Restorative Justice Deep Dive Series
What Happens in a Restorative Justice Process?
A Step-by-Step Guide
Preface: What This Article Offers
Beginning a restorative justice process can raise a lot of questions. It’s not always clear what the work involves or how it tends to unfold, and having a clearer picture can make the decision to explore this path feel more grounded. This article is meant to offer that kind of clarity.
What follows is a thorough, grounded overview of what a restorative process can look like in practice—the stages it often moves through, the choices available along the way, and the many right ways this work can unfold. It’s a long article, and you may not need all of it right now. You’re welcome to read straight through, skim the Table of Contents below, or move between sections.
Before we begin, here are a few helpful things to know up front:
Type of harm
Restorative dialogues are designed for people whose lives have been shaped by serious interpersonal harm and by sexual or intimate partner violence—including rape, sexual assault, dating or domestic violence, family conflict, coercion, and other violations of trust. They can also support what can be called a “hidden ripple of harm”: situations where a parent, friend, or community member’s response to the original harm caused its own injury. This article does not describe any harm in detail. It focuses on the structure of the process itself.
Dialogue focus
This piece centers on processes that move toward a dialogue because that is what most people initially seek out. But a dialogue is not required for a process to be meaningful, and many restorative paths unfold in different—and equally valid—ways.
Process duration
Every process is different, but most unfold over several months, often somewhere in the range of 4–12 months. The total number of meetings can vary widely (many fall between 15–30 hours of facilitation), depending on the situation and on what is financially possible. Some processes benefit from weekly contact; others need more spaciousness.
Cost
I work on a sliding scale. You can find more information about cost on the Restorative Dialogue offering page.
Personal readiness
These processes are designed for adults for whom the violence has already ended and who feel able to sit with the emotional and relational complexity of this work. Sometimes people need more time, support, or stability before a process like this becomes the right fit—and that’s okay.
My own context
The reflections in this article come from my years of facilitating community-based restorative processes outside the legal system (and supporting others doing the same), largely in response to sexual harm and intimate partner violence. Every practitioner works differently, and every situation requires its own approach. This is one perspective among many. You can read more about my experience here.
If, as you read, you find yourself wondering whether this might apply to your own situation, you’re welcome to reach out. There’s never pressure to start anything. Sometimes talking things through is the clearest first step.
-
Preface: What This Article Offers
1. How a Restorative Process Begins
• Before the first contact
• The first call
• Confidentiality
• Deciding whether to begin2. The Exploratory Phase of a Restorative Justice Process
• What exploratory work is — and why it matters
• Clarifying North Star Goals
• Sharing the story — in whatever way feels right
• Clarifying scope, focus, and complexity
• Why limited or no contact often supports the work
• Exploratory work in bi-directional harm
• Moving toward invitation3. Bringing the Other Person In
• Ways people can be invited in
• When the restorative process centers someone else
• Consent, agreements, and logistics
• Pacing the entry with care
• If the person chooses not to engage
• When the invitation is accepted4. Preparation in a Restorative Justice Process: Separate Work With Each Person
• What preparation is — and why it’s the heart of the work
• Preparation with the survivor: clarity, depth, and agency
• Preparation with the person who caused harm
• The natural pauses, shifts, and complexity of this phase
• When the person who caused harm isn’t ready for a dialogue
• When harm is bi-directional
• When preparation is complete5. Who Else May Need to Be Involved
• Why the circle sometimes needs to widen
• Support people: grounding without overwhelming
• When others need to witness the process
• Preparing additional participants
• When someone shouldn’t be brought in
• When everyone is prepared6. The Dialogue
• When a dialogue becomes possible
• Planning the dialogue with care
• In-person or online
• What a dialogue actually looks like
• What emerges on the other side7. Closing the Process
• Immediate grounding and support
• Follow-up: integrating what happened
• Commitments, repair, and what happens next
• The long tail of restorative work
1. How a Restorative Process Begins
1.1 Before the first contact
People usually reach out during a moment of uncertainty, possibility, or change. Sometimes there’s clarity about wanting a restorative process; sometimes there’s just a sense that something unresolved needs care. Reaching out doesn’t commit anyone to anything. It simply opens a conversation about whether this work might be supportive, and whether I’m the right person to help.
It’s important to note up front that a Restorative Dialogue is initiated by someone who experienced harm, and not the person who caused it. If you caused harm and are no longer in communication, or the person has asked for no contact, then a restorative process isn’t possible right now. What you can do instead is explore a one-on-one accountability coaching process—an opportunity to reflect, take responsibility, and grow without directly engaging the other person. This work mirrors much of what would happen in an RJ process, helping you deepen into integrity, insight, and alignment with your values.
If you’re still in connection with the person you hurt, and it would be appropriate to reach out, you can share my website with them so they can contact me directly if they’re interested.
And if the harm is in some way bi-directional, then I’m happy to have an initial call with one person and then the other shortly after.
1.2 The first call
The first call is an exploratory conversation, not a commitment. We take some time to get to know each other and to understand what’s bringing someone toward restorative work. I explain how these processes generally unfold, answer any questions that arise, and try to get a sense of whether the support someone is looking for aligns with what I can responsibly offer.
A central part of this conversation is exploring what someone is hoping for. That doesn’t require certainty or a fully formed vision — even a rough sense of what feels unresolved, what healing might look like, or what kind of accountability feels meaningful can be enough to begin. These early reflections help us understand whether restorative work is an appropriate path and whether I am the right person to support it. (I explore these questions more fully in Is Restorative Justice Right for Me?, for anyone wanting a deeper dive before reaching out.)
This call is also a place for the person reaching out to get a feel for me as a facilitator. A process requires trust, and the fit matters. We talk about the identities and lived experiences that feel important to have represented on the facilitation team, including whether it makes sense to bring in a co-facilitator. This isn’t about matching every identity, but about finding a configuration that offers steadiness, cultural awareness, and relational ease.
I’m transparent in these early conversations. I take on processes only when I believe I can support them well and when the values, goals, and hoped-for impacts feel aligned. Part of the first call is discerning that together.
We also touch on logistics — the financial realities of the process, what feels affordable at this stage, and what might shift once additional participants are welcomed in. In many processes, the person who caused harm contributes significantly to the cost, but that conversation can only happen once they’re part of the work. For now, we talk about what’s possible to begin with and what flexibility may exist. (You can find out more about the fee structure on my Restorative Dialogue and Accountability Coaching pages.)
Toward the end of the call, I describe the shared agreements we use to create a safe and ethical container. These aren’t signed at this stage; they’re simply introduced so people know how we hold the process and what supports everyone’s well-being.
It’s rare to decide on the first call whether to begin a process. Most people take some time afterward to reflect, sit with the conversation, and think about what feels right. Sometimes an additional call is needed before that clarity emerges — especially in complex situations.
1.3 Confidentiality
Before we decide whether to begin a restorative process, I also explain how I hold confidentiality. These conversations often involve vulnerable, personal, and sometimes painful experiences. It matters that you know what will be kept private, what may need to be shared, and what the limits of confidentiality are.
What we discuss in these meetings stays between us and, if we move forward, the facilitation team. I only share information with others in the process when it is necessary for the work and with your knowledge. When I later meet with the person who caused harm, I carry forward the pieces of your story and your needs that are essential for the process, while being thoughtful about how much detail is needed and how it is conveyed.
Like many practitioners, I also hold some standard limits to confidentiality—for example, in situations involving serious and imminent safety concerns, or where I am legally required to report. These limits are rare, but I name them clearly so there are no surprises.
My intention is for you to feel that your story is being held with care, respect, and transparency from the very beginning.
1.4 Deciding whether to begin
If, after some reflection, the person wants to move forward, we agree to begin the restorative process together. This doesn’t mean committing to a dialogue or any particular outcome. It simply means taking one step at a time, grounded in what feels supportive, stabilizing, and right.
Once this agreement is in place, we move into the exploratory phase.
2. The Exploratory Phase of a Restorative Justice Process
2.1 What exploratory work is — and why it matters
After the initial call, the first substantial phase of the work is exploratory. This part is unhurried and intentionally spacious, but it also has a purpose. We’re beginning to understand the scope of what’s unresolved, to clarify what this process might hold, and to get a sense of the direction that feels most supportive.
Exploratory work is about building the foundation that would make any next step—dialogue or otherwise—realistic, grounded, and safe. We start naming what’s at the heart of things: what feels painful or confusing, what’s bringing someone to this work now, what they hope might shift, and what would feel intolerable or unsafe.
Restorative processes are shaped by the needs, limits, and hopes of the people involved. Exploratory work is how we begin shaping a path that reflects those realities.
2.2 Clarifying North Star Goals
A central part of this phase is clarifying what I call North Star Goals—the deeper reasons someone is exploring restorative work. These goals don’t have to be sharp or polished; even early impressions are meaningful.
There are usually two kinds of North Star Goals:
How the person hopes to feel or be different after the process
These guide the internal work we do together. No facilitator can guarantee someone’s healing, but naming these desired shifts helps illuminate what’s most important, what barriers might exist, and what support might be needed.What accountability might look like from the other person
These guide the work I will eventually do with the person who caused harm. They help clarify what the survivor needs to hear, understand, or feel in order for a process to be meaningful.
These North Star Goals often evolve as the process unfolds. Refining them is not a sign of uncertainty—it’s part of how the work deepens and becomes more accurate.
2.3 Sharing the story — in whatever way feels right
At some point in this phase, survivors usually share the story of what happened. This can take many forms: speaking it aloud, reading something they’ve written, pausing often, moving slowly, or sharing pieces over several meetings. I follow their pace, not a predetermined timeline.
The essential purpose of hearing the story is so that I can carry it into my work with the person who caused harm. Since survivors are not in the room with that person, my responsibility is to arrive with a grounded, accurate understanding of the harm they’re being asked to speak to—and of the questions or impacts that matter most.
A secondary benefit is that survivors don’t have to tell their story twice. Once they share it with me, I hold it. They only revisit the details if and when they want to.
2.4 Clarifying scope, focus, and complexity
Not all situations are straightforward. Sometimes there are multiple harms, or multiple people whose reactions and choices shaped what happened. Sometimes the harm was one-directional, but the relationship around it is layered or complicated. And sometimes the deepest pain comes not only from the harm itself, but from the responses that followed—silence, minimization, abandonment, or the reactions of friends or family.
Exploratory work helps us sort out what needs to be centered first. Trying to address everything at once can overwhelm a process. Instead, we identify a stable starting point—the piece of the story that most needs attention now. Other layers can be returned to later, if and when the process has the strength to hold them.
This is also where the direction of the process sometimes shifts. As I describe in The Hidden Ripples of Harm, a companion piece on the harms that result when family and friends don’t know how to support us, some survivors eventually realize that the relationship most in need of repair is not with the person who caused the original harm, but with someone in their community who responded poorly. Exploratory work is where that truth comes into focus and where we determine which relationships a restorative process should center.
2.5 Why limited or no contact often supports the work
It’s not a rule, but I often encourage limited or no contact between people while a process is unfolding. This isn’t about creating distance; it’s about supporting steadiness. When people are preparing for a dialogue or any form of repair, everyday contact can stir up old patterns or trigger new ruptures that make preparation harder.
Separate, supported spaces allow each person to do the internal work they need with clarity. Once the foundation is strong, contact—if it happens—is shaped intentionally within the process.
2.6 Exploring bi-directional harm
When both people have been harmed, exploratory work still begins separately. Each person needs room to speak freely without being shaped by the other’s presence. In these cases, exploratory work becomes a parallel process. I’m listening for the patterns that shaped the dynamic, the harms that need acknowledgment, and how accountability might flow in more than one direction.
Even so, we move carefully. Not all harms carry the same weight, and not everything needs to be addressed immediately. We work together to discern what is foundational and what may be part of later work.
2.7 Moving toward invitation
By the end of the exploratory phase, we usually have a grounded sense of the survivor’s experience, the North Star Goals, and the scope and focus of the process. At this point—if the work is moving toward a dialogue or any form of direct engagement—the next step is determining whether and how to bring the person who caused harm into the process.
That transition is its own careful stage, and it begins the next phase of the work.
3. Bringing the Other Person In
Once the exploratory phase is complete—and the survivor and I agree that it’s the right time—the next step is considering whether and how to invite the person who caused harm (or, in some cases, the person whose response caused secondary harm) into the process.
This stage is careful and relational. The tone we set here shapes everything that follows.
3.1 Ways people can be invited in
There is no single correct pathway to inviting someone into a restorative dialogue. We choose the route that feels most grounded and supportive.
When it feels safe
Sometimes the survivor chooses to reach out directly. This can be the clearest option because the person recognizes the communication immediately. When it feels grounded and relational, direct outreach can set a steady tone for the process.
When it feels too vulnerable to reach out
Often the survivor prefers not to make contact—because the relationship has ended, because it feels unsafe, or because the emotional burden is too heavy. In those cases, we look for someone who sits relationally “in between”: a mutual friend, trusted community member, or someone who can make the invitation with care and context. This tends to create a gentler entry point.
When the facilitators reach out
Sometimes there is no mutual contact, or the survivor wants distance from the outreach altogether. In those cases, I or a co-facilitator will reach out directly. This is the least relational route, and the person receiving the message may not immediately understand the context, but it can still lead to meaningful engagement. When facilitators make contact, we do so slowly, clearly, and without urgency so the invitation doesn’t feel alarming.
When the person already knows
Occasionally the person being invited in already knows that the survivor is exploring a restorative process—especially if the two remain loosely connected. In those situations, the invitation becomes a continuation of a conversation already unfolding, but we still move carefully to ensure all the groundwork is in place before they step into the process.
3.2 When the restorative process centers someone else
Sometimes the person the survivor most needs to engage isn’t the person who caused the original harm—it’s someone whose response caused deep secondary injury: a family member who dismissed them, a friend who minimized the harm, a mentor who withdrew, a roommate who looked the other way.
As I explore in The Hidden Ripples of Harm, these relational ruptures can carry tremendous weight. In some cases, the restorative process becomes centered on addressing those impacts rather than pursuing a dialogue with the original person who caused harm. The invitation process is similar, but the emotional terrain is distinct, and the goals are different.
3.3 Consent, agreements, and logistics
Once someone is invited in and agrees to meet with me (or the facilitation team), we take a steady approach to orienting them.
Voluntary participation
Restorative work depends on willingness. Everyone is told clearly that participation is voluntary. This isn’t a tactical choice—it’s foundational. When someone engages freely, rather than out of pressure or obligation, the possibility for meaningful accountability is far higher.
Reviewing the Shared Agreements
Before moving forward, the person reads through the Shared Agreements document—the framework we all sign to ensure the process is held ethically and safely. We go through it together, clarify anything unclear, and only once they sign do we move into preparation.
Discussing payment
This early stage is also where we talk about payment in a preliminary way. Survivors often have hopes or preferences about how the costs are shared. At the same time, the person being invited in may have financial constraints or responsibilities that need to be considered.
Many restorative processes involve the person who caused harm covering a significant portion of the cost, but this is not assumed. Instead, we talk openly about what feels fair, possible, and aligned with accountability—balancing everyone’s ability and responsibility to pay.
3.4 Pacing the entry with care
Whether the person entering the process is being asked to take accountability for harm or to address a painful response they enacted, there is often fear, shame, confusion, or overwhelm involved. A grounded entry helps stabilize the early conversations.
My role here is not to persuade them to participate; it’s to offer clarity about what they’re being invited into and what they can expect from me. Some people are ready to engage right away. Others need time. In either case, we move slowly and stay attuned to what supports honesty and safety.
3.5 If the person chooses not to engage
This is rare, but it does happen—and when it does, it is not the end of the path.
Sometimes someone declines because they don’t respond at all. Sometimes they reply to deny the harm. And sometimes they’re simply not ready. In my experience, when someone agrees to at least one meeting with a facilitator, they almost always stay for the full process. The real drop-off happens before that first conversation.
When someone doesn’t step in, the process shifts. And it can still be deeply meaningful.
As I explore in Your Healing Lives in You, a companion piece for survivors of sexual harm exploring a restorative process, our healing is not dependent on another person—especially someone who may have caused deep harm to us. While a dialogue can be powerful, the preparation for dialogue often holds just as much, if not more, healing potential.
When the other person declines, we can explore options such as:
crafting a personal ceremony to mark the work the survivor has done and the clarity they’ve cultivated
a facilitated gathering with trusted loved ones, to witness the moment and honor the survivor’s movement toward healing
writing a letter that is never sent but allows expression and release
shifting the process to address secondary harms or unmet needs elsewhere
None of these are “secondary” or lesser paths. Rather, some of the most powerful processes I’ve facilitated emerged precisely when the person who caused harm didn’t step in.
3.6 When the invitation is accepted
If the person (or people) being invited in choose to participate, and once the Shared Agreements are signed, we move into the preparation phase—separate work with each participant to build clarity, accountability, emotional capacity, and the foundation needed for whatever comes next.
4. Preparation in a Restorative Justice Process
4.1 What preparation is — and why it’s the heart of the process
Once someone has been invited in and chooses to engage, we enter the preparation phase. This is where most of the real work happens. Preparation isn’t something to “get through” on the way to a dialogue; it is the process — the slow, layered, internal work that makes any form of healing or accountability possible.
I meet with each person separately. This protects emotional safety and gives the process the structure it needs to stay steady. These meetings are relational and responsive, and we follow what feels alive, honest, and necessary.
4.2 Preparation with the survivor: clarity, depth, and agency
For survivors, preparation is a continuation of the exploratory phase. Now that we have a shared sense of what they’re hoping for — especially how they hope life might feel or be different after the process — we start to go deeper. Earlier, we were mapping the landscape; now we begin to carefully explore what lies beneath the surface.
This phase often involves discovering unspoken expectations, hopes, or fears. These aren’t “problems” to fix — they’re essential truths to understand. If we don’t uncover them now, they can surface unexpectedly during a dialogue and make the experience harder or less meaningful. When we understand them early, we can tend to them with care and incorporate them into the structure of the process.
I explore this dynamic much more fully in Your Healing Lives in You, but the central idea is this:
many survivors come into restorative work with understandable walls and protections formed from past harm — often both the harm being addressed in the process and other experiences in life. If those protections remain unexamined, it can be difficult to receive the accountability, honesty, or presence the other person is preparing to offer. A dialogue can be meaningful only if the survivor has the grounded capacity to take in what comes.
This inward work can be the most challenging part of a restorative process. Many people expect the dialogue to be the hardest moment, and sometimes it is. But for many, this is where the deepest movement happens. Done slowly and carefully, this phase can become one of the most powerful parts of the process.
4.3 Preparation with the person who caused harm
For the person who caused harm, preparation is often transformative. Many enter unsure of what’s being asked of them, afraid of what accountability will require, or overwhelmed by shame. Others arrive ready to take responsibility but without the skills or clarity to do so in a grounded way.
Our work together involves:
facing the harm directly and without defensiveness,
understanding impact rather than intentions,
learning how to speak honestly without minimizing or collapsing,
building the capacity to stay present when shame surges,
and preparing to answer the survivor’s questions clearly and respectfully.
For readers wanting a deeper exploration of this emotional territory, my companion piece Beyond Shame goes further into the inner work needed to take true responsibility. Preparation is where that work becomes real — where confusion shifts toward clarity, and avoidance begins to soften into accountable presence.
4.4 The natural pauses, shifts, and complexity of this phase
Preparation is rarely linear. People discover new things about themselves. Emotions rise and settle. Someone may need therapeutic support before continuing. Someone may realize they want something different than they originally imagined.
In this phase, everything stays on the table. We revisit, clarify, slow down, pause, or rethink whenever needed. Preparation is about staying responsive to what’s true in the moment while keeping in mind the dialogue we might be working toward.
4.5 When the person who caused harm isn’t ready for a dialogue
Not everyone who caused harm is ready — or able — to participate in a live dialogue. “Not ready” doesn’t mean unwilling. It can mean:
their shame or fear is still overwhelming
their nervous system can’t stay grounded enough for a live meeting
what the survivor needs doesn’t align with what they can meaningfully offer right now
When this happens, we slow down instead of pushing ahead. A dialogue is just one possible outcome of a restorative process; it is not the definition of one. There are many meaningful alternatives:
a written accountability letter
a facilitator-supported exchange of statements
agreements or reparative actions carried out outside a live meeting
a boundary-setting process that restores safety
This is not a failure — not of the survivor, not of the process, and not of the accountability work. It is simply where the person is. And we shape the process around that reality with care.
4.6 When harm is bi-directional
When both people have been harmed and both have things to be accountable for, preparation becomes a parallel, two-path process. I work separately with each person to clarify the harms that matter most, what accountability looks like for them, and what capacity they have for hearing or sharing difficult truths.
Not all harms are equal or symmetrical, and not all of them belong in the same phase of work. A major part of preparation is discerning which pieces are foundational and which would overwhelm or destabilize the process if introduced too soon. Throughout, the focus is on grounding, clarity, and steadiness — never on pushing toward a particular outcome.
4.7 When preparation is complete
Preparation ends when three things are true:
we’ve turned over every stone that needs attention,
there is clarity and steadiness in each person’s foundation,
and the next step feels grounded, chosen, and possible — not rushed or assumed.
At this point, the process can move in one of two directions:
Inviting additional people into the process, if their presence will support the work
Designing the dialogue, if a live meeting has become the appropriate next step
The next section explores who else may need to be involved before we turn toward the dialogue itself.
5. Who Else May Need to Be Involved
5.1 Why the circle sometimes needs to widen
Many restorative processes involve just the survivor, the person who caused harm, and the facilitator(s). But sometimes widening the circle is important. A grounded restorative process considers not only what happened between two people, but also the relational world around them.
Additional people may be brought in when their presence:
helps stabilize or support one of the central participants
offers needed context
allows a fuller, more honest accounting of the harm
strengthens the integrity and future sustainability of the repair
The question guiding this phase is never “Who wants to be there?” It is:
Whose presence will meaningfully support the process we are trying to hold?
Not every process needs additional voices. Many are strongest when they remain small. But in some situations, widening the circle is part of building the container that makes real accountability possible.
5.2 Support people: grounding without overwhelming
Sometimes a survivor or accountable party wants someone present simply to feel more anchored — a friend, partner, sibling, or chosen family member. Some support people sit quietly and never speak. Others share a brief reflection about what they’ve witnessed. Their presence can widen the emotional capacity of the space — when done carefully.
5.3 When others need to witness the process
In some situations, people who were not directly harmed — and who are not being asked to take accountability in this process — still need to be present for the central dialogue.
This happens in families or close communities where the harm was hidden, denied, minimized, or not fully understood. In those cases, having certain people in the room:
ensures that the truth of what happened is shared openly
closes the door on denial or secrecy
allows them to understand the survivor’s experience directly
gives space (when appropriate) for them to speak to how the harm affected them
supports a future environment where the survivor is not left alone with the knowledge of what happened
These participants are not there to be accountable within this process. They are there to witness, to hear the truth directly, and sometimes to name the impact the situation had on them — all without shifting the focus away from the survivor.
If appropriate, additional facilitation can happen at another time to address accountability dynamics among these wider participants. But the central process stays focused on the relationship at its core. This approach allows for the greatest clarity and healing without overwhelming the process or causing it to collapse under its own weight.
5.4 Preparing additional participants
Anyone joining the process goes through preparation with me — whether they are a support person or someone whose presence is needed to witness and hold the truth alongside the central participants.
Preparation clarifies:
the purpose of the process
what is being asked of them
how their presence supports the work
how to show up without overtaking or destabilizing
the emotional tone and boundaries of the dialogue
what to expect, how to ground themselves, and how to honor the space
Even those who plan to be mostly silent still affect the emotional field. Preparation ensures they can hold their role thoughtfully.
5.5 When someone shouldn’t be brought in
Sometimes a survivor wants someone present, but including them would make the space less grounded. Or someone else wants to join but carries unresolved emotions or relational dynamics that would pull the process off course.
When that happens, we talk openly about alternative ways they can support outside the dialogue. Care can be present without being in the room.
5.6 When everyone is prepared
Once each person — central participants and any additional witnesses or support people — is fully prepared and steady in their role, we shift to the next phase: planning the dialogue itself.
That planning work is thoughtful, detailed, and deeply collaborative, and it’s what the next section explores.
6. The Dialogue
6.1 When a dialogue becomes possible
By the time a dialogue is on the table, a great deal of grounding has already occurred. The survivor has clarified what matters most. The person who caused harm has begun facing the impact with honesty. Everyone has a sense of what is being asked of them and why.
There is no checklist. It’s a threshold — a moment when the foundation feels steady enough to invite the possibility of meeting. And even then, a dialogue is never compulsory. It’s one possible direction among many.
6.2 Planning the dialogue with care
Planning begins with the survivor’s needs and preferred flow, since the process emerges from the harm they experienced. Once that foundation is clear, the person who caused harm can offer their own ideas or input, though most people feel grounded following the structure already outlined.
Planning a dialogue is less about scripting and more about creating a container that supports honesty, clarity, grounding, and relational truth. Together, we clarify:
the flow of the conversation
who speaks first, and why
which questions must be addressed
how we will pause if someone becomes overwhelmed
what support will be needed in the room
whether symbolic or spiritual elements feel meaningful
any creative elements that make the process feel personally true
Creative touches often make these dialogues deeply personal — a poem, an object with meaning, a brief grounding practice, a moment of silence. There is no formula. What matters is that the structure feels right for the people stepping into it.
I also create a written outline for myself and my co-facilitator: the sequence, the questions that must be held, the emotional moments to track. Once the dialogue begins, the facilitators hold this structure quietly so the participants can be fully present and the process can unfold in an organic and emergent way.
6.3 In-person or online
Whenever possible, I prefer to hold dialogues in person. The physical presence — the ability to track breath, posture, emotional shifts, and subtle cues — supports a deeper steadiness in the room.
That said, meaningful dialogues can and do happen online. Distance, logistics, safety, or accessibility may make in-person meetings difficult. Both formats are possible. What matters most is choosing the one that supports clarity, emotional regulation, and honesty.
6.4 What a dialogue actually looks like
Each dialogue has its own rhythm, but most follow a broad shape. The pace is slow, intentional, and responsive to the emotional landscape in the room.
Grounding and orientation
We begin with breath, quiet, or a grounding practice; revisit the structure; clarify boundaries; and check in with how people are arriving.
Speaking to the harm
Often, the survivor or the person who caused harm shares the story directly. This may include the harm itself, the impact, or the surrounding dynamics.
Meaningful apology and accountability
The person who caused harm offers a full apology and speaks to their accountability journey — what they’ve come to understand, what they take responsibility for, and how they intend to move forward.
Questions and answers
Survivors often carry questions that have lived in them for years. This is where those questions can be asked and answered with clarity and care.
When appropriate — and only with the survivor’s consent — the person who caused harm may also ask a small number of questions to deepen understanding.
Forward-looking commitments
If it makes sense, we talk about what repair or accountability could look like in the future — and what will be needed to support those commitments.
Breaks and pacing
Dialogues typically take hours and may span multiple days. We pause whenever needed — to breathe, cry, stretch, or step outside. In some situations, sharing a simple meal or snack partway through can be grounding and humanizing.
The emotional landscape
Dialogues are tender, intense, unpredictable, and deeply human. Tears and long silences are common. Moments of rupture may arise alongside moments of profound connection. None of this indicates failure. It simply reflects the depth of the work.
Throughout, facilitators track the emotional field — slowing things down, pausing for grounding, reflecting back, or adjusting pace. The goal is not to “run” the meeting, but to hold the process as a living, unfolding conversation.
6.5 What emerges on the other side
When a dialogue does happen, it often marks a meaningful shift — not because everything is resolved, but because something that once felt stuck begins to move.
Survivors may leave with clarity, validation, or a sense of restored agency. People who caused harm often leave with a deeper understanding of their actions, their responsibilities, and their commitments moving forward.
Next, in Section 7, we look at what happens after the dialogue: how people integrate what was said, what accountability looks like in motion, and how the process eventually comes to a thoughtful close.
7. Closing the Process
7.1 Immediate grounding and support
When a dialogue ends — or when we complete whichever shape the process ultimately took — we don’t simply end the meeting and move on. The minutes and hours afterward matter. People often feel a mix of relief, tenderness, exhaustion, clarity, spaciousness, or emotional overwhelm. Sometimes the impact lands only after the intensity of the conversation has passed.
I always spend time grounding each person before they leave: checking in about how they’re feeling, what’s alive in their body, what surprised them, and what support they may need in the hours and days ahead. Even when the process has gone well, it opens emotional territory that deserves care.
This stage is about protecting the tenderness of what just unfolded. No one walks away holding everything alone.
7.2 Follow-up: integrating what happened
A few weeks after a dialogue — enough time for everything to settle — we meet again separately. This meeting can help us make sense of the experience once the adrenaline has faded and people have had space to reflect.
We talk through:
what felt clarifying
what felt unresolved
new questions that emerged afterward
how the dialogue (or process) shifted things internally
what feels possible or needed now
what boundaries or next steps feel supportive
Whether or not a dialogue occurred, the purpose is the same: integration, grounding, meaning-making, and closure — or the beginning of a new phase of accountability or healing.
For many people, the meaning of the process deepens over time. A sentence that seemed small during the dialogue lands differently a week later. A moment that felt overwhelming comes into clearer focus. Follow-up helps honor that evolution.
7.3 Commitments, repair, and what happens next
If the process included commitments — changes in behavior, written acknowledgments, agreements, or concrete repair — we clarify how those will be carried forward. The commitments belong to the person who made them, and they are responsible for following through on them.
After the restorative process formally ends, I may continue working with the accountable party one-on-one if that support feels appropriate, but that work is separate from the dialogue process itself.
Repair can look many ways:
follow-up writing or acknowledgment
actions that address specific impacts
ongoing shifts in relational patterns
honoring boundaries chosen by the survivor
7.4 The long tail of restorative work
Restorative processes often continue working in people long after the formal meetings end. Months or years later, people sometimes reach back out to share that something changed — internally, relationally, or spiritually — in a way they couldn’t name at the time.
Survivors have described:
a deeper sense of grounding
relief from the weight of unanswered questions
clarity around boundaries
a return of self-trust
a renewed sense of dignity and agency
People who caused harm have described:
a clearer understanding of their actions
a stronger capacity for honesty and emotional responsibility
an ongoing shift in how they relate to shame
a commitment to continuing the work beyond the facilitated process
From here, we move to the final section — ways to stay connected, find additional resources, or explore what might be possible next.
8. Closing Reflections
Restorative processes don’t follow a single path. They aren’t linear, predictable, or neat. They unfold slowly, through relationship and the steady work each person does at their own pace. What I’ve shared here is a structure — a way of showing what a process can look like — but it’s not a formula. Every process takes its own shape because every life, every harm, and every hope is different.
If there is one thing I hope you carry from this, it’s that there are many right ways for restorative work to unfold. There is no single correct outcome, and there is no point at which you “fail” the process by needing more time, wanting something different, or realizing that another direction would better support your safety or healing.
For some people, reading about the structure brings relief. For others, the complexity brings up new questions or emotions. Wherever you find yourself after reading this is okay.
If you’re curious about what this work could look like in your own situation, you’re welcome to explore my offerings — Restorative Dialogues or Accountability Coaching — or to simply reach out for a conversation. There’s no pressure to start anything. Sometimes a brief call is enough to help you understand what you’re looking for, what you’re not looking for, and what might be possible from here.
Whatever direction you choose, I hope the information here helps you move forward with greater clarity and grounding.
More in the
‘Restorative Justice Deep Dive Series’
These articles are for people navigating healing, accountability, and repair after harm. Each piece offers a deep look into the principles and practices that shape my approach.
My hope is that these resources can support you in making greater sense of where you are, clarify what you may be seeking, and offer guidance as you consider your next steps.
Is Restorative Justice Right for Me?
Exploring Accountability and Healing After Harm
This article explores what healing and accountability can look like after sexual or interpersonal harm, offering guidance on how to tell if restorative justice is right for your situation, while clarifying some common misconceptions.
Your Healing Lives in You:
What Sexual Harm Survivors Can Expect in Restorative Work
An exploration of the often-unspoken internal work survivors may engage in ahead of restorative justice dialogues, and how this preparation shapes the depth and impact of a process.
The Hidden Ripples of Sexual Harm:
When Friends and Family Don’t Understand
For survivors of sexual harm who feel that added ache when family and friends don’t know how to respond, this article explores how restorative justice processes can meaningfully address these hidden ripples of harm.
Beyond Shame:
Finding a Way Forward After Causing Sexual Harm
For those who’ve caused sexual harm, this article explores how restorative dialogues and accountability coaching can support you in facing shame, guilt, and remorse and open a path toward meaningful accountability, healing, and personal transformation.
Start a conversation
If any of my offerings resonate with you, I invite you to schedule a 30-min exploratory call to see what might be possible.
Prefer to send a message first? Reach out here.