Indiana
Conflict Resolution Institute
2004 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Institute Research Involving Government Agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
A. American Arbitration Association: Evaluation of Employment Arbitration Rules
B. U.S. Department of Agriculture: Evaluation of Department ADR Programs
C. U.S. Department of Justice: Evaluation of Federal Agency ADR Programs and Statistical Analysis of ADR & Litigation Cases
D. U.S. Postal Service; Evaluation of Employment Mediation Programs
III. Institute Research on Dispute System Design and Evaluation . . . . . . 10
A. Dispute System Design
B. Guerilla Government
C. Introduction to ADR Textbook
IV. Institute Research Involving Environmental Conflict Resolution . . . 12
A. The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution
B. Environmental Protection Agency
C. State of the States in Environmental Conflict Resolution
D. Environmental Attorneys
V. Institute Research Involving Deliberative Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
VI. Institute Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A. Service to Indiana University & the Local Community
B. Service to the State of Indiana
VII. Institute Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
A. Courses Taught
B. Training
Appendix A: Principal Staff Biographies
Appendix B: Research Publications in 2003-2004
Appendix C: Research Works in Progress
Introduction
The Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute (ICRI) was established in 1997 at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University. Indiana University provided the Institute with initial funding through the Strategic Directions Initiative, and in 1998, ICRI received general support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The Institute receives additional funding through grants and research contracts with public and private organizations.
ICRI is dedicated to developing and understanding dispute resolution processes and contributing to the knowledge base on alternative or appropriate dispute resolution (ADR) programs. To this end, our mission is threefold, focusing on research, teaching, and service.
The Institute conducts applied field research and program evaluation on dispute resolution processes in the public and non-profit sectors at the federal, state, and local levels. Our research seeks to meet the needs of both practice and theory in the exciting and fast-growing field of ADR. In terms of practice, we assist our clients in evaluating their ADR programs, enabling them to continually improve their processes and understand the impacts of their programs on participants and the organization. In terms of theory, we conduct unique research by collecting comprehensive and longitudinal data and using advanced analytic techniques to test hypotheses about ADR.
The Institute’s affiliation with the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University offers a unique opportunity to expand our teaching and service missions. We develop and implement undergraduate, graduate, continuing education, and executive education curriculum designed to foster deep understanding and broad use of conflict resolution processes. The Institute also provides information about conflict resolution and ADR services to members of the Bloomington community through its community affiliations. In addition, conflict resolution information is disseminated throughout the state of Indiana, as well as to professionals working in the field all over the country. Our teaching and service efforts help educate future public administrators and provide useful tools for practitioners and policy makers implementing ADR programs.
During our seventh year of operation, the Institute has recommitted itself to the original three-pronged mission of research, teaching, and service in ADR. We are expanding key staff positions, allowing us to better manage our activities in the future and reaching out to new constituents, trying to build our network of ADR practitioners, providers and scholars. We continue to bridge the gap between theory and practice, completing several projects and embarking on new ones involving the community, as well as state and federal agencies. The following report identifies and reflects on the accomplishments of the Institute over the past year.
Lisa B. Bingham Rosemary O’Leary Nan H. Stager
Director Principal Investigator Assistant Director
II. Institute Research Involving Government Agencies
As part of our mission, the Indiana Conflict Resolution (ICRI) conducts research on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) processes and programs at the local, state, and federal levels. ICRI has been highly productive this year, continuing research on several projects, completing others, and adding new ones. These efforts fall largely within the realm of applied and field research. Below is a brief description of each government-related research project.
A. American Arbitration Association (AAA)
The Institute completed its research on the AAA’s Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Employment Disputes. This research explored the extent to which players frequently involved in arbitration have different results than one-time participants.
Publications generated from this research:
Bingham, L.B and S. Sarraf (2004). “Employment Arbitration Before and After the Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising Out of Employment: Preliminary Evidence that Self-Regulation Makes a Difference.” In: Samuel Estreicher and David Sherwyn, eds., Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Arena: Proceedings of the New York University 53d Annual Conference on Labor, 303-329. New York: Kluwer Legal International.
B. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
In the fall of 2001, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center (CPRC), retained the Institute to design and implement a longitudinal evaluation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs in the USDA. USDA agencies use conflict resolution processes for workplace disputes and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints at the informal and formal stages. CPRC is responsible for setting ADR standards, monitoring ADR practices, and otherwise assisting ADR programs within the agency. The goals of this evaluation are to provide information to individual agency ADR programs so they may understand and improve their performance and to provide overall performance and cost-benefit information to USDA leaders and ADR program managers. This evaluation project is the first to attempt such a large-scale evaluation of numerous and different ADR programs within a single organization. Its findings will be helpful to not only the USDA, but to researchers and practitioners everywhere.
The evaluation project consists of three parts. The first part involved collecting and analyzing information from USDA employees engaged in the administration of ADR programs. This first step has been completed, and the findings were used to construct and design an evaluation that utilizes feedback from participants, neutrals, and USDA archival data sources. Two reports were submitted to CPRC. One details the evaluation design for ADR programs in the USDA; the other examines incentives, obstacles and barriers to the use of ADR in the agency.
The second part of the evaluation design involves the collection of information from ADR participants and neutrals. Several survey instruments were designed for this purpose. These instruments have been disseminated throughout the USDA and data collection began on April 1, 2003. ICRI has designed databases in which to store all incoming data, but has subcontracted the actual collection and entering of data to Dr. John Conbere at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota. ICRI researchers are working with Dr. Conbere to analyze data, provide reports to the USDA, and write research articles for publication.
The final part of the evaluation design is a cost-benefit analysis of ADR at the USDA. Currently, no other large-scale cost-benefit research of ADR in the federal government exists. ICRI has partnered with Dr. John Conbere and Dr. Jim Brown at the University of Minnesota. Researchers designed survey instruments and collected pilot data for a preliminary report. This pilot test takes a strategic and new approach to cost-benefit studies of ADR programs. Typically, cost-benefit estimates for ADR compare the cost of litigation with an estimate of monies saved by preventing litigation. While preventing litigation can save money, the method is flawed because many conflicts do not go to litigation regardless of whether ADR is used. In this new model, a Critical Incident Analysis methodology is used to develop a method for assessing the costs and benefits of a variety of not-litigation costs, such as retention, hiring new employees, retraining and grievances. The model was developed and tested at early intervention ADR programs in USDA, and is part of an on-going evaluation of ADR programs at USDA.
Publications generated from this research:
Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute (2003). Evaluation Design of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs at the United States Department of Agriculture. Report to the USDA.
Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute (2003). Incentives, Obstacles, & Barriers to Alternative Dispute Resolution Use at the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Report to the USDA.
Presentations generated from this research:
October 2003: Lisa B. Bingham, “Designing an Evaluation of ADR at USDA.” On panel entitled, “Does One Size Fit All? Evaluating ADR.” Association for Conflict Resolution, Orlando, FL.
Works in Progress:
Conbere, J. and J. Brown. “Cost-Benefit Analysis of ADR: A Model and Pilot Test at the USDA.”
· Submitted to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, October 2004.
C. United States Department of Justice (DOJ)
As a supplement to the Report of the Interagency Alternative Dispute Resolution Working Group to the President of the United States, the Institute assisted the DOJ in conducting an evaluation of federal ADR programs to determine how federal agencies have measured the effects of their ADR initiatives. The project examined resolution rates and the costs expended and avoided for ADR programs at a national level. In addition, the project examined efficiencies gained, participant satisfaction levels, and other lessons learned since the Working Group began. A report about ADR use in the federal government was submitted to the DOJ Office of Dispute Resolution. A second manuscript uses the data to examine the implementation and institutionalization of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Acts on 1990 and 1996. It is in review at the DOJ and will be submitted for publication shortly.
The Institute has also worked on a statistical analysis of ADR and litigation cases from the 1995-1998 national case files of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys. In cooperation with the DOJ, Institute researchers have completed an extensive statistical data analysis on a composite of three databases containing over 15,000 cases. A scholarly article that demonstrates a connection between the early use of ADR results and faster disposition of cases and that ties the findings to issues of dispute system design in federal ADR programs is in review at the Department of Justice and will be submitted to The Justice System Journal in the coming months.
Presentations generated from this research:
April 2004: Tina Nabatchi, “10 Years Later: A Process Evaluation of the ADRA.” On panel entitled, “Managing Federal Agencies.” Mid-West Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
Works in progress:
Bingham, L.B., T. Nabatchi, J. Senger, and M.S. Jackman. “Before the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998: Comparing Litigation and ADR when the Federal Government is a Civil Litigant.”
Nabatchi, T. and L.B. Bingham. “10 Years Later: The Institutionalization of Dispute Resolution in the Federal Government.”
· Submitted to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, October 2004.
D. United States Postal Service (USPS) – The National REDRESS® Evaluation Project
For ten years, the Institute has been involved with a comprehensive evaluation of the USPS employment mediation program, REDRESS® (Resolve Employment Disputes Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly). This massive longitudinal research project entails the evaluation of two related programs, REDRESS® I and REDRESS® II. This research has been well received by both academics and practitioners and is frequently cited as a model evaluation project.
REDRESS® I
The REDRESS® I evaluation project is undertaken in conjunction with the USPS Headquarters Human Resources Department. The REDRESS® I project examines informal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints of discrimination. The study is a longitudinal “before and after” evaluation of the implementation and administration of REDRESS® I. The project consists of several different studies that allow for triangulation, comparison, and validation of the research. Among the studies are:
Climate and Conflict Management at the USPS
Institute researchers traveled to Cleveland, New York and San Francisco, to interview three different samples of USPS employees, all randomly selected participants from all levels of the organization. Researchers conducted confidential one‑on‑one interviews with 217 postal employees to determine the impact of REDRESS® I upon climate and conflict management at the USPS. The transcribed interviews were entered into a database using a protocol for coding the qualitative responses. ICRI contracted two faculty members at Kennesaw State University, Susan Summers Raines and Timothy Hedeen, to collaborate on completing the report. The report was submitted to the USPS in the fall and is currently under review.
Exit Surveys
The Institute is measuring the impact of the REDRESS® I program by collecting data from participants in mediation sessions. All participants in REDRESS® I mediations fill out confidential exit surveys and mail the surveys to the Institute. Thus far, the Institute has received and entered over one hundred seventy thousand exit surveys. The exit surveys allow Institute researchers to determine how satisfied participants are with the mediator, process, and outcome of the mediations, and understand the parties’ perceptions of each other and the dispute. Institute staff continue to perform data entry and analysis of exit surveys. The longitudinal design of data collection and analysis allows researchers to examine the program over time and apply a wide array of quantitative and qualitative analytic techniques to the data. The result is the production of research that is generalizable beyond the context of the Postal Service and valuable to both the theory and practice of ADR.
Researchers are currently working with USPS officials to re-design the surveys and develop new instruments to test the impact of the program on USPS workplace culture. Specifically, the new exit surveys will use a scantron format, allowing the Institute to dedicate more resources to data analysis and publication efforts. In addition, researchers are designing new instruments to capture the long-term impact of mediation on supervisor-subordinate relationships, and to capture information about the case intake process from first time users, repeat users, and non-users.
Data Tracking Surveys
The Institute collects information from mediators about the number of Exit Surveys distributed to REDRESS® I participants in order to track response rate information. This information is entered into a database and compared with the exit survey information for research validity. Calculations demonstrate a response rate in excess of 75%, an extraordinarily high response rate in social science research.
Mediator Surveys
The Institute has collected and analyzed data from a survey of mediators to assess their perceptions of transformative mediation and its application in the USPS. Forthcoming studies will allow research to triangulate information regarding mediator understanding and implementation of the transformative model with participant perceptions about the mediation process.
Conflict Management and USPS Supervisors
This dissertation research explores how USPS Supervisors manage conflict in the workplace. A target group of supervisors was randomly selected from the main postal plant facility in Indianapolis, Indiana. These USPS supervisors were interviewed about their conflict management techniques and strategies and the impact of training and mediation on these practices. Lisa Marie Napoli successfully defended the dissertation, and completed revisions this year. She is currently preparing additional publications from this dissertation research.
Complaint Filings
Institute staff have maintained a database containing data on formal and informal EEO complaints before and after the implementation of the REDRESS® I mediation program. This dataset is broken down by zip code, accounting period (13 per year), and fiscal year. Recent analyses show a continued decline in the number of formal EEO complaint filings in the USPS. The USPS is currently collecting archival data from their systems to give to researchers. This archival data includes information on informal and formal EEO compliant filings, pre-mediation actions, complainant information, productivity data, and data from the employee census. This new data will allow researchers to assess the impact of the REDRESS® I mediation program over time on organizational morale and productivity.
Cost Benefit Analysis
Institute staff members have collected data and begun analysis for a cost benefit analysis of the REDRESS® I mediation program. The USPS is collecting internal data for use in this analysis.
Transformative and Interactional Justice
As the REDRESS® I program is based on the transformative model of mediation, researchers had an opportunity to conduct a unique statistical analysis on the ability of various ‘transformative’ or interactional justice factors to explain participant satisfaction. Researchers found that the addition of transformative/interactional factors to the procedural justice model significantly enhances its power to explain participant satisfaction. This research is the first field test of the interactional model of justice. It was presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the International Association of Conflict Management, as well as at the American Society for Public Administration 64th National Conference in 2003. The manuscript is currently under revision for submission to an academic journal. Researchers will soon begin using a sophisticated structural equation model to explain the connections between various aspects of distributive, procedural and interactional justice.
Time Series Analysis
Researchers at the Institute have conducted a time series analysis of the REDRESS® I program to examine resolution rates, participant satisfaction levels, and other information over time. The results of the study show remarkably high and consistent levels of participant satisfaction with the mediators, outcomes, process, and party relationships over the five years examined. There are also high and consistent levels of case resolution. A manuscript of the findings is in preparation.
Comparison of Employee and Supervisor Perceptions of REDRESS® Mediations
Researchers are currently examining and comparing the perceptions of USPS employees and supervisors involved in REDRESS® I mediations. Initial data analysis shows some interesting similarities and differences in how the two groups perceive the REDRESS® I process, mediators, and outcomes, as well as how they understand their relationships to each other. Manuscripts are in preparation.
Publications generated from this research:
Bingham, Lisa B. (October 2003). Mediation at Work: Transforming Workplace Conflict at the United States Postal Service. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
Bingham, L. B., G. Chesmore, Y. Moon, and L.M. Napoli (2004). “Mediating Employment Disputes at the United States Postal Service: A Comparison of In-House and Outside Neutral Mediators.” In: Samuel Estreicher and David Sherwyn, eds., Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Arena: Proceedings of the New York University 53d Annual Conference on Labor, 921-942. New York: Kluwer Legal International.
Napoli, L.M. (2003). “USPS Supervisors and Conflict Management Techniques: Evaluating Training and Mediation Interventions and Dimensions of Gender.” Unpublished PhD. dissertation, Indiana University (on file with author).
Presentations generated from this research:
April 2004: Tina Nabatchi, “Game Theory and Dispute System Design: Making Mediation a Dominant Strategy in the United States Postal Service.” On panel entitled, “Games Organizations and People Play.” 4th Annual SPEA Young Researchers Conference, Bloomington, IN.
March 2004: Lisa B. Bingham, “Giving Voice to Divergent Perspectives: Mediation Within the Organization or Litigation Without?” In Founders’ Forum panel entitled, “Whistleblowers and Other Organizational Deviants.” The American Society for Public Administration 65th National Conference, Portland, OR.
October 2003: Lisa B. Bingham, “What Happens After….” On panel entitled, “What Happens After Mediation of an EEO Complaint?” Association for Conflict Resolution, Orlando, FL.
March 2003: Tina Nabatchi, “Transformative Mediation in the USPS.” On panel entitled, “New Frontiers in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The American Society for Public Administration 64th National Conference, Washington, DC.
Works in progress:
Chung, W.T., B. Nesbit, and L.B. Bingham. “A Time Series Analysis of the USPS REDRESS® Program.”
· Submitted to the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Research Conference, Atlanta, GA, October 2004.
Chung, W. T., Y. Moon, and L.B. Bingham. “Mediator Characteristics and Participant Satisfaction: A Factor Analysis for Mediator Implementation and Program Evaluation.”
Moon, Y., T. Nabatchi, and L.B. Bingham. “Transformative Mediation: The Practice of Mediators.”
Nabatchi, T. “Game Theory and Dispute System Design: Making Mediation a Dominant Strategy in the United States Postal Service.”
- Accepted for presentation at the International Association of Conflict Management (IACM) Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2004.
Nabatchi, T., L.B. Bingham, and D. Good. “Expanding Our Models of Justice in Dispute Resolution: A Field Test of the Contribution of Interactional Justice.”
Nabatchi, T., B. Nesbit, and L.B. Bingham. “Comparing Models of Justice with Structural Equations.”
Napoli, L.M. "Evaluating Training in the United States Postal Service: Conflict Management Techniques in a Cultural Framework."
· Accepted for presentation at the International Association of Conflict Management (IACM) Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2004.
Napoli, L.M. and L.B. Bingham. “Conflict Management Techniques in the Workplace: the United States Postal Service.”
Nesbit, B., T. Nabatchi, and L.B. Bingham. “Disputants’ Sense of Interactional Justice: Comparing How Employees and Supervisors Interact in Mediation.”
· Accepted for presentation at the International Association of Conflict Management (IACM) Annual Conference, Pittsburgh, PA, June 2004.
Nesbit, B. and L.B. Bingham. “The Longevity of Transformative Mediation: Analyzing the Impact of Transformative Mediation on Repeat Users.”
Nesbit, B. and L.B. Bingham. “The Effects of Transformative Mediation on Workplace Relations: An Analysis of Management Defendants in Repeated Mediations.”
Raines, S.S., T. Hedeen, L.M. Napoli, & L.B. Bingham. “A Tale of Three Cities: Interviews with USPS Employees Before and After REDRESSÒ.”
REDRESS® II
The second part of the National REDRESS® Evaluation Project focuses on REDRESS® II, a new program in the USPS Headquarters Law Department. REDRESS® II is designed to mediate formal EEO complaints of discrimination at the Administrative Judge level. The original research design was unique in that information was collected on a case-basis, allowing us to examine data from individual cases, as well as from all cases in the program. Data collection and analyses are ongoing, and some preliminary analyses have been presented at academic and professional conferences. However, the USPS is recombining the REDRESS® I and II programs and data collection protocols are under revision.
III. Institute Research on Dispute System Design and Evaluation
In addition to conducting government-based research, the Institute conducts general research in the area of dispute system design and evaluation. This research has been offered to academics, practitioners, and students in several publications and presentations.
A. Dispute System Design
This research broadly covers dispute system design, but also focuses on specific elements such as grievance procedures in employment settings, international and commercial arbitration, and integrated conflict management systems.
Publications generated from this research:
Bingham, L.B. (forthcoming 2004). “Self-Determination in Dispute System Design and Mandatory Commercial Arbitration.” Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. __, __-__.
Bingham, L. B. and Nabatchi, T. (2003). “Dispute System Design in Organizations.” In William J. Pammer, Jr. and Jerri Killian, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Management, 105-127. New York: Marcel-Dekker.
Bingham, L. B. and Nabatchi, T. (2003). “Grievance Procedures and Administration.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, 566-570. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Nabatchi T. and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, __-__. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Nabatchi T. and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Ombuds and Ombuds Programs.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, __-__. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Nesbit, B. and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Decision Making - Administrative Dispute Resolution.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, __-__. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Presentations generated from this research:
April 2004: Lisa B. Bingham, “Mediating in the Shadow of Different Law.” American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, 6th Annual Conference, New York, NY.
April 2004: John L. Krauss and Nan Stager, “Why are Public Meetings a Disaster? ADR Tools, Techniques and Common Sense.” American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution, 6th Annual Conference, New York, NY.
August 2003: Lisa B. Bingham, “Self-determination in Dispute System Design and Mandatory Commercial Arbitration.” Invited luncheon speaker for the Dispute Resolution Section of the Academy for Legal Studies in Business, Nashville, TN.
B. Guerrilla Government
In the academic year 2002-2003, Rosemary O’Leary wrote the book Guerilla Government, which applies conflict resolution systems theory to examine disputes in environment and natural resource agencies. A draft of the book has been completed and is currently in review with publishers.
Presentations generated from this research:
March 2004: Rosemary O’Leary, Convener of Founders’ Forum panel entitled, “Whistleblowers and Other Organizational Deviants.” The American Society for Public Administration 65th National Conference, Portland, OR.
C. Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution Textbook
Nan Stager was asked by Aspen Publishers to submit a proposal for a textbook suitable for use in introductory survey courses on ADR for the non-law student market. The book will focus on ADR processes and their applications and will closely follow the curriculum developed for the undergraduate and graduate introductory ADR courses that have been taught at Indiana University by Institute staff for the past fifteen years. The book proposal is currently being reviewed. If reviews are favorable, a contract could be offered as early as May 2004. If a contract is not offered, other publishers will be pursued.
IV. Institute Research Involving Environmental Conflict Resolution
The Institute also conducts research in the area of Environmental Conflict Resolution (ECR). This research focuses on the use of ECR by government agencies at both the federal and state levels, the attitudes and perceptions of attorneys toward the use of ECR, and ECR evaluation efforts. This research has been well received by academics, practitioners, and students and has generated a book, several academic articles and book chapters, and presentations.
A. The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution
The Institute organized and sponsored a conference on Evaluating Environmental Conflict Resolution in March 2001 in Washington, D.C. Expert scholars and practitioners in the area of environmental conflict resolution (ECR) were invited to discuss and present their research on this important and fast-growing topic. The tremendously positive response to the conference prompted Rosemary O’Leary and Lisa Bingham to collect the presented papers and publish them in an edited volume. In addition to editing responsibilities for the book, Institute staff are authors on three individual chapters in the book. Resources for the Future Press published the book.
Publications generated from this research:
O’Leary, R. and L.B. Bingham, Eds. (2003). The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press.
Bingham, L.B., D. Fairman, D. Fiorino, and R. O’Leary (2003). “Fulfilling the Promise of Environmental Conflict Resolution.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 329-351. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, R. O’Leary, and J. Stephens (2003). “The Challenges of Environmental Conflict Resolution.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 3-26. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
O’Leary, R. and S. Raines (2003). “Dispute Resolution at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 253-273. Washington DC: Resources for the Future Press.
O’Leary, R., T. Nabatchi and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Environmental Conflict Resolution.” In: Robert Durant, Daniel Fiorino, and Rosemary O’Leary, eds., Building Common Purpose: Challenges, Choices, and Opportunities for Environmental Governance in the 21st Century, __-__. Cambridge: MIT Press.
O’Leary, R., T. Nabatchi, and L.B. Bingham (forthcoming 2004). “Assessing and Improving Conflict Resolution in Multiparty Environmental Negotiations.” International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior.
Presentations generated from this research:
March 2004: Tina Nabatchi, “Environmental Conflict Resolution.” On panel entitled, “Challenges, Choices and Opportunities for Environmental Governance in the 21st Century.” The American Society for Public Administration 65th National Conference, Portland, OR.
B. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Institute and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collaborated to examine the use of ADR in enforcement and compliance activities at the EPA. The goals of this project were to:
- Evaluate the use of ADR in EPA enforcement cases, and to focus particularly on Superfund cases;
- Identify and examine the barriers and assistance to ADR efforts in the EPA;
- Suggest ways in which the EPA might improve its ADR programs; and
- Draw lessons from EPA’s experiences that may be helpful to other agencies or organizations.
The research has improved understanding of the complex context in which ADR is utilized in enforcement activities at the EPA. While data collection and analysis are complete, this project continues to produce valuable work products.
Publications generated from this research:
O’Leary, R. and S. Raines (2003). “Dispute Resolution at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 253-273. Washington DC: Resources for the Future Press.
C. State of the States in Environmental Conflict Resolution
This project is aimed at evaluating the use of environmental conflict resolution (ECR) in each of the fifty U.S. states. The research design provides for a “multi-year” study of ECR to examine the evolution of ECR techniques and use in each state and ascertain the perceived qualitative benefits of these practices. Data collection and analysis for the first national survey were completed in 1999. The findings were published in the Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution and are also available on-line at http://www.spea.indiana.edu/icri/sos.htm. Rosemary O'Leary and Ph.D. student Carla Pizzarella surveyed states in 2003-2004 to ascertain what, if any, performance measures state ECR programs utilize. In addition, barriers to assessing the performance of ECR programs are being analyzed. The results will be available by May 1, 2004, and will be sent to an academic journal, yet to be selected, for publication. The final round of survey administration will be conducted in 2008.
D. Environmental Attorneys
In 2000, the Institute worked in cooperation with the American Bar Association Section on the Environment, Energy, and Resources to mail surveys to environmental attorneys in 50 states. The response rate (34%) represents attorneys from 48 states from the public, private, and non-profit sectors. Analysis of the responses has generated fruitful studies and valuable information. Institute staff plan to replicate the study in five years, and again in ten years, to ascertain the extent to which attorneys’ views of ADR are changing. This year, researchers published initial survey results.
Presentations generated from this research:
March 2003: Rosemary O’Leary and Maja Husar, “Public Managers, Attorneys, and Alternative Dispute Resolution: Results and Implications for a National Survey.” On panel entitled, “New Frontiers in Alternative Dispute Resolution.” The American Society for Public Administration 64th National Conference, Washington, DC.
V. Institute Research Involving Deliberative Democracy
The Institute is engaging in preliminary discussions with AmericaSpeaks regarding a new research and evaluation collaboration on its model for citizen engagement in public policymaking. President and Founder, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, will present a colloquium at SPEA on April 27, 2004.
VI. Institute Service
The Institute is also dedicated to serving its community in the field of conflict resolution – both locally and across the state of Indiana. Locally, the Institute has continued its service through the Keller-Runden Chair held by Professor Bingham, as well as through its association with the Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc. (CCRP) in Bloomington, Indiana. Below is a brief description of our service activities.
A. Community Service
These service activities are geared toward the greater Bloomington area, Monroe County, and Indiana University.
Keller-Runden Chair in Public Service
Two Keller-Runden Fellowships were awarded to Stuart Grande and Stephanie Aaron for a total of $2000. This money will be used for internships at both the international and state levels. The Keller-Runden Chair continues to assist the Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc. and Citizens for Community Justice, Inc.
Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc.
Lisa-Marie Napoli was invited to lead a workshop for the City of Bloomington’s Leadership and Management Committee. She led a series of exercises to help the committee better develop their conflict management techniques. The workshop was given on March 12, 2004, in Bloomington, Indiana.
Lisa Bingham, Nan Stager and Lisa-Marie Napoli, along with several other stakeholders, are developing plans for collaborating with the local courts to develop a mediation referral system for small claims and family cases. Meetings began in early March 2004.
Lisa-Marie Napoli, Institute Service Coordinator and CCRP Executive Director, led staff and management workshops for the South Central Community Action Program. The groups were working on improving employment relations in their day-to-day working relationships. The workshops were held in December 2003 and February 2004 in Bloomington, Indiana.
Lisa-Marie Napoli was asked to speak to management at Bloomington Hospital’s Promptcare Facility to discuss staff conflicts. She proposed ideas to the group for a follow-up workshop for the staff. The meeting occurred in February 2004. Plans for the follow-up workshop are in progress.
Lisa-Marie Napoli coordinated a one-day Workplace/Transformative Mediation Training with Donna Turner Hudson as primary trainer. Lisa-Marie Napoli led a 3-hour introductory session prior to the one-day training for new participants. The training gave participants an introductory overview of the transformative model of mediation. The one-day training occurred on February 28, 2004 in Bloomington, Indiana.
Lisa Marie Napoli, Tina Nabatchi and Nan Stager were lead trainers for a 24-hour Peer Mediation Training for the Indiana University Student Government Association. The training occurred in February 2004, in Bloomington, IN.
Lisa-Marie Napoli led a workshop at Harmony School, an alternative education school, for middle school children. The event was scheduled as a part of a Martin Luther King Day Celebration to have children think about nonviolence.
Lisa-Marie Napoli led a volunteer workshop for Court Appointed Special Advocates. The workshop had a series of conflict resolution exercises, discussions and a role-play for developing conflict management techniques. The workshop occurred on November 19, 2003 in Bloomington, Indiana.
Lisa-Marie Napoli co-organized a six-hour workshop entitled, “Constructive Approaches to Conflict Resolution,” led by Ed Greenebaum. The workshop, offered on October 18, 2003, gave participants an opportunity to explore theoretical foundations for understanding conflict.
Lisa-Marie Napoli coordinated and led a workshop entitled “Coaching Conflict: Problem-Solving for One.” The five-hour workshop gave participants an opportunity to discuss important issues dealing with coaching others to help them get clear during conflict. The workshop was given on July 19, 2003 in Bloomington, Indiana.
Lisa-Marie Napoli, with other community volunteers, created and implemented specialized education programs in conflict resolution with a local homeless assistance program, Shelter, Inc.
Lisa-Marie Napoli, and Erica Rose Jeffrey, formerly a member of the Institute staff, presented a workshop called “Moving Toward Peace” at the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution on April 5, 2003 in Atlanta, Georgia.
Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program and Citizens for Community Justice, Inc.
Lisa-Marie Napoli co-coordinated a staff retreat with members of the Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc., the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program, and Citizens for Community Justice, Inc. on February 8, 2004. The retreat addressed Board Development issues and moved the groups closer toward their proposed merger of services to best serve the City of Bloomington and Monroe County.
Lisa-Marie Napoli was a lead trainer, with a community volunteer, Jordan Shifriss, in a 24-hour Youth Mediation and Education training. The training included practice in communication and mediation skills for dealing with community and victim-offender conflicts. The training began in December 2003, and was completed in January 2004.
Lisa-Marie Napoli and Nan Stager were lead trainers, along with Ed Greenebaum, for a 32-hour Community Mediation volunteer training. Tina Nabatchi volunteered as a coach for the training. Denise Walker, an Institute staff member, was a participant in the training. The training was held in May 2003.
Institute staff members Tina Nabatchi and Lisa-Marie Napoli offered services to the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) of the City of Bloomington to mediate cases between youth offenders and their victims. VORP works under Citizens for Community Justice (CCJ).
B. State Service Projects
These service activities are geared toward the state of Indiana.
Indiana Interagency SHARED NEUTRALS Program for Mediation
One of the obstacles to the use of ADR in Indiana state agencies has been the cost of neutrals. Agencies have been reluctant to refer a case to mediation because they do not want to pay the costs of the mediation in addition to the potential costs of an administrative or judicial hearing. In January 2000, five state agencies signed a Memorandum of Understanding and committed to being part of the shared neutrals program. Each agency has one or more trained mediators on staff and will offer these staff members as mediators for disputes in other agencies. Nine mediations have been held to date. The Institute continues to provide technical support to this project.
A meeting of state agency officials interested in continuing or joining the Shared Neutrals program, called the Shared Neutrals Workgroup, was held in Indianapolis on June 18, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was to explore opportunities to expand the use of ADR at the state agency level.
A major concern expressed at the meeting was that formal mediation may be too time-consuming and not cost effective for some agencies. The discussion then centered on the feasibility of two levels of ADR: a structured facilitation option (facilitated settlement) and a mediation option. The group agreed to work on a design for the quicker, structured facilitation option, and the details of the facilitator training. The workgroup also decided to survey key state agencies to determine their interest in ADR.
Although some further informal discussions on the above topics did occur during the rest of the calendar year, the group has been largely inactive. The survey was never completed, primarily due to key membership changes, and no further progress has been made on the structured facilitation option. However, a meeting of the workgroup has been scheduled for June 11, 2004, to continue these discussions.
Indiana State Attorney General’s Office
Director of ICRI State Programs, John Krauss, was engaged by Indiana attorney general Steve Carter to investigate different ADR methods that would be appropriate to resolve a six million dollar inter-governmental dispute between a school corporation, the Indiana State Department of Education, and the State Auditing Agency. This was the first time in state government history that the attorney general’s office sought the assistance of a third party neutral to help resolve a case. The mediation/ADR process was successful in settling the dispute. The process lasted from May 2003 to February 2004.
Given the success of this one case, the attorney general has adopted a policy requiring that ADR processes are attempted first in all inter-governmental disputes before funds are spent on litigation. The attorney general has also approached Mr. Krauss and ICRI Teaching Coordinator Nan Stager about conducting a mediation training for all of his staff attorneys later in 2004.
Indiana Civil Rights Commission
A new externship program was launched in the fall of 2003 where third-year law students from Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis served as mediators for the Indiana Civil Rights Commission in mediating discrimination and workplace disputes referred to the commission. All of the third-year law students had completed the forty-hour Public Policy Mediation course (see below). Student mediators were supervised by Civil Rights Commission staff for their first two mediations, but were conducting mediations by themselves by the end of the semester. Due to the success of this first year, the Civil Rights Commission plans to continue the program.
Public Policy Mediation Course at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis
This 40-hour course (D714) co-taught by ICRI staff John Krauss and Nan Stager, is offered twice each year for approximately forty students per class. Thirty seats are reserved for third year law students, but at least ten seats are kept open for local attorneys, judges, state agency and government attorneys. This collaboration between the law school and ICRI provides a cost-effective and accessible mediation training option for state and local government attorneys and judges who will hopefully bring these new skills to their workplace.
Consortium on Dispute Resolution
The Consortium on Dispute Resolution includes several organizations involved in conflict resolution, including the Hudson Institute, Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, Peace Learning Center in Indianapolis, Indiana Association of Mediators, Indiana Network of Community Mediation, and the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute. The Consortium is planning a state-wide dispute resolution conference for Friday May 21, 2004 in Indianapolis, IN. The conference is entitled, “IN Conflict: 1st Annual Dispute Resolution Conference in Indiana.”
VII. Institute Teaching
The final prong of the Institute’s mission involves educating the public about conflict management and alternative dispute resolution. Four Institute staff members teach ADR-related courses in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University – Bloomington. One staff member also teaches at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. In addition to courses, the Institute staff is also involved in presenting workshops and training seminars in topics such as conflict resolution, mediation and interest-based processes. Below is a listing of the teaching activities completed over the past year:
A. Courses taught
V435 Negotiation and Alternative Dispute Resolution; Fall 2003, Spring 2004
At Indiana University, Bloomington
(3 sections each semester, 162 students in the fall; 167 students in the spring)
Instructors: Nan Stager and Tina Nabatchi
D714 Public Policy Mediation; August 18-22, 2003 and January 5-9, 2004.
At Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis
(30 law students and 10 attorneys in each class)
Instructors: John Krauss and Nan Stager
V547 Alternative Dispute Resolution; March 15-19, 2004, Executive Education,
Offered by SPEA , Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis
at Crane Naval Base, Crane, Indiana
(13 students)
Instructor: Nan Stager
B. Training
Volunteer Mediator Training, 32 hours, Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc., Bloomington, IN, May 11, 17, 18 & 20, 2003.
Co-Trainers: Lisa Marie Napoli and Nan Stager
Coach: Tina Nabatchi
Peer Mediation Training, 24 hours, for Indiana University Student Government Association, Bloomington, IN, February 7, 8 & 15, 2004.
Co-Trainers: Lisa Marie Napoli, Tina Nabatchi and Nan Stager
Appendix A: Principal Staff Biographies
Lisa B. Bingham, Founding Director
Lisa B. Bingham is the Keller Runden Professor of Public Service and Director of the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute at the Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs, in Bloomington, Indiana. A graduate of Smith College (magna cum laude 1976) and the University of Connecticut School of Law (with high honors 1979), she practiced labor and employment law for ten years and became a partner in the law firm of Shipman and Goodwin of Hartford Connecticut. Bingham joined the faculty of Indiana University in 1989 as a lecturer at the School of Law. In 1992, she joined the faculty of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Bingham co-founded the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute in 1997. The Institute is supported by a grant from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and conducts applied research and program evaluation on mediation, arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution. She is the director of the National REDRESSÒ Evaluation Project for the United States Postal Service, a research project on transformative mediation of employment discrimination disputes. Bingham has served as a consultant on evaluating conflict resolution systems to the National Institutes of Health, the United States Air Force, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. She has also served as a mediator and arbitrator for labor and employment disputes under the auspices of the American Arbitration Association and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In 2002, she received the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Willoughby Abner Award for excellence in research on dispute resolution. A winner of five teaching awards and five other peer-reviewed awards for her research, she has published over forty articles on mediation, arbitration, and dispute resolution.
Rosemary O’Leary, Founding Principal Investigator
Rosemary O'Leary, J.D., Ph.D., is professor of public administration and director of the Ph.D. program at the Maxwell Graduate School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. An elected member of the U.S. National Academy of Public Administration, she was a senior Fulbright scholar conducting research on environmental policy in Malaysia. Previously she was professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University, and co-director of the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute. O'Leary has served as the director of policy and planning for a state environmental agency, and has worked as an environmental attorney. She has worked as a consultant to the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the International City/County Management Association, the national Science Foundation, and the National Academy of Sciences. She is the author of three books and more than seventy-five articles on environmental management, environmental policy, public management, dispute resolution, bureaucratic politics, and law and public policy. She has won seven national research awards, including Best Book in Public and Nonprofit Management for 2000 (given by the Academy of Management), Best Book in Environmental Management and Policy for 1999 (given by the American Society for Public Administration) and the Mosher Award, which she won twice, for best article by an academician published in Public Administration Review. She has won eight teaching awards as well, including the national Excellence in Teaching Award given by the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration, and she was the recipient of the Distinguished Service Award given by the American Society for Public Administration's Section on Environment and Natural Resources Administration. She has served as chair of the Public Administration Section of the American Political Science Association, and as the chair of the Section on Environment and natural Resources Administration of the American Society for Public Administration.
John Krauss, Director of ICRI State Programs
John L. Krauss is an attorney, facilitator, mediator, and arbitrator. He joined Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA) as a Senior Fellow in January 1991. He has a joint academic appointment as a Clinical Professor at SPEA and as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis. He was a co-founder of the Center for Urban Policy and the Environment. At the Center, he serves as Director, and leads its technical assistance, strategic planning, intergovernmental relations, mediation, and facilitation activities for local, state, and national governments, foundations, as well as for civic and business organizations. Mr. Krauss is an attorney, admitted to the Indiana and District of Columbia Bars, US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the US Supreme Court. He is a Certified Mediator by the Indiana Supreme Court. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from Colorado College, Colorado Springs, CO., and a Doctorate of Jurisprudence degree from Indiana University School of Law. He recently joined the staff of the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute to head up the institute’s state projects in Indianapolis.
Nan Stager, Assistant Director & Teaching Coordinator
In addition to her work with the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute, Nan Stager is a lecturer in the areas of mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). She has over twenty years experience as a mediator. She was the director of the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program in Monroe County, Indiana from 1983-1987, had a private mediation practice specializing in family and community disputes from 1987-1991, and currently is an ad-hoc mediator for the Indiana Education Employment Relations Board and for Indiana’s Medicare Beneficiary Protection Mediation Program. She also mediates employment disputes in university settings. In 1988, she developed an undergraduate survey course on ADR, which she still teaches today. She also teaches a graduate level ADR course through IUPUI-SPEA's Executive Education Program, co-teaches a public policy mediation course at Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis, and teaches a graduate level course on Environmental Conflict Resolution. She is certified as an assistant trainer in both civil and family mediation through the Indiana Commission for Continuing Legal Education and is an approved mediation trainer by the United States Department of the Navy. She is a Certified Family Mediator by the Indiana Supreme Court. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Spanish and Master of Science degree in Adult Education, both from Indiana University.
Tina Nabatchi, Research Coordinator
Tina Nabatchi is a doctoral student in the Public Affairs program at Indiana University’s School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Her research interests include public management, public policy, and law, particularly in relation to conflict resolution and sustainable development administration. As the research coordinator, Ms. Nabatchi designs and conducts applied research and program evaluation on dispute resolution. She is in charge of developing and implementing research and evaluation designs, managing research teams, analyzing data and writing reports. She is responsible for the research involving the United States Postal Service, the Department of Justice, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, among other ICRI efforts. She has published her research in various outlets and presented at several professional and academic conferences such as the American Society for Public Administration and the International Association of Conflict Management. Ms. Nabatchi holds a Bachelors of Arts degree in Political Science from The American University and a Masters of Public Administration from the University of Vermont.
Lisa-Marie Napoli, Service Coordinator
Lisa-Marie Napoli defended her Ph.D. in Public Affairs in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University. She is currently working as Executive Director of the Community Conflict Resolution Program, Inc. in Bloomington, Indiana. Prior to her current position, she worked as Administrative Director at the Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute for 18 months. She has published some of her research and presented at several professional and academic conferences such as the American Society for Public Administration, the Association for Conflict Resolution, the National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution, and the International Association of Conflict Management. She received her master’s degree in public policy and management from The Ohio State University in 1995. Her research interests include conflict management, employment policy, workplace culture and communication. Her work experiences vary in administrative, academic and practical realms. She is active volunteering in the community and she has growing experience in facilitation and mediation.
Appendix B: Research Publications in 2003-2004
*Bingham, Lisa B. (October 2003). Mediation at Work: Transforming Workplace Conflict at the United States Postal Service. Arlington, VA: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
*Bingham, L.B. (forthcoming 2004). “Self-Determination in Dispute System Design and Mandatory Commercial Arbitration.” Law and Contemporary Problems, __: __-__.
*Bingham, L. B., G. Chesmore, Y. Moon, and L.M. Napoli (2004). “Mediating Employment Disputes at the United States Postal Service: A Comparison of In-House and Outside Neutral Mediators.” In: Samuel Estreicher and David Sherwyn, eds., Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Arena: Proceedings of the New York University 53d Annual Conference on Labor, 921-942. New York: Kluwer Legal International.
Bingham, L.B., D. Fairman, D. Fiorino, and R. O’Leary (2003). “Fulfilling the Promise of Environmental Conflict Resolution.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 329-351. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
*Bingham, L. B. and Nabatchi, T. (2003). “Dispute System Design in Organizations.” In William J. Pammer, Jr. and Jerri Killian, eds., The Handbook of Conflict Management, 105-127. New York: Marcel-Dekker.
*Bingham, L.B. and T. Nabatchi (2003). “Grievance Procedures and Administration.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, 566-570. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
*Bingham, L.B and S. Sarraf (2004). “Employment Arbitration Before and After the Due Process Protocol for Mediation and Arbitration of Statutory Disputes Arising Out of Employment: Preliminary Evidence that Self-Regulation Makes a Difference.” In: Samuel Estreicher and David Sherwyn, eds., Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Employment Arena: Proceedings of the New York University 53d Annual Conference on Labor, 303-329. New York: Kluwer Legal International.
Emerson, K., T. Nabatchi, R. O’Leary, and J. Stephens (2003). “The Challenges of Environmental Conflict Resolution.” In: Rosemary O’ Leary and Lisa Bingham, eds., The Promise and Performance of Environmental Conflict Resolution, 3-26. Washington D.C.: Resources for the Future Press.
*Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute (2003). Evaluation Design of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Programs at the United States Department of Agriculture. Report to the USDA .
*Indiana Conflict Resolution Institute (2003). Incentives, Obstacles, & Barriers to Alternative Dispute Resolution Use at the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Report to the USDA.
*Nabatchi T. and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, __-__. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
*Nabatchi T. and L.B. Bingham (in press 2004). “Ombuds and Ombuds Programs.” In: J., Rabin, ed., Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, __-__. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Napoli, L.M. (20