Boston's "Big Dig."

The Board's Notice describes three ADR techniques that are regularly
used with success at the ASBCA: (1) summary trial with binding decision;
(2) settlement judge; and (3) minitrial. The first is a binding
procedure, while the second and third are non-binding techniques. The
great majority of ADR matters have been resolved through either a
summary trial with binding decision or a straightforward mediation,
*i.e*., the settlement judge model. However, with the assistance of the
Board, the parties have crafted a wide variety of agreements.

Over the last few years the Board has conducted a number of "Med-Arb"
proceedings. This method combines the elements of non-binding and
binding ADR. Typically, the process begins with a full mediation. The
parties agree that if the mediation is not successful, it will be
followed---after a cooling-off period---by a summary trial with binding
decision. A further variation on the "Med-Arb" method has been dubbed
"Last Chance Arbitration." This technique is built around a summary
trial proceeding. Under another variation of a non-binding ADR that
borrows from the "Med-Arb" approach, the parties agree that they will be
bound by the neutral's decision of a narrow, discrete issue that has
become an obstacle to achieving a full settlement during the mediation.

To date the Board has received requests for its ADR services in over
1,200 matters. The vast majority of the matters for which ADR was
requested have been successfully resolved. The scope of ADR activity is
indicated in the table below.

A GUIDE TO ADR ACTIVITY AT THE ASBCA

+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| Year      | Appeals       | Binding   | Non-Binding  | Success    |
|           |               |           |              |            |
|           |               | ADR       | ADR          | Rate\*\*   |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY87-94   | 187           | 83        | 104          | 93%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 95     | 61            | 13        | 48           | 92%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 96     | 53            | 31        | 22           | 100%       |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 97     | 68 (4)\*      | 18        | 50           | 100%       |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 98     | 116 (10)      | 41        | 75           | 99%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 99     | 123 (11)      | 49        | 74           | 99%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 00     | 76 (4)        | 35        | 41           | 98%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 01     | 165 (7)       | 45        | 120          | 97%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 02     | 136 (13)      | 63        | 73           | 95%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 03     | 86 (11)       | 16        | 70           | 97%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 04     | 60 (20)       | 11        | 49           | 94%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| FY 05     | 140 (55)      | 20        | 120          | 99%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+
| TOTALS    | 1271          | 425       | 846          | 97%        |
+-----------+---------------+-----------+--------------+------------+

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  \* Includes off-docket matters in parentheses \*\* Percentage of     
  Non-Binding ADRs                                                     

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Binding ADRs are, by their nature, always successful. They resolve the
issue presented finally and in less time than would be the case if
standard dispute resolution procedures were followed. Non-Binding ADR
proceedings, on the other hand, leave the ultimate resolution of the
matter to the parties. The high success rate reported in non-binding ADR
proceedings underscores the utility of this method of dispute
resolution. It also attests not only to the commitment of the parties,
but to the skill of the neutral.

ADR success stories abound. The Air Force has reported on two major
mediations that received considerable publicity. The first involved
\$785 million in claims by the Boeing Company for the design,
development, integration, test and production of the AC-130U Gunship
aircraft pending at the United States Court of Federal Claims. The
second involved claims of \$200 million by Northrop Grumman in
connection with the "Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System"
(J-STARS) pending at the ASBCA. Both were successfully resolved with the
assistance of a Board judge.

For every high visibility ADR, there have been dozens of other factually
complex, multi-issue, high dollar cases resolved with the assistance of
ASBCA judges. Moreover, it is not just the high-dollar cases that count.
The ADRs that have been presented to the Board cover the full spectrum
of issues that can arise in the performance of government construction,
supply and service settings. Examples include matters involving
construction of military housing and hospitals, cleaning of mess halls,
ship maintenance and readiness, aircraft maintenance, building
electrical maintenance, asbestos and lead paint abatement, painting
contracts, installation of natural gas lines, construction of a pier,
maintenance dredging, ventilation system upgrades, a cable TV franchise
agreement, installation of computer systems and supply of military
weapons and weapon systems.

Apart from the individual success stories, the Board's ADR program has
had a salutary overall impact on the Board's docket. The ADR program has
led to a more timely resolution of appeals, with a corresponding
reduction in the costs of litigation. ADR has materially contributed to
the Board's ability to reduce its overall docket. In response to the
mandate of the Contract Disputes Act to provide informal, expeditious,
and inexpensive resolution of disputes to the maximum extent
practicable, the ASBCA has developed a highly successful ADR program.
The Board has been at the forefront in promoting the ADR movement in the
government contracting community.

> **e. Defense Logistics Agency**

DLA's ADR policy is to use ADR to resolve all acquisition disputes when
unassisted negotiations are not successful. Litigation requires approval
at a level above the contracting officer, and should be coordinated with
the activity ADR Specialist. The DLA acquisition ADR program covers both
pre and post award disputes. It has an impressive success rate; in FY
2005, 87% of matters taken to ADR were either entirely or partially
resolved through ADR. Significant dollar savings have resulted, an
estimated \$1.4 million for FY 2005. DLA won the OFPP Alternative
Dispute Resolution Award for Acquisition (2004).

ADR is integrated into the positions of all lawyers at DLA. The DLA
General Counsel is the Dispute Resolution Specialist. The DLA Associate
General Counsel, Dispute Resolution, serves as the overall ADR Program
Manager. The DLA senior acquisition counsel is in charge of the
acquisition component of the ADR program. Each Chief Counsel at DLA
field activities is responsible for the ADR program at their locations,
and each designates an ADR specialist in their office. All these
individuals are rated, either directly or indirectly, on ADR and/or
dispute resolution. ADR training is mandatory for all DLA lawyers;
refresher training is mandatory for acquisition lawyers.

One of the unique features of DLA's acquisition ADR program is use of
in-house neutrals to resolve acquisition disputes. (Many agencies use
in-house neutrals to resolve personnel disputes, but this is rare for
acquisition). These neutrals, who serve in addition to performing their
regularly assigned duties, must have expertise in acquisition as well as
ADR. They consider themselves truly neutral since their job is to uphold
the integrity of the ADR program. Contractors certainly do not have to
use DLA in-house neutrals, but many do. Using an in-house neutral can be
easy and quick to set up, and can appear less threatening or complicated
if a party is hesitant about ADR.

DLA uses ADR frequently to resolve pre-award disputes. GAO's Outcome
Prediction ADR (or any alternate ADR) is specifically identified as an
agency "best practice" for GAO protests. Getting GAO's predicted outcome
lets DLA proceed with confidence if GAO supports DLA's position, or take
corrective action quickly and move forward with the acquisition if not.
DLA protests handled through ADR at GAO are resolved in half the time
they would otherwise have been. DLA has also been successful in
resolving GAO protests by using its in-house neutrals to mediate the
dispute before the agency report is filed. Telephone facilitations have
been surprisingly effective, which is particularly helpful given the
short time-frame for filing the agency report.

DLA has several policies to try to integrate ADR into the contract
dispute arena. A contract clause addressing ADR is required for all
acquisitions; it can be tailored to the acquisition or the interests of
the parties. A DLA policy stresses that ADR should be addressed in all
post-award orientations, to set the stage for cooperative problem
solving. Contracting Officer's final decisions require a statement about
ADR options as well as appeal rights to the Board or Court. DLA also
encourages the use of ADR in "non-traditional" acquisition disputes
arenas. DLA has offered ADR to SBA to resolve disputes concerning small
business and bundling issues, and has suggested ADR in response to
Congressional inquiries on contract issues.

DLA uses an in-house database to help measure the success of the
acquisition ADR program. Any ADR attempt is entered in the database,
which captures data such as the type of ADR, the result, duration of the
dispute, days saved, and costs saved/avoided. Acquisition ADR statistics
are reported annually to senior officials. The statistics reported
earlier come from this data base. The agency also gets feedback from
contractors who participated in agency ADR proceedings; several have
praised DLA for their ADR experience.

DLA supports constructive problem solving and fostering positive
relationships with its contractors. The ADR program advances these
objectives while reducing agency costs. The program has been in place
for many years, maturing steadily with proven results. More information
is available on DLA's ADR Web site, <http://www.dla.mil/adr>.

**2. Department of Transportation\-- Federal Aviation Administration**

The FAA's Office of Dispute Resolution for Acquisition (\"ODRA\")
provides the Agency and its contractors with a streamlined dispute
resolution process that places heavy emphasis on the use of ADR
techniques. The ODRA's Procedural Rules establish ADR as the primary
dispute resolution method to be employed by FAA for procurement
disputes. Pursuant to the Rules, whenever a protest or contract dispute
is filed with the ODRA, an ODRA Dispute Resolution Officer (\"DRO\") is
immediately designated to serve as a potential neutral in order to
explore ADR options with the parties. The parties also may opt to use
Board of Contract Appeals judges in lieu of DROs to serve as ADR
neutrals or may employ third party compensated neutrals for ADR
proceedings. In a related action, the FAA\'s Acquisition Executive
executed an ADR Pledge to express the FAA\'s top-level commitment to
early expeditious resolution of procurement controversies by ADR.

Since its inception, the ODRA has managed more than 460 cases, including
bid protests, contract disputes, pre-disputes and other
procurement-related disputes. Of these, ADR settlements were reached in
65% of all contract disputes and 90% of all bid protests filed with the
ODRA. The aggressive use of ADR techniques by the ODRA is partly
responsible for the comparatively short resolution timeframes achieved
by the ODRA. Bid protests are resolved through ADR in an average of 24
calendar days, while contract disputes have been resolved by ADR in an
average of 67 calendar days.

The FAA Administrator also has delegated authority to the ODRA to
provide dispute avoidance and early resolution services in matters that
have not yet developed into formal disputes. To date, the ODRA has
provided "pre-dispute services in a total of 79 cases. Of these, only 3
cases have evolved into formal litigation. Finally, through an
Interagency Agreement, the ODRA also provides adjudicative and dispute
resolution services to the Transportation Security Administration
("TSA") of the Department of Homeland Security. The ODRA has provided
dispute resolution services in a total of 24 cases. ADR resolutions have
been achieved in 70 % of the TSA cases. The ODRA also is responsible for
adjudicating contests arising from OMB Circular A-76 competitions. The
ODRA A-76 Contest Rules also call for use of ADR. To date the ODRA has
been involved in 4 contests and has resolved 2 through the use of ADR.

**3. General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals**

The General Services Administration Board of Contract Appeals (the Board
or GSBCA) has been assisting federal government agencies and their
contractors in resolving disputes through alternative dispute resolution
(ADR) for more than a decade. The Board recently was merged along with
other boards of civilian agencies into a new Civilian Board of Contract
Appeals. The Board\'s experience in deciding bid protests quickly and
efficiently has made its judges attentive to the need for prompt, fair
resolution of all disputes. The judges have found that ADR is often an
effective means for reaching this objective. They have applied this
lesson by successfully providing ADR services to agencies throughout the
government on a wide variety of contract- and procurement-related
matters.

The GSBCA provides ADR services as a means of resolving a wide variety
of contract-related disputes. Any of the Board\'s seven judges will
assist with ADR when requested. The purpose of the Board\'s ADR program
is to offer litigants and potential litigants the opportunity to resolve
their disputes without resorting to a formal hearing before the Board or
trial before a court. The GSBCA was established under the Contract
Disputes Act of 1978 (CDA), 41 U.S.C. \'\' 601-613, as an independent
tribunal to hear and decide contract disputes between government
contractors and the General Services Administration (GSA) and other
federal executive agencies. Offering ADR in these disputes enables the
Board to discharge its statutory responsibility to \"provide to the
fullest extent practicable, informal, expeditious and inexpensive
resolution\" of contract appeals. 41 U.S.C. \' 607.

In addition to offering ADR to federal agencies and contractors in
contract appeals, the Board will also provide ADR to any federal agency
in any procurement matter, either before or after it is the subject of a
contracting officer\'s decision. These disputes may include bid protests
as well as disputes between a prime contractor and a subcontractor on a
government contract. Flexibility has been the paramount consideration in
designing the Board\'s rules on ADR. Consequently, ADR is not defined by
a single procedure or set of procedures, and the Board will consider the
use of any technique proposed by the parties which is fair, reasonable,
and in the best interest of the parties, the Board, and the resolution
of contract disputes.

The Board will provide ADR services either in the context of a contract
appeal filed with the GSBCA or in any other contract- or
procurement-related matter. When a contact appeal is filed with the
Board, it is immediately docketed and assigned to a judge, who is the
panel chairman for the case. The judge encourages the parties to
consider the feasibility of using ADR. Upon request, the Board will make
a judge available for an ADR proceeding involving any federal agency
procurement matter at any stage of a procurement, even if no contracting
officer\'s decision is issued or is contemplated.

In summary, Board statistics reveal that from fiscal year 1991 through
fiscal year 2004, the Board handled 207 ADR matters; 151 disputes were
successfully resolved following an ADR proceeding, and 16 were either
settled or dismissed after ADR was elected but before an ADR proceeding
was conducted. Forty ADR proceedings were unsuccessful.

**APPENDIX G**

**[Draft Proclamation by the President]{.underline}**

**[of a]{.underline}**

**[National Conflict Resolution Day]{.underline}**

> **Appendix G**

**[Draft Proclamation by the President of a National Conflict Resolution
Day]{.underline}**

**National Conflict Resolution Day, 2007**

A Proclamation By the President of the United States of America

On National Conflict Resolution Day, citizens are urged to learn more
about alternative dispute resolution, and how it can be utilized to
manage effectively the inevitable conflict of everyday life.

Most people would like to avoid conflict whenever they can. However,
conflict is not all bad. It can be constructive and a catalyst for
growth. It is also inevitable, both in business and in life. Too often,
litigation or other adversarial processes have been the means most
commonly invoked to deal with conflict. There is a better way, and it is
called "alternative dispute resolution." That is just an umbrella term
for techniques that use the services of a neutral third party to assist
in the management and resolution of a conflict. Mediation is the most
commonly used technique.

Alternative dispute resolution has become a framework for management of
conflict in both the public and private sectors. Statutes and other
directives require the availability of dispute resolution alternatives
in the federal agencies and trial courts. Use of those alternatives has
met with success and served as a catalyst for expansion.

Alternative dispute resolution is being used in the courtrooms, the
boardrooms, the classrooms, our personal lives, and on the streets.
Students from an early age use peer mediation to resolve their disputes.
Mediation is being used for nursing homes and geriatric care issues.
Police officers use mediation skills to resolve conflicts without force.
Community leaders use conflict resolution techniques to deal with racial
and ethnic tensions.

Alternative dispute resolution is conserving resources, preserving
relationships, and enabling organizations to do more with less.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and
laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_, 2007, as National Conflict Resolution Day. I
call upon government, industry, education, and community leaders to
provide their constituencies with information about how dispute
resolution techniques can be used to defuse conflict in a constructive
manner, and I encourage all citizens to take an active role in using
non-adversarial dispute resolution techniques to deal with the conflict
in their lives.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this \_\_\_\_\_ day of
\_\_\_\_\_, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
thirty-first.

**APPENDIX H**

**[Draft Letter of Greetings and Commendation]{.underline}**

**[From the President]{.underline}**

**[To]{.underline}**

**[Federal Employees Responsible for Federal Alternative Dispute
Resolution]{.underline}**

> **Appendix H**

**[Draft Letter of Greetings and Commendation From the President
to]{.underline}**

**[Federal Employees Responsible for Alternative Dispute
Resolution]{.underline}**

THE WHITE HOUSE

Washington

Date: \_\_\_\_\_\_

I am pleased to send greetings to the federal employees whose
responsibilities include the use of alternative dispute resolution on
behalf of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

Our Nation depends on the hundreds of thousands of federal employees who
work to ensure that government functions effectively. These dedicated
men and women deliver services that are important to our communities and
to our way of life.

A recent Report to the President has documented how the use of
alternative dispute resolution has made government more efficient and
cost-effective by managing conflict effectively. It has saved time,
money, and other resources, and has enabled the government to do more
with less. It has produced lasting results and preserved relationships.
It has invited collaborative inclusiveness in policy formulation and
decision making, and has promoted a citizen-centered government.

I commend the dedicated federal employees who have worked hard to make
alternative dispute resolution a successful framework for conflict
management in the federal government. The results you have achieved make
a difference and are an effective contribution to our service on behalf
of the American people. Best wishes for every continuing success.

George W. Bush

**ADDENDUM**

**[Report from the Attorney General to the President]{.underline}**

**[On]{.underline}**

**[The Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working
Group]{.underline}**

**[(May 2000)]{.underline}**

**Addendum**

**[REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT]{.underline}**

**[ON THE INTERAGENCY ADR WORKING GROUP]{.underline}**

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The Report of the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Working Group, which is hereby submitted, marks the end of the first
year of this government-wide effort to promote more collaborative ways
to handle disputes. The report, prepared pursuant to your Memorandum
creating the Working Group, was written jointly by the Department of
Justice and officials from more than ten agencies, including the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the

U.S. Postal Service, and the Department of the Air Force, whose staff
served as chairs of individual sections of the group. As you will see
from the report, there has been a great deal accomplished during the
past year, and we plan to do much more in the months ahead.

In the past, the government has relied heavily upon traditional,
adversarial processes to resolve both internal matters and disputes
involving the public. Experience teaches us, however, that there are
many costs to this approach. Even when the government wins a case, it
can find that victory has come at too high a price. Litigation can
destroy the underlying relationships between the parties, and this can
be far more harmful in the long run. In the workplace area, for example,
formal complaints often force employees working in the same office to
take sides against one another. During the months or years required to
process a complaint, and even long after it is over, the dispute can be
extremely corrosive to the productivity of the office and the morale of
its employees. Similarly, when contract and other disputes arise
involving outside parties, previously healthy and productive
relationships can be damaged if formal, adversarial processes are used.

Our experience has shown that ADR can resolve disputes in a manner that
is quicker, cheaper, and less adversarial. For that reason, I call it
\"appropriate\" dispute resolution, rather than \"alternative\" dispute
resolution. In ADR, parties meet with each other directly, under the
guidance of a neutral professional who is trained and experienced in
handling disputes. They talk about the problems that led to the
complaint and the resolution that will work best for them in the future.
With the assistance of the neutral professional, they are able to retain
control over their own dispute and work collaboratively to find
creative, effective solutions that are agreeable to all sides.

We believe that every well-run agency should have at least one ADR
program. Over the past year, the Working Group has worked to make this a
reality. The Group has sponsored programs in the following areas:
workplace, contracts and procurement, claims against the government, and
civil enforcement. There have been more than 50 training sessions,
meetings, and colloquia on all aspects of ADR. More than 500
representatives from across the government have been participating. We
have created a Federal ADR Web site that has received tens of thousands
of requests for information from across the country.

We have found many specific examples of time and money saved through the
use of ADR. The U.S. Postal Service, for example, has one of the leading
workplace mediation programs in the country. It has mediated more than
12,000 EEO complaints under this program. Its average mediation takes
just 4 hours, and 81 percent of mediated cases are closed without a
formal complaint being filed. Participants in the mediation are twice as
satisfied with the amount of control, respect, and fairness in the ADR
process compared with the traditional adversarial process (88 percent
satisfaction rate versus 44 percent). The mediation program has also
increased communication in the workplace, creating lasting and
beneficial changes that help prevent future complaints. In the first
year after full implementation of this ADR program, the number of new
complaints filed by U.S. Postal Service employees dropped by 24 percent
compared with the previous year. This translates into thousands of fewer
complaints per year, which represents a huge cost savings, not to
mention savings in morale and productivity.

In the contracting arena, the Department of the Air Force has used ADR
to resolve more than \$1 billion in recent procurement disputes. It has
used mediation in more than 100 cases, and more than 93 percent have
settled. Relations with contractors have improved, and parties on all
sides are very pleased with the results. Due to the success of these
programs, the Secretary of the Department of the Air Force has now
committed to include ADR provisions in its contracts and ordered
employees to use ADR \"to the maximum extent practicable.\"

In addition to these savings in time and money, agencies have reported
other important benefits. By emphasizing consensual resolution of
disputes, these processes allow the participants to retain control over
the outcome of the conflict. By moving away from winning and losing, and
focusing instead on problem solving, these programs encourage the
parties to identify what they really need to get the controversy
resolved. We often see parties jointly engaged in finding creative,
mutually acceptable solutions to disputes that no board, judge, or court
would have the authority or the knowledge to impose.

Over the coming year, we will also work with individual agencies to
assist them in developing ADR programs. While our first year was devoted
to offering a broad-based introduction to ADR, we see our second year as
requiring work with agencies on a more individually tailored basis. We
hope to draw upon the expertise of agencies that have already been using
ADR successfully to persuade and assist agencies that are not as well
developed in this field.

As I wrote to you when I accepted the position of chair of this Working
Group, I believe that ADR has the potential to transform significantly
the way that Federal departments and agencies resolve disputes. We look
forward to a continuing growth in the use of ADR and the establishment
of new programs that can provide our citizens with a maximum amount of
respect and a minimum amount of adversity. With your continued support,
we look forward to a future where all government employees facing
conflict will be able to act as peacemakers and problem-solvers.

Respectfully,

/s/

Janet Reno

Enclosure

**[REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT ON THE INTERAGENCY ADR WORKING
GROUP]{.underline}**

**[I. INTRODUCTION]{.underline}**

Disputes are inevitable. They arise in the course of doing our jobs as
public servants and are part of life itself. Unfortunately, existing
administrative systems to handle conflict are often overburdened and
ineffective. They are clogged with delay, which often exacerbates the
disputes, making negative feelings fester and grow. The formalistic
procedures used tend to divide people rather than unite them. The
parties involved in the dispute are often silenced by the process and
rarely meet with each other directly. When a court or administrative
body makes the final decision, parties have given up control over their
own dispute. Even if the government wins a case, the relationship
involved may be destroyed, and this can be far more costly in the long
run.

The goal of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), is to ensure that
communication comes first and litigation comes last, if at all. Parties
meet with a neutral third party who is trained and experienced in
handling disputes, and they seek a resolution of their problem directly.
Participants report that the opportunity to talk with each other, under
the guidance of a dispute resolution professional, is often far more
satisfying and effective than having their lawyers fight against each
other before a tribunal.

The Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group was created
by Presidential Memorandum dated May 1, 1998, to assist agencies in
utilizing these more effective ways to handle conflict. This Report sets
forth the activities and successes of the Working Group thus far.

**[II. BENEFITS OF ADR]{.underline}**

In the Memorandum directing all Federal agencies to promote greater use
of ADR, the President recognized that ADR can \"make the Federal
Government operate in a more efficient and effective manner.\" Indeed,
the Working Group has found numerous examples of advantages that ADR
provides. The following chart sets forth the ten most common benefits of
ADR that agencies reported to us:

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  TEN COMMON BENEFITS OF ADR

  Complaints are processed more quickly and resolved earlier.

  Litigation and other costs are lower.

  Future complaints are avoided as parties learn to communicate better
  with each other.

  Parties are more satisfied with the problem solving process and with
  the results.

  Relations with contractors and other outside parties are improved.

  The process leads to more creative solutions.

  Internal morale is improved.

  Turnover is lower.

  Parties comply better with their settlement agreements.

  Productivity is improved.
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

These benefits are demonstrated in the following specific examples from
agencies that have participated in the Working Group.

**United States Postal Service**

The U.S. Postal Service has one of the nation\'s leading ADR programs in
the workplace area. The average mediation takes just four hours, and the
parties successfully resolve 61 percent of the cases at the mediation
table. Overall, 81 percent of mediated cases are eventually closed
without a formal complaint being filed. Satisfaction with the program is
extremely high. Exit surveys completed anonymously by 26,000
participants show that 88 percent of employees are highly satisfied or
satisfied with the amount of control, respect, and fairness in the ADR
process. This figure is very significant because the satisfaction rate
for the Postal Service\'s traditional adversarial workplace process is
only 44 percent. Moreover, both employees and supervisors are equally
satisfied with ADR.

Another benefit of the Postal Service program has been that mediation
seems to be changing the behavior of people in the workplace. With the
increased communication that mediation provides, employees and
supervisors appear to be learning to get along better. In the first year
after full implementation of the program, the number of complaints
dropped by 24 percent as compared to the previous year. Formal
complaints have continued to drop in FY2000, by an additional 20
percent. In an agency as large as the Postal Service, this reduction of
several thousand complaints per year leads to huge cost savings.
Processing a simple workplace case can cost the government \$5,000 in
administrative expenses alone, and a more complicated case that reaches
a formal adjudication can cost up to \$77,000. Thus the Postal Service
program saves millions of dollars each year, in addition to improving
morale and productivity.

**Department of the Air Force**

The Air Force has found ADR very effective in the government contracts
area, where it has used ADR in more than 100 cases, and more than 93
percent have settled. Of particular note is the agency\'s recent
successful use of ADR to resolve a \$785 million contract claim with the
Boeing company that had been unresolved, prior to the use of ADR, for
more than ten years. This is one of the largest contract claims ever
settled through an alternative dispute resolution process. In another
recent major case with the Northrop Grumman Corporation, the agency
settled a \$195 million contract claim. Litigating either of these
extremely large and complex cases through trial would have been
enormously expensive and uncertain in outcome. Litigation could also
have damaged relationships with some of the military\'s most important
suppliers. The Secretary of the Air Force has recognized the success of
these programs and codified them in formal agency procedures. It is now
official Air Force policy to use ADR \"to the maximum extent
practicable.\"

The Air Force has also used ADR in more than 7,000 workplace disputes in
the last three years, with a successful resolution rate exceeding 70
percent. This ADR program has helped make the agency\'s EEO process one
of the most efficient in the Federal government. While Federal agencies
require an average of 404 days to settle an EEO complaint, Air Force
settlements require an average of only 258 days, a 37 percent
difference.

Another measure of the impact of ADR at the Air Force is its EEO
complaint flow-through rate, which is the rate at which employees who
receive counseling (including ADR) nevertheless file formal complaints.
In a recent typical year, this figure was only 23 percent, which is
approximately half the Federal government average. The Air Force
believes its aggressive use of ADR is a major component of this success.

**Department of Health and Human Services**

Before using ADR, the Provider Reimbursement Review Board at the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had a backlog of 10,000
pending cases. Although HHS had been able to settle 90 percent of its
cases without assistance, most of these settlements occurred on the eve
of the hearing, after three years of delay. HHS instituted an ADR
program that has saved all parties both time and money. ADR resulted in
settlements of 44 of the first 48 cases where it was used. Since then,
use of ADR has increased. In 1999, the Office of Hearings and Appeals
completed mediation of 81 cases and had mediation underway in an
additional 53 cases. ADR has also reduced the time required to resolve
these disputes from three years to six months.

HHS has also used ADR successfully to resolve state government
challenges involving Food Stamp and Medicaid claim adjustments. All of
the forty-one states that elected mediation under the Departmental
Appeals Board\'s mediation program have successfully negotiated
settlements. ADR has resolved more than \$500 million in disputed funds
in each of the past five years, and HHS estimates that it has saved the
Federal government \$600,000 in potential adjudication costs. In
addition, the process saved considerable time, because administrative
appeals could have taken two years, while mediation took an average of
nine months. Finally, by the parties\' own assessment, mediation allowed
for a fairer and less acrimonious settlement of differences, preserving
ongoing relationships between state and Federal officials involved.

**Department of Energy**

Ombuds staff at the Sandia National Laboratories assisted employees in
more than 400 cases during FY 1999. Ombuds personnel counseled employees
on available options for handling their disputes and advised them on how
to proceed. Most of the work was with agency employees, but agency
suppliers and technology transfer partners also used the ombuds services
in some cases. Benefits of the program included improved productivity,
lower turnover, and higher decision quality. The agency believes that a
conservative estimate of the program\'s savings last year is \$600,000
(50% more than the program cost). The program also generated
considerable improvements in morale. Litigation and EEOC charges against
Sandia have dropped well below the levels experienced prior to the
creation of the program.

**Federal Emergency Management Agency**

After Hurricane Georges wreaked havoc on the Island of Puerto Rico in
September 1998, a local community had disputes regarding a debris
removal contract, including disagreements as to which company actually
performed the work, the total amount of debris, and the amounts of money
owed to the companies. This difficult situation was further complicated
by an FBI criminal investigation, the incarceration of the community
mayor, litigation filed against the community by a subcontractor,
allegations of fraud and conspiracy by all parties, death threats, and
bankruptcy petitions. Without a consensual resolution, expensive and
time consuming litigation involving all parties to the seven relevant
contracts was virtually inevitable.

FEMA suggested mediation. The Governor, the local community, and the
three contractors agreed. The mediation was very difficult, but the
mediators were able to craft an acceptable agreement. The principal
contractor later wrote a letter to FEMA saying the following: \"I write
this letter to praise certain individuals who have gone above and beyond
the call of duty in representing FEMA and the people of the United
States\.... Through \[FEMA\'s\] initiative and good judgment, mediation
was arranged\.... Had \[FEMA\] not pursued the matter with uncommon
vigor, it would probably be wrapped up in court for many years.\"

**Federal Labor Relations Authority**

The FLRA has instituted an ADR program that encourages agencies and
unions to resolve their problems before an unfair labor practice charge
is filed. Following implementation of this program, the number of
charges filed has fallen sharply, from 8,764 in 1993 to 5,686 in 1999.
Even in instances where charges are not resolved and complaints are
issued, these disputes as well are settling through the use of ADR. For
example, 12.4 percent of all complaints went to trial in 1993. In 1999,
only 9.2 percent of complaints went to trial. Significantly, cases are
settling more quickly as well. The number of expensive, last-minute
\"courthouse steps\" settlements (settlements reached immediately prior
to hearing) have declined to just 1.9 percent of all settlements as
parties have used ADR to settle their cases earlier in the process. In
earlier years, these costly late settlements comprised as many as 15
percent of all settled matters.

**Environmental Protection Agency**

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used a variety of ADR
processes to facilitate settlement of the GE Pittsfield case, involving
the cleanup of widespread contamination of the Housatonic River in
Massachusetts. The agency used mediation to facilitate settlement
discussions between eleven parties including EPA, GE, and other state
and Federal regulatory agencies. The team of mediators assisted the
parties in reaching agreement on a wide range of difficult issues
including the cleanup of contaminated sediments and restoration of
natural resources. EPA values the work to be accomplished by GE pursuant
to this settlement at upwards of \$200 million. Without the use of ADR,
according to the EPA, negotiations among this large group of parties
would have been very difficult. ADR has also permitted the parties to
fashion their own remedy, including elements that a court would not have
been able to order on its own. For example, in order to ensure
meaningful public input, a neutral facilitator organized and is
facilitating meetings of a Citizens Coordinating Council. The Council is
composed of representatives of local communities affected by the
cleanup. Finally, the parties established a neutral peer review process
to resolve conflicts regarding technical aspects of the required
remedial activities.

The EPA has also used three different types of ADR to resolve the Helen
Kramer Landfill Federal and state litigation, concerning contamination
at a hazardous waste site in New Jersey. EPA provided an internal
convening professional to help the parties organize settlement efforts
and retain a mediator. The efforts of the convener enabled a large group
of defendants to coalesce and enter into a mediation agreement. Two
experienced mediators then assisted the parties in reaching an agreement
on the allocation of costs associated with remedial activities at the
site. Finally, the parties entered into mediated discussions with EPA to
resolve their liability for site contamination. The complex convening
and mediations involved more than 200 parties and third party
defendants, including forty-four municipalities. The resulting
settlement totaled more than \$95 million. The agency believes that this
case would have been enormously time-consuming and expensive to litigate
if ADR had not been used.

**[III. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE WORKING GROUP]{.underline}**

The Working Group expects that success stories such as those described
above will continue across the government as more agencies use ADR in
the future. Our major goal for this first year was to assist every
agency in creating at least one new ADR program or substantially
enhancing an existing program. We are pleased to report that every
cabinet agency and most administrative agencies met this goal.

The Working Group has built upon earlier government initiatives to
increase the use of ADR. In 1996, Congress permanently enacted the
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 571-584, which
requires all executive agencies to promote the use of ADR. Specifically,
this Act directs each agency to do the following:

-   Adopt a policy that addresses the use of alternative means of
    dispute resolution;

-   Designate a senior official to be the dispute resolution specialist
    of the agency;

-   Provide ADR training on a regular basis; and

-   Review each of its standard agreements for contracts, grants, and
    other assistance to encourage the use of alternative means of
    dispute resolution.

All agencies now have a senior official designated as their dispute
resolution specialist. All cabinet agencies and most administrative
agencies now have adopted ADR policy statements. Most agencies provide
ADR training, and many have been taking advantage of the resources of
the Working Group in this regard. With the assistance of the Contracts
Section of the Working Group, agencies are increasing their use of ADR
in the contracting arena as well.

In preparing this report, we conducted the first government-wide
tabulation of Federal ADR resources. We learned that some 410 employees
now work full time on ADR in the Federal government. Agency ADR programs
now receive \$36 million annually in dedicated budgets. Moreover, many
agencies staff ADR programs through the use of collateral duty employees
and fund these operations from their general budgets. Counting these
resources, the government\'s total commitment is even higher than the
figures mentioned above.

**Working Group Activities**

The Working Group began on September 14, 1998, with an initial
organizing meeting hosted by the Attorney General and the Deputy
Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. More
than one hundred high-level representatives from nearly sixty Federal
agencies attended this meeting. At this meeting, the Attorney General
gave all agencies the goal of creating at least one new ADR program or
substantially increasing an existing program by the end of 1999.

To assist agencies in developing specific programs to meet this goal,
the Working Group created four Sections, organized by subject matter, to
provide technical assistance and guidance on best practices in ADR
program development. Sections have operated simultaneously to cover
disputes in the following areas: civil enforcement, claims against the
government, contracts and procurement, and workplace.

The Sections have conducted more than fifty training sessions, meetings,
and colloquia on all aspects of ADR. Representatives from across the
government have been participating. Topics have included incentives for
Federal employees to use ADR, finding quality neutrals, designing an ADR
training program, dispute systems design, evaluation of ADR programs,
obtaining resources for ADR programs, overcoming barriers to ADR,
ethics, confidentiality, and conflict assessment/case selection.

**Materials Created by the Working Group**

The Working Group has produced substantial materials to assist agencies
in developing ADR programs. Most noteworthy are two resource books
covering best practices in ADR. The Federal ADR Program Manager\'s
Resource Manual is more than 200 pages long, and it is a comprehensive
guide to creating and operating an ADR program in the Federal
government. It includes relevant laws and regulations, links to Federal
and private Web sites, and an extensive bibliography. The Electronic
Guide to Federal Procurement ADR is an exhaustive manual covering
procurement ADR programs, managing the process, training, neutrals, and
resources. The guide includes hyperlinks to ADR-related materials, a
listing of Federal ADR mentors, detailed profiles of existing
procurement ADR programs, success stories, and sample ADR agreements.
Both of these manuals are available on the Web site for all Federal
employees and interested members of the public.

The Group created a Web site at [www.financenet.gov/iadrwg]{.underline}
that has had tens of thousands of requests for information in the year
it has been in existence. The Web site includes agendas and minutes from
Working Group meetings. A number of key ADR-related documents are
available on the site, including the Administrative Dispute Resolution
Act, the Presidential Memorandum creating the Working Group, a model
Policy Statement on ADR, and a statement of key elements of a successful
ADR program. The site includes additional links to other Federal agency
ADR programs and private sector ADR organizations.

The Forums section of the Web site provides an opportunity for users to
exchange information electronically (via e-mail) and to tap into the
ADR-related expertise of hundreds of others around the country who are
involved in government ADR programs. This feature of the Web site has
facilitated productive discussions on such topics as recommendations of
qualified neutrals, the availability and development of ADR training
courses, and establishment of ADR policy.

To capture the current state of ADR in the Federal government, the
Working Group asked each participating agency to complete an ADR survey
on its activities. These surveys include contact information for each
agency\'s dispute resolution specialist and ADR staff, data on its
dedicated ADR budget and employees, a description of its ADR programs,
success stories from these programs, and a statement of its ADR goals
for the future. All of these surveys are available on the Working Group
Web site.

**Accomplishments of the Sections**

The Civil Enforcement Section has provided participating agencies with
information, training, and support to enable them to develop ADR
programs in enforcement and compliance activities. Twenty-six agencies
with unique statutory and regulatory missions, requirements, and
regulated communities have participated in Section activities. Section
consultation teams provided personalized assistance to agencies in a
wide variety of areas, from dispute system design to training. Robert
Ward of the EPA served as chair of the Section, with the assistance of
David Batson and Lee Scharf of the EPA.

The Claims Against the Government Section has worked with agencies to
use dispute resolution techniques to supplement traditional
administrative adjudication of claims for money that are filed against
the government. More than forty representatives from twenty different
agencies have participated in the work of the Section, which was chaired
by Peter Steenland of the Justice Department, with the assistance of
Jeff Senger of the Justice Department.

The Contracts and Procurement Section has focused on assisting agencies
with developing and operating ADR programs in the contracting arena.
More than thirty agencies participated in the work of the Section. In
addition to holding meetings on program design, ADR process, training,
and neutrals, the Section produced the Electronic Guide to Federal
Procurement ADR described above. The Section was chaired by Brigadier
General Frank Anderson of the Air Force, with the assistance of Joseph
McDade and Major Becky Weirick of the Air Force, as well as Tony
Palladino and Rich Walters of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Workplace Section, which was the largest in the Working Group,
covered a broad range of workplace issues, including Equal Employment
Opportunity, Federal Labor Relations Act, and Merit Systems Protection
Board cases as well as grievances. Total attendance at the twenty-six
programs the Section sponsored totaled more than 1000 participants.
Section mentoring programs resulted in the formation of the Small Agency
Caucus, an organization devoted to addressing the unique ADR program and
resource needs of small Federal agencies. The Workplace Section was
chaired by Erica Cooper of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) and Mary Elcano of the United States Postal Service (USPS), with
the assistance of Cathy Costantino and Martha McClellan of the FDIC, and
Cindy Hallberlin and Kim Brown of the USPS.

Further information about these accomplishments is provided in the
Reports from the Sections to the Attorney General attached at the end of
this report.

**Plans for the Future**

During the second year of its existence, the Working Group plans to
offer additional seminars and discussions that are open to all
government employees. We also plan to focus on mentoring agencies that
desire to create new programs or improve existing ones. We will continue
to offer consultation teams of experienced ADR professionals to assist
agencies with their ADR efforts on an individualized basis.

The Working Group will also coordinate with the newly created ADR
Council, a group of senior executives who will develop ADR policy
guidance for the executive branch. This Council will focus on issues
that cut across ADR programs at all agencies, such as confidentiality,
best practices, and procedures for the use of arbitration.

**[IV. CONCLUSION]{.underline}**

Congress effectively summarized the problems with traditional
administrative approaches to conflict and the benefits of ADR when it
passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990:

\[A\]dministrative proceedings have become increasingly formal, costly,
and lengthy resulting in unnecessary expenditures of time and in a
decreased likelihood of achieving consensual resolution of disputes;
alternative means of dispute resolution . . . in appropriate
circumstances, have yielded decisions that are faster, less expensive,
and less contentious; such alternative means can lead to more creative,
efficient, and sensible outcomes.

With the continued assistance and support of the President, the Office
of Management and Budget, and all participating agencies, we look
forward to working together to use these processes to enhance the
operation of the Government and better serve the public.