Explain how various states differ in their encouragement of the use of ADR methods

What will be an ideal response?

The aggressiveness with which a state encourages the use of ADR methods varies a great deal. For instance, Florida has one of the most comprehensive systems of court connected ADR. In 1987, legislation granted civil trial judges the statutory authority to refer cases to mediation or arbitration, subject to rules and procedures established by the Supreme Court of Florida. Since that time, the legislature has continued to improve the regulation of court connected ADR, setting procedural rules and certification qualifications, ethical standards, grievance procedures, training standards, and continuing education requirements for mediators. In 2004, additional legislation mandated that ADR services were available in all counties in the state. As of August of 2012, there were 6,360 state certified mediators in the state.
In some states, such as Missouri, however, a completely voluntary approach is used. Courts are simply required to provide all parties with a notice of the availability of ADR services and names and addresses of persons or agencies able to provide such services. Although such a casual approach is criticized on the ground that few people will voluntarily use such services, defenders point out that if people choose ADR, their commitment to the process will be stronger than if they are forced into it and, therefore, it is more likely to work. Many states have adopted programs that require parties to take certain types of cases either to mandatory nonbinding arbitration or to mediation. In fact, at least 28 states require arbitration or mediation for certain kinds of cases or for cases under a particular monetary amount. Only when the parties cannot reach an agreement through mediation or when one party disagrees with the arbitrator's decision will the court hear the case.