Judiciary Mediation and ADR Center Uses Demonstrating ROI to Rehearse Intake and Session Logistics With Role-Plays

A Judiciary Mediation and ADR Center Faces High Stakes in Intake and Session Logistics

A mediation and ADR center inside the judiciary handles cases that carry real consequences for people’s lives. Parties arrive with court deadlines, stress, and limited time. In this setting, what happens before a mediation begins can make or break the session. Strong intake and smooth logistics decide whether everyone shows up on time, understands the process, and feels safe and heard.

On any given day, staff and volunteer mediators coordinate multiple cases across in-person and virtual rooms. They work with court clerks, attorneys, community partners, and family members. Calendars shift. Language and accessibility needs change. The center must keep the schedule moving while protecting neutrality and confidentiality.

Intake and logistics cover a lot of moving parts, including:

• Verifying court referrals and case details
• Screening for safety and conflict of interest
• Confirming contact information and availability for all parties
• Arranging interpreters and accessibility support
• Booking rooms or setting up secure video links
• Sending clear pre-session instructions and ground rules
• Preparing forms for confidentiality and agreements
• Coordinating with mediators and court staff on timelines

When these steps go well, sessions start on time, participants know what to expect, and mediators can focus on the conversation. When a detail slips, the costs add up fast. A wrong phone number leads to a no-show. A missing interpreter forces a reschedule. A double-booked room delays a full docket. Each misstep wastes scarce time, erodes trust, and can push a case past a court deadline.

The stakes go beyond convenience. The center must meet court reporting needs, protect private information, and follow safety protocols. Every outcome reflects on the court and the community. With rising caseloads and tight budgets, leaders look for ways to help staff work faster and with fewer errors, while keeping the experience respectful and fair for everyone involved.

This is why intake and logistics are not just administrative tasks. They are core to service quality and public trust. Getting them right at scale requires clear processes, steady practice, and a way to see what is working so the team can keep improving.

Inconsistent Intake and Uneven Mediator Readiness Create Operational Bottlenecks

The center had a strong team, yet intake looked different from person to person and from one day to the next. A few steps were crystal clear, while others depended on memory, sticky notes, or old email threads. New mediators often felt unsure about who did what before a session. Experienced mediators had personal habits that did not always match current policy. The result was stop-and-go work that created delays and last-minute scrambles.

The causes were easy to recognize. The workforce mixed staff and volunteers. People joined at different times of the year. Training focused well on mediator skills, but less on the nuts and bolts of logistics. Hybrid operations added complexity. A single case could move from a courthouse room to a video call with little notice, which made checklists and handoffs more important.

• Parties did not always receive clear instructions, so they arrived late or not at all
• Interpreters and accessibility support were requested late or not confirmed
• Phone numbers and emails were outdated, which slowed last-minute changes
• Rooms were double booked or video links were wrong
• Safety screening and conflict checks were inconsistent
• Cases that should be referred out stayed in the queue because escalation was unclear
• Mediators started sessions without key case notes or pre-mediation call summaries
• Ownership for reminders and confirmations was unclear across roles

Each miss seemed small in the moment, yet the effects piled up. Staff spent hours chasing details. Sessions started late. Reschedules pushed dockets back. Mediators spent precious energy on admin tasks instead of preparation. Parties and court partners lost confidence when plans changed at the last minute.

Leaders wanted to fix the process, but the data they needed lived in calendars, spreadsheets, and email. Reports showed how many sessions ran, not where time was lost. Debriefs captured stories, not patterns. Without a consistent way to see which steps slipped, training updates felt like guesswork.

Variation across sites and shifts made the problem worse. One location ran like clockwork while another struggled with the same forms and scripts. Remote sessions added new risks with privacy, waiting rooms, and document sharing. The center needed a simple way to align steps, build confidence through practice, and spot bottlenecks early so the team could keep cases moving.

The Team Adopts a Demonstrating ROI Strategy to Guide Learning Design

After mapping the pain points, the team chose a Demonstrating ROI strategy so training would fix real problems and show clear proof of value. They started by putting numbers to the everyday friction that hurt case flow. Late starts, reschedules, and last‑minute changes meant wasted hours for staff and mediators, missed court deadlines, and frustrated participants. The plan was simple: define the outcomes that matter, practice the exact steps that drive those outcomes, and measure progress every week.

They set a short list of north‑star results everyone could rally around:

• Fewer reschedules and no‑shows
• Higher start‑on‑time rates
• Shorter time from referral to confirmed session
• Consistent safety and conflict checks
• Fewer last‑minute changes to rooms or video links

Next, they picked leading indicators that show up during training and predict those results. These were the signals to watch inside practice and on the job:

• All contacts verified and documented before confirmation
• Interpreter and accessibility support booked and confirmed by a clear deadline
• Correct escalation when a case needs referral or extra screening
• Pre‑session instructions sent and acknowledged
• Clean handoffs between coordinators and mediators with notes attached

The learning design followed the work, not the other way around. Instead of long lectures, the team built short, realistic role‑plays that mirrored common case types. People practiced intake calls, safety screens, and scheduling steps. Each scenario had checklists, simple scripts, and branching paths so learners could make decisions and see the impact right away. Coaching prompts and quick debriefs helped the team lock in good habits.

To keep score in a fair and simple way, the team captured practice data as learners moved through the role‑plays. They used small activity logs to record how long each key step took, whether checklists were complete, and which decisions learners made. All of this flowed into the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store, where leaders could see patterns across sites and cohorts. The same signals showed up in live practice through observation checklists, which made the on‑the‑job view match the training view.

Finally, they tied the story back to the business case. Weekly huddles reviewed a few charts that linked practice gains to real outcomes, like fewer reschedules and faster scheduling. A simple model estimated hours saved and avoided costs, using conservative assumptions. When the numbers moved, the team shared quick wins, adjusted the scenarios, and focused coaching where it mattered most. This steady loop kept energy high and made the return on training visible to both frontline staff and executives.

Role Plays Rehearse Intake and Session Logistics Across Realistic Cases

To build reliable habits, the team shifted training from talk to hands-on practice. They created short role plays that mirror the real mix of cases, so staff and volunteer mediators could rehearse intake and session logistics in a safe space. Each practice round used real forms, sample calendars, and message templates. The goal was simple: make the steps feel natural, even on a busy day.

The scenarios reflected common case types and the curveballs that cause delays:

• Small claims with missing or wrong contact details
• Landlord-tenant cases with interpreter needs and tight timelines
• Family matters with safety flags or no-contact orders
• Workplace or civil harassment with conflict checks
• Multi-party neighbor disputes with hybrid in-person and virtual attendance
• Referrals that require escalation or a different service

Each role play walked through the full path from referral to session day. Learners practiced the exact steps that keep cases moving:

• Confirm the referral and case details
• Verify contacts and preferred communication channels
• Screen for safety and conflicts of interest
• Book interpreters and accessibility support
• Choose the venue or create the secure video link
• Send clear confirmations and pre-session instructions
• Prepare a short case summary for the mediator
• Run day-of checks and hand off smoothly

Branching paths kept the practice real. If a phone number failed, learners chose how to recover. If a safety concern emerged, they paused and escalated. If a video link was wrong, they fixed it and updated all parties. A visible timer added light pressure without raising stress.

Practice ran in trios to save time and improve feedback. One person acted as the coordinator, another as the mediator, and a third observed with a simple scorecard. After each 8 to 12 minute round, the group spent two minutes on a quick debrief. They marked what went well, what slipped, and one change to try on the next run. Then they switched roles.

Job aids were front and center so people learned to use the tools they need on the job:

• Step-by-step intake and logistics checklists
• Short call scripts and message templates
• An interpreter booking guide with deadlines
• Safety screen prompts and an escalation map
• A virtual session setup checklist with privacy tips
• Multilingual templates for confirmations and reminders

Practice worked both in person and online. In a room, learners used printed forms, shared laptops, and mock phones. Online, they used a demo calendar and sample documents, created invites, and tested waiting room settings. In both formats, cues and resources matched the real workflow so skills transferred easily.

Scenarios grew in complexity over time. Early rounds focused on clean confirmations and on-time starts. Later rounds layered in interpreter needs, rescheduling rules, and high-conflict situations. This steady climb built confidence and kept sessions fast and focused in the real world.

Throughout, the scenarios captured a few simple signals, like time to complete key steps, checklist completion, and correct escalation choices. These data points flowed to the learning dashboards so leaders could see progress and target coaching where it mattered most.

The Team Captures xAPI Data in the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store to Track Performance

To see if practice was working, the team logged what learners did in each scenario and sent that data to the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store. Each key step in a role play triggered a simple xAPI message with a timestamp and a pass or fail. This gave the center a clean, real-time view of performance without extra paperwork.

The signals were practical and tied to daily work, not abstract scores. The system captured:

• Time to confirm a case from first contact to scheduled session
• Checklist completion for intake and day-of logistics
• Correct escalation when safety or service-fit issues appeared
• Interpreter and accessibility bookings, including on-time confirmations
• Pre-session instructions sent and acknowledged by all parties
• Handoff quality between coordinators and mediators with notes attached

Live practice counted too. Observers used short checklists during mock calls and dry runs, and those results went into the same LRS. This kept training and on-the-job practice in one place so patterns were easy to spot.

Dashboards in the LRS made the data useful at a glance. Leaders compared pre- and post-training cohorts, saw where time slipped, and flagged common misses. Simple red, yellow, and green thresholds showed when a site or shift needed extra coaching. Filters made it easy to look at results by case type, location, or role.

With this view, the team could answer questions that once took weeks of guesswork:

• Which steps most often delay a start time
• Where contact verification breaks down
• Which cases need earlier interpreter booking
• Who is using the escalation path the right way and who needs support
• Which job aids reduce errors the fastest

Privacy stayed front and center. Scenarios used sample names and numbers, and the LRS stored coded IDs rather than personal details. Access was limited to a small group of leads. Data was kept only as long as needed for training and improvement.

Each week, the team reviewed a short set of charts. They lined up practice signals with operational indicators such as start-on-time rates, reschedules, and time from referral to confirmation. When a change in practice led to smoother logistics, the trend lines moved in the right direction. This gave the center clear, auditable proof that the training was working and helped leaders focus coaching where it mattered most.

Dashboards Compare Cohorts and Reveal Bottlenecks for Targeted Coaching

Dashboards gave the team a simple way to see what changed and where to focus. With a few clicks, leaders compared new cohorts to earlier ones, looked at sites side by side, and saw how each step in intake and logistics affected the start of a session. The view was clear and practical, so coaching could start the same day.

The main boards showed the signals that mattered most:

• On-time start rates by cohort and by site
• Median time from referral to confirmed session
• Checklist completion for intake and day-of logistics
• Correct escalation on safety and service-fit issues
• Interpreter and accessibility bookings made by the target deadline
• Pre-session instructions sent and acknowledged by all parties

Filters helped reveal patterns fast. Leaders sliced results by case type, role, day of week, and session format. A step-by-step heat map highlighted where time piled up. A simple funnel showed where cases stalled between referral, confirmation, and session day. The team used these clues to pinpoint bottlenecks and match support to the exact need.

Here are examples of what the dashboards surfaced and how coaching followed:

• Contact verification lag for new volunteers: Quick drill on a two-minute verification routine and a fresh text template lifted completion rates within one week
• Interpreter bookings running late at one site: Shifted the booking step earlier in the process, set a noon deadline, and named a backup; the red flag turned yellow, then green
• Wrong video links in remote cases: Added a pre-session link test and a one-line quality-check script; start-on-time rates improved for virtual sessions
• Hesitation on escalation for family cases: Introduced a short decision tree and a pair-check step; correct escalations rose and reschedules fell
• Notes missing in handoffs: Tweaked the summary template and ran a five-minute micro role play; clean handoffs became the default

Coaching stayed light and targeted. No blanket retraining. The team used a small toolkit that fit into busy days:

• Micro role plays that took 10 minutes or less
• Tiny edits to job aids and message templates
• Peer shadowing for a single case
• Calendar prompts that reminded people at the right moment
• Quick shout-outs when a metric moved in the right direction

Progress was visible on the boards within days. A site could see a red metric turn yellow after a focused fix, then green the following week. The same dashboards linked these practice gains to operational results like fewer reschedules and faster scheduling, which helped keep leaders and frontline staff aligned.

Data supported people rather than judged them. The dashboards guided coaching and made wins easy to celebrate. By putting attention on the few steps that caused the biggest slowdowns, the center reduced noise, built confidence, and freed up time for the work that matters most.

The Program Reduces Reschedules and Accelerates Scheduling With Measurable Gains

Within weeks of launching the new practice plan, the center started to see steady, visible gains. Role plays built confidence. The LRS showed where habits improved and where to coach. Most important, cases moved faster with fewer last‑minute surprises.

Key results at a glance

• Reschedules down by about one third
• Median time from referral to confirmed session cut from 9 days to 5 days
• Start‑on‑time rate up by 18 to 20 percentage points
• On‑time interpreter bookings up from roughly 70% to 95%
• Contact verification before confirmation up from about 60% to more than 90%
• Correct escalations for safety and service fit above 95%

These shifts freed time and lowered stress. Fewer reschedules meant fewer phone trees, fewer calendar fixes, and fewer interpreter cancellations. Coordinators gained back roughly 10 to 14 staff hours each week across sites. Mediators used their prep time for case strategy instead of chasing details. Parties received clear instructions earlier, which reduced no‑shows and helped sessions start on time.

Where the gains came from

• Cleaner confirmations and earlier interpreter booking cut back‑and‑forth
• Simple scripts and checklists reduced errors and made handoffs faster
• A short decision tree made escalation quick and consistent
• Practice timers built a rhythm that carried into daily work

The numbers also made the value clear to leaders. For every hour spent in practice, the team gained several hours back within six weeks through fewer reschedules and faster scheduling. The same metrics that improved in training showed up in daily operations, which made the case for continuing the approach and scaling it to new volunteers and sites.

Quality improved along with speed. Safety screens were consistent. Privacy steps held firm. Court partners saw fewer docket changes. Participants reported clearer instructions and felt more prepared. The center reached a simple outcome that matters to everyone involved: cases moved forward on time, with fewer surprises and less friction.

Executives and Learning and Development Teams Gain Practical Guidance for Applying Demonstrating ROI in Justice Settings

Here is a simple game plan executives and L&D teams can use to apply a Demonstrating ROI approach in courts, mediation, and related justice settings. It focuses on clear outcomes, short practice, and data you can trust without adding busywork.

1. Start with a quick baseline. Pull the last 30 to 60 days from calendars and spreadsheets. Capture reschedules, start-on-time rates, days from referral to confirmation, interpreter booking lead time, and safety escalations. Do not wait for perfect data. Direction beats precision at the start.
2. Pick a few outcomes that matter. Choose three to five results everyone understands, such as fewer reschedules, faster scheduling, and consistent safety checks. Make them visible on one page.
3. Define leading signals you can practice. Translate each outcome into actions people take: contact verification before confirmation, correct escalation when risks show up, on-time interpreter booking, pre-session instructions sent and acknowledged, clean handoffs with notes. Write a simple definition of done for each step.
4. Build short, realistic role plays. Use 8 to 12 minute scenarios that mirror your common case types and curveballs. Run practice in trios: coordinator, mediator, observer with a checklist. Add a light timer, clear scripts, and job aids so habits match real work.
5. Instrument practice with xAPI and use an LRS. Send a few xAPI statements per scenario to the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store. Log timestamps, pass or fail on key steps, and decisions to escalate. Add observer checklists from live practice to the same place. Use coded IDs and sample data to protect privacy.
6. Review simple dashboards each week. Compare pre- and post-training cohorts. Filter by site, role, or case type. Look for where time piles up and where steps slip. Keep a red, yellow, green view so actions are obvious.
7. Coach with small moves, not big retreats. Use 10 minute micro role plays, tiny edits to templates, and peer shadowing. Aim fixes at the exact step that slows you down.
8. Link practice gains to real results. Match dashboard trends to reschedules, start-on-time rates, and days to confirmation. Convert improvements into hours saved and fees avoided with conservative math. Share wins fast.
9. Pilot, then scale. Start with one site or one docket. Prove value in four to six weeks. Keep the same metrics as you add volunteers and new cohorts so comparisons stay fair.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

• Too many metrics: Track five or fewer at a time so teams know what to improve
• Data used as a hammer: Frame dashboards as coaching tools and celebrate gains
• Privacy risks: Use sample data in training and coded IDs in the LRS with limited access
• Tech friction: Keep role-play tools simple and give a paper backup for the first sessions
• Change fatigue: Ship small wins weekly and sunset old steps when new ones work better

Equity and safety stay central

• Track on-time interpreter bookings and accommodations alongside speed metrics
• Make the escalation path easy, clear, and fast to use
• Offer scripts and templates in the languages your community needs

What to expect

• In two to four weeks: cleaner confirmations, faster interpreter booking, fewer late starts
• In six to eight weeks: reschedules drop, referral-to-confirmation time shortens, coaching narrows to a few steps
• In one quarter: consistent practice across sites, less scramble, and a clear ROI story tied to time saved and better participant experience

When leaders keep the focus on a few high-impact steps, give people time to practice, and use the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store to make progress visible, the return shows up fast. The result is simple and powerful: fewer surprises, better use of time, and cases that move on schedule.

Guiding the Fit Conversation for Demonstrating ROI in Mediation and ADR Settings

The solution worked because it matched the real pain points of a judiciary mediation and ADR center. Intake and session logistics varied from person to person, which led to delays and reschedules. The team moved from long classes to short, realistic role plays that rehearsed the exact steps that keep cases on track. They focused practice on a small set of outcomes such as fewer reschedules and faster scheduling. To show progress, they tracked a few signals in the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store, including time to complete key steps, checklist use, and correct escalation. Dashboards made patterns clear, so coaching was fast and targeted. The result was steady gains in speed and quality without extra paperwork.

This approach fits other justice settings when the work is repeatable, time sensitive, and public facing. It helps teams align on the few steps that matter, build habits through practice, and prove value with simple data. Use the questions below to test fit and plan a pilot that delivers visible wins within weeks.

1. Do we know the few outcomes we want to improve and our current baseline?
   Why it matters. Clear goals keep training focused and make the ROI story credible. A baseline for reschedules, start on time, and days from referral to confirmation shows where you stand today.
   What it tells you. If you can name three to five outcomes and pull the last month of data, you can measure progress. If not, start with a quick baseline so wins are visible and trusted.
2. Are our intake and logistics steps clear enough to rehearse the same way every time?
   Why it matters. Role plays work when people practice a shared way of working. Checklists, scripts, and handoff rules turn good ideas into repeatable actions.
   What it tells you. If steps are fuzzy or vary by person, plan a short process tune-up first. Align on a simple checklist and a definition of done for each step before you scale practice.
3. Can we track practice and on-the-job steps with light data while protecting privacy?
   Why it matters. A few data points per scenario make trends clear and coaching fast. Privacy must stay central in court-connected work.
   What it tells you. If you can send simple events to an LRS like Cluelabs, use coded IDs, and limit access, you can see progress without risk. If not, set basic data rules and test with sample cases first.
4. Will our leaders and teams make time for short practice and use dashboards for coaching?
   Why it matters. Ten-minute role plays and quick reviews move habits faster than long classes. Coaching based on a shared dashboard builds trust and keeps effort focused.
   What it tells you. If leaders can protect a small weekly practice window and frame data as support, adoption will be strong. If time is tight or trust is low, start with a small pilot and celebrate quick wins to build momentum.
5. Where will faster scheduling and fewer reschedules create value in our setting?
   Why it matters. A clear benefit makes the case for change. Savings may come from fewer interpreter cancellations, less staff rework, better use of mediator time, and fewer docket changes.
   What it tells you. If you can name the top two cost or time drivers, you can model a conservative return and pick the right starting cases. If value is unclear, run a four-week pilot on one docket to surface real numbers.

If your answers show clear outcomes, a workable process, light data you can trust, leadership support for short practice, and a visible source of value, this approach is a strong fit. Start small, learn fast, and use the same few metrics from pilot to scale so the ROI story stays simple and strong.

Estimating Cost And Effort For Implementing A Demonstrating ROI Program In Mediation And ADR Centers

This estimate reflects a practical, mid-sized rollout of a Demonstrating ROI learning program for a judiciary mediation and ADR center. It focuses on short, realistic role plays for intake and session logistics, xAPI instrumentation, and dashboards in the Cluelabs xAPI Learning Record Store (LRS). The goal is to budget for the work that creates measurable gains without adding heavy administrative load.

Assumptions Used For Planning

• Scale: ~50 learners (staff and volunteers) across 1–2 sites
• Scope: 12 short role-play scenarios, job aids, and observation checklists
• Data: ~6,000 xAPI statements during a three-month pilot (training + live observations), which typically exceeds the free LRS tier
• Timeline: 10–12 weeks from discovery to pilot results
• Rates: Blended hourly rates to simplify planning (internal or external)

Key Cost Components And What They Cover

• Discovery and planning: Map intake and logistics steps, define outcomes and leading signals, set privacy rules, and draft the ROI hypothesis.
• Scenario and job aid design: Write realistic cases, branching choices, checklists, scripts, and message templates aligned to policy.
• Content production and prototype role plays: Build clickable scenarios with timers, forms, and feedback; prepare observation checklists.
• xAPI instrumentation and LRS setup: Define xAPI statements, wire events in the scenarios, configure the Cluelabs LRS, and test data flow.
• Dashboard and analytics: Build cohort comparisons, step-level heat maps, and red/yellow/green thresholds tied to key outcomes.
• Privacy, accessibility, and data governance: Use coded IDs, sample data, and accessibility checks (captions, contrast, keyboard navigation) to protect participants and staff.
• Pilot and iteration: Deliver practice rounds, collect observation data, run two quick refinement cycles on scenarios and job aids.
• Deployment and enablement: Train facilitators, finalize schedules, print or publish job aids, and set up calendar prompts and templates.
• Change management and communications: One-pagers, emails, and quick briefings that explain the “why,” the metrics, and how coaching works.
• Ongoing support and optimization (first quarter): Office hours, dashboard tweaks, and micro-updates to job aids as patterns emerge.
• Optional: Translation and localization: Translate templates and scripts into priority languages to support equity and access.
• Optional: Authoring tool and materials: Licenses if not already owned; light printing for checklists and scorecards.

Effort Snapshot

Core build-and-pilot effort is about 380 hours across strategy, design, development, analytics, QA, facilitation, and change management. Most teams complete this in 10–12 weeks with a small cross-functional group.

Cost Component	Unit Cost/Rate (USD)	Volume/Amount	Calculated Cost (USD)
Discovery and Planning	$110 per hour	30 hours	$3,300
Scenario and Job Aid Design	$95 per hour	60 hours	$5,700
Content Production and Prototype Role Plays	$100 per hour	84 hours	$8,400
xAPI Instrumentation and LRS Setup	$105 per hour	24 hours	$2,520
Cluelabs xAPI LRS Subscription (Pilot Quarter)	$150 per month (assumption)	3 months	$450
Dashboard and Analytics Build	$110 per hour	32 hours	$3,520
Privacy, Accessibility, and Data Governance Review	$85 per hour	24 hours	$2,040
Pilot and Iteration Cycles	$85 per hour	56 hours	$4,760
Deployment and Enablement	$80 per hour	30 hours	$2,400
Change Management and Communications	$90 per hour	16 hours	$1,440
Ongoing Support and Optimization (First Quarter)	$95 per hour	24 hours	$2,280
Estimated Subtotal (Core Items)			$36,810
Optional: Translation and Localization	$0.15 per word	4,000 words	$600
Optional: Authoring Tool License (If Needed)	$1,300 per seat/year	1	$1,300
Optional: Printing and Materials	$0.20 per page	1,000 pages	$200
Estimated Total With Options			$38,910

Timeline At A Glance

• Weeks 1–2: Discovery, metrics, and ROI hypothesis
• Weeks 3–4: Scenario and job aid design
• Weeks 5–6: Build scenarios, xAPI wiring, LRS setup
• Week 7: Privacy, accessibility, and QA checks
• Week 8: Dashboards and dry runs
• Weeks 9–12: Pilot, iteration, deployment, and early coaching

Cost Drivers And Ways To Save

• Reduce scenario count to 8 for a smaller pilot, then add more after early wins.
• Reuse existing scripts and checklists to cut design time by 20–30%.
• Start with a single site or docket to keep statement volume within a lower LRS tier.
• Run train-the-trainer sessions so internal leads handle most facilitation.
• Batch translation on final templates only, not drafts.

Note: Prices are planning assumptions and will vary by location, staffing model, and vendor plans. Confirm current Cluelabs LRS subscription tiers and any authoring tool licensing you may need before finalizing a budget.