Lost In Translation: California Community Dispute Resolution Programs Denied Funding

In 1986, the California legislature enacted a statute tohardly be clearer. Los Angeles County specifically limits
fund a Dispute Resolution Program. In enacting thisfunding for Small Claims and ignores the statutory
statute the Legislature recognized that the resolution ofpurpose of racial, ethnic or socioeconomic diversity. By
many disputes is unnecessarily costly, time consumingdiverting funds to already well-funded unlimited
and complex when achieved through formal courtjurisdiction cases, the County circumvents the statutory
proceedings. As a result, the legislature intended for thepurpose by failing adequately to provide funding to
funds to be directed to the community to develop anprograms for Small Claims and limited jurisdiction cases
informal resolution of disputes in a non-coercive disputethat involve disputes "between neighbors, domestic
resolution forum, outside of the court system. Thedisputes and consumer-merchant disputes,' as
intent of the legislature has been lost and the funds arespecified by legislative intent.
being directed toward court programs that favor theThus, the programs intended by the legislature to
economically well off, specifically claims over $25,000,benefit from the funds, namely community programs
who have the financial resources to maintain costlyinvolving disputes that have not already entered the
and protracted litigation. The Dispute Resolutioncourt system and similar court-connected programs
Program Act must be amended to restore theinvolving socio-economically challenged persons
legislature's intent that the funds be used forinvolved in low value limited jurisdiction and Small
Community programs for persons of all ethnic, racialClaims disputes, and Youth Peer Programs, are
and socioeconomic backgrounds. The Legislaturesuffering because funds are being diverted to
states in Business and Professions Code section 465programs serving economically prosperous, who
that the purpose of the program is to seek alternativesreceive dispute resolution services free of charge
to costly legal process, by funding community-basedwhile paying handsomely for all other aspects of their
dispute resolution programs reflective of the diversitylitigation.
of the communities to be served, funded partly byAn enumeration of specific matters that may be
public funding and partly by users of these services onreferred to government-funded programs will prevent
a sliding scale basis, but without cost to indigents.misuse of funds and uphold the statutory purpose.
However, some of the counties have lost sight of theBusiness and Professions Code section 467.2 outlining
Legislature's intent and have misdirected the fundsthe county's eligibility requirements for funding should be
away from under funded community programs to therevised as follows: (b) Provision of neutral person,
detriment of the diverse communities and thereflective of the diversity of the community in which
socio-economically challenged. Some counties havethey serve, adequately trained in conflict resolution
chosen instead to fund court-connected programs,techniques as required by the rules....... (c) Provision of
particularly claims over $25,000 that can generally onlydispute resolution programs on a sliding scale
be accessed by economically sufficient persons.fee-paying basis, and without cost to indigents, with
For example, Los Angeles County ignores therespect to any disputes that have not yet entered the
legislative intent by giving priority to unlimited jurisdictioncourt system, and limited jurisdiction and small claims
civil claims (over $25,000) by providing free servicescases.
indiscriminately to all comers provided they are alreadyBy incorporating the Legislative intent of diversity of
in the litigation system. The Los Angeles courtcommunity volunteers and enumerating the specific
connected program specifically discriminates againstdisputes that can be eligible for Dispute Resolution
Small Claims and low value 'limited jurisdiction' casesFunds, the Legislature will finally create what it originally
(under $25,000 cases), by giving them the least priorityenvisioned: a funded community-based dispute
and fails altogether to provide services 'on a slidingresolution forum for all persons of all ethnic, racial and
scale basis'. The violation of legislative intent couldsocioeconomic backgrounds.