Mediation certification and credentialing: getting accurate information on becoming a mediator
Posted by: Diane Levin in Careers in Mediation, How to Become a Mediator, Mediation Training, Mediator Credentialing
As a mediator and a trainer of mediators, a lot of announcements for mediation trainings cross my desk. Most recently one came my way that invited registration for a “certification training” for mediators. I’ve seen many like it over the years.
Most of them sadly have one thing in common: the “certification” that many of these trainings purport to provide is largely meaningless.
As public awareness of mediation’s benefits grows, so, too, does interest in mediation as a career. People naturally want to receive appropriate training and credentialing. Many of them believe that to enter the mediation field, they need to become certified as a mediator. As it turns out, that may or may not be right.
Confused? You’re in good company. And finding accurate information about mediator certification is a lot harder than it should be. I’ve therefore created this article in an effort to dispel some of the confusion.
1. How are mediators licensed?
At the time of this writing, mediation in the U.S. is an unlicensed profession. Unlike their counterparts in fields such as law, medicine, psychology, architecture, or social work, mediators in private practice are not licensed or regulated by states. In fact, anyone can hold themselves out as a mediator even if they have no training whatsoever.
There are reasons for the lack of licensing or state regulatory oversight. For one thing mediation as a field is relatively new and continues to define itself. Although forms of mediation and conflict resolution have existed for millennia, mediation as a professional service rose to prominence only in the latter half of the 20th century. Its widespread institutionalization in courts, schools, businesses, and governmental agencies, and its broad acceptance by the public are a fairly recent phenomenon.
In addition, credentialing remains a controversial subject among mediators. What makes credentialing a challenge is that mediators disagree among themselves as to what constitutes the practice of mediation. Different models of practice abound, and the differences among these models can be dramatic.
These models include facilitative mediation, an interest-based, problem-solving approach modeled upon the well known classic, Getting to Yes; evaluative mediation, in which the neutral provides an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a case and makes predictions regarding each party’s likely success at trial; and transformative mediation, which values the principles of empowerment and recognition–empowerment of parties to make their own decisions and the recognition by each party of the other’s point of view.
2. So does that mean mediation isn’t a true profession?
Absolutely not. Do not mistake the lack of professional licensing for a lack of professionalism. During the past several decades the mediation field has produced rigorously tested theories of practice, an impressive body of scholarship, and numerous laws and judicial decisions regarding mediators, mediation, and the protection of confidentiality of mediation communications.
Most importantly, practitioners, educators, scholars, researchers, and others have developed and refined widely accepted standards of best practices, crafted ethical rules for practitioners, and carefully developed guidelines for the training and education of mediators. Specializations have emerged within the field with corresponding practice standards for those specialty areas. And professional associations for mediators abound that promote best practices and actively work to advance the field.
3. If mediators aren’t licensed, then how can I qualify to be a mediator?
That depends upon the state you plan to live and practice in. In Massachusetts, to receive the benefit of the protection of a state law that protects the confidentiality of mediation communications, a mediator must have completed at least 30 hours of training and either have four years of professional experience as a mediator, be accountable to a dispute resolution organization which has been in existence for at least three years, or be appointed to mediate by a judicial or governmental body.
For mediators who serve in court-connected mediation programs, state courts may have their own qualification requirements.
For a list of the requirements for each of the 50 states, see “State Mediator Rosters and Qualifications” prepared by the Institute of Government, College of Professional Studies at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock.
4. Okay, so what is mediator certification then?
That depends. Let’s take a look at the different contexts in which mediator certification appears.
State and federal certification
Only a very few state courts or state bodies in the U.S. certify certain classes of mediators. These include The New Hampshire Marital Mediator Certification Board; the Supreme Court of Florida, which certifies four different categories of mediators–county court, family, circuit court, and dependency—each of which must meet specific minimum qualifications; South Carolina Board of Arbitrator and Mediator Certification, working in conjunction with the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Commission on Dispute Resolution; the Judicial Council of Virginia; and North Carolina Court System’s Dispute Resolution Commission which certifies family financial mediators.
In addition, at the federal level, the U.S. Department of the Navy certifies mediators who have met the necessary requirements.
Certification by professional associations for mediators
Some professional associations for mediators have established certification for certain classes of its members who have met qualifications specified by the association, which may include training, experience, and educational requirements. In this case certification is private and is not connected with any state authority or provided under state oversight.
Certification by private training companies
Some private training companies offer mediator certification training which will enable participants to meet the training requirements established by a particular state court or body for certification as a mediator. Such trainings will most likely be clearly identified as such.
However, some private training companies offer what they describe as “certification training” for mediators, which simply means that participants will receive a certificate of attendance upon completion of the training and not that the training will satisfy the certification requirements of a particular state court or agency. In my opinion–one which is widely shared by many respected trainers and educators in the ADR field–this practice can be misleading, whatever the intention of the trainers. For the layperson unfamiliar with the field, it creates a likelihood of confusion. In this case “certification training” can easily raise the expectation that the training confers formal accreditation or a professionally recognized credential, when in fact it does nothing of the kind.
If you plan to register for a mediation training which advertises itself as “certification training”, be sure to find out specifically what certification means in this case and what it will qualify you for.
Online mediator certification training
Online certification training for mediators warrants a special caveat. I have said this before and it is worth repeating: online mediation training which purports to prepare students for face-to-face mediation is not worth your time and money. As I said in an earlier post,
If you’re thinking about getting training in mediation, please be aware that great mediation training is highly experiential and interactive, reinforcing the notions of collaboration and teamwork. Acquisition of learning is achieved through interpersonal interaction–through class discussions, multi-party exercises, and role-playing. It’s a very much hands-on experience to get students in touch with the deeply interpersonal dynamics of mediation itself.
I would therefore caution you about mediation trainings offered as correspondence or distance learning courses which students complete online and at their own pace with no interaction with other students. A mediation correspondence course which affords no opportunity for face-to-face and group interaction with coaches and fellow students is simply no substitute for the real thing.
5. ConclusionAs you can see, mediation certification and credentialing is a complex topic. It pays for you to be thorough in doing your homework. For up-to-date information in your state on mediation training, certification, or mediator qualifications, please contact your local chapter of the Association for Conflict Resolution. To learn more about mediation training and careers, please explore the following posts:
“How to become a mediator: five frequently asked questions about training and careers in mediation.”
“Getting it straight: understanding mediator certification.”
“What to look for in a basic mediation training.”
Best of luck to you as you pursue a career in mediation.



Entries (RSS)
January 21st, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Your expertise in the following questions would be greatly appreicated.
1. What is best about mediation? 2. What needs to be worked on to improve the process?
3. If there were one thing a mediator could do to make this work better, what would it be?
4. What, in broad terms, is the future of mediation?
January 22nd, 2007 at 8:49 am
Hi, Sonya, great questions. Thanks for posting this comment.
Here are my thoughts.
1. What is best about mediation? The autonomy it provides parties in decision-making; its capacity to produce mutually satisfying outcomes that maximize gain for all participants at the table; and its ability to improve relationships and communication among parties. It is the ultimate self-help remedy.
2. What needs to be worked on to improve the process? That’s not an easy question, since it depends upon the model of mediation you’re looking at. Practitioners from each school of mediation practice would all have something different to say, and unfortunately in one comment there’s not enough time to examine them all. However, one universal is this: mediation as a practice is multi-faceted and is continually evolving. Mediators often say, “It’s called the practice of mediation for a reason–we’re always trying to get better at it.” As practitioners, being self-reflective in our practice, seeking feedback from clients, continuing education, and participation in peer review groups can all help mediators be better at what they do, regardless of what philosophy of practice they hew to.
3. Mediators need to do a better job of raising public awareness of mediation’s benefits. Overall our marketing and public relations efforts could be much, much better. I still run into people who don’t know what mediation is, confuse it with arbitration, or, even worse, meditation.
Here in the U.S., mediators also need to work toward mediator accreditation as Australia has done to boost public confidence in mediation as a service and to gain for us the respect as a profession that mediators merit and do not always receive from other fields. If we don’t take steps to do it, others will do it for us.
4. What is the future of mediation? I probably have no business making predictions right now, since I predicted that the Patriots would defeat the Colts yesterday to head on to the Super Bowl, but I anticipate that mediation will be increasingly widespread and available and that more people and businesses will turn to mediation as the cost of conflict continues to rise. Large corporations will recognize the value of having an in-house mediation team and will rely more heavily on the expertise of mediation trainers, dispute resolution systems experts, and other consultants. Greater use will be continue to be made of digital technology to facilitate the resolution of disputes not just in the real world but also in the virtual worlds that have gained so much popularity and media attention of late. And the consensus-building tools that mediation has produced will also come together with technology to create virtual public squares to promote and improve the participation by ordinary citizens in the workings of local and state government.
I’d be curious to hear what others think. Please feel free to weigh in, folks.
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:41 am
A couple thoughts, Diane. I agree with you that public education has not been as successful as it should be. Just the other day, a person who saw my license plate which says: “MEDIATE”, asked if I were a lawyer. I tried to explain that mediators don’t have to be lawyers and that in fact, mediation isn’t a subset of a legal practice.
It’s common that when people hear that I am a mediator, they ask if I’m a lawyer. Given the different models that you describe, I don’t see any way around the substantive task of ensuring a consistent and well developed public discourse on the “alternatives” to approaching conflict in the traditional legal system using the adversarial model. Toward that end, you, and the other bloggers are serving a great purpose.
On the issue of the future of mediation, I would add that there is a reasonable concern that the non adversarial and non evaluative benefits of mediation will be made less available to the public who access mediation through the courts. Quality mediation that doesn’t rest on a distributive, rights base foundation will continue to grow for those in the private sector who choose it, but a different future might be in store for those whose first or only contact with mediation is through the courts. That, in turn, affects the public education you spoke about.
Steve Vogl
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I wish it were wholly true, but I think your remark that mediators enjoy drawing from “rigorously tested theories of practice” is a mischaracterization. Speaking as both a mediation practitioner and conflict resolution academic/researcher, I’d have to say that much of what passes for common wisdom and practice among practitioners is woefully under-researched.
That said, I certainly think this was a wonderful, informative piece. I’m teaching a graduate course in mediation theory and practice this semester, and I’m going to include a link to this post in the course’s readings.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
John, I welcome your input, and I’m delighted to hear that this post is of value to you and to your students. Thank you kindly for posting your comment!
I must however respectfully disagree with you on one point. Perhaps it is my fortune to have worked closely with particularly dedicated and talented practitioners, but I stand by what I said about those “rigorously tested theories of practice”. I see the vast majority of my colleagues put them to the test in their work every day. At the end of the day, these theories of practice stand up repeatedly to the demands of real-life conflict and real-life disputants.
Is there room for improvement? Most certainly. Are there ineffective mediators? Yes, as is true of any profession. Are some theories better supported than others? Of course. But where I see mediators get into trouble and fail their clients and their profession is when their work is not rooted in theory and principles of practice. It’s why training and education is relevant and I think a prerequisite for entry into the profession–it provides a foundation for purposeful, focused, effective practice.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Diane, well there we have the start of really interesting conversation: what makes for “rigorously tested” theories and assessments of practices?
It’s not just an issue for our field. The conversations and debates over the quality of evidence supporting our practice choices in conflict resolution parallel similar conversations in, as one example, the evidence-based medical movement.
That said, while mediators get anecdotal opportunities every day to put their theories in practice and observe the results–and that certainly produces tremendous amounts of knowledge–it’s difficult to find any developed field of practice that condones conflating expert experience with rigorous testing. Yes: mediators test theories and assumptions of practice every day. But, no: even with the most inclusive of notions as to what constitutes ‘rigorous testing’, expert experience and the tacit knowledge produced is not the same thing as rigorous testing, and it makes for a deeply flawed substitute.
Actually, along with my work in the ACR Research Section, this Spring I’m starting up a blog on Conflict Resolution Research, which I hope will be a forum to explore and discuss this and related topics some more.
January 28th, 2007 at 8:52 am
John, thanks for your comments and for continuing the conversation. I think though that you and I will have to agree to disagree. Academic research is valuable and necessary to the growth and development of our field, and what also counts is the tough work where the rubber meets the road.
The experience of dedicated and conscientious practitioners in real-world conflict counts for a lot. Just ask anyone who’s been in the trenches–from Jimmy Carter and Eric Green to the volunteer community mediator here in Boston–and see whether they think more research is needed to show that mediation succeeds.
The proof is in the outcome: The thousands of satisfactorily resolved disputes, the wide acceptance of ADR in so many venues–in courts, schools, businesses, places of worship, workplaces, prisons, government agencies and elsewhere, locally, nationally, internationally, and online–together with its rapid spread to countries throughout the world, speak eloquently of mediation’s success.
I think in the end there’s much that you and I agree on. Both of us care about the direction of our field. With the work that all of us do–practitioners, scholars, researchers, and students–we will be able to shape a bright, bold future for ADR.
I’ll look forward to the launch of your blog in the spring, John, and the further exploration of these and other ideas.