What Is the Difference Between Restorative Justice and Mediation?
As a restorative justice facilitator, I am often asked how my work differs from mediation. Most people have some idea what mediation is, but restorative justice (“RJ”) is a less familiar term. RJ is a way of responding to harms that would typically be addressed in the court system, focusing on 1) the needs of people who have been harmed and 2) helping people who have caused harm to take accountability.
Restorative justice can share a lot in common with mediation:
1. Relationship
Fundamentally, RJ is about setting relations right. It has roots in practices that indigenous cultures, past and present, have used to maintain the belonging of all members of a community, even when rupture inevitably occurs. Mediation can be restorative when it focuses on the relationship between the parties and seeks to foster mutual recognition between them.
2. Agency
It is fundamental to RJ that participation be voluntary and that the process be empowering for participants. Similarly, mediation gives parties a way to solve their own problems rather than having them solved by a court and can be facilitated in ways that are not directive and provide the parties as much agency as possible.
3. Narrative
Restorative justice is based in narrative, and it gives space for people to share and listen with each other deeply and to recognize the transformative power of a shared story in which all voices and complexities are included. Similarly, mediation can offer space for parties to hear directly from each other about what has caused the conflict between them and how it has affected them.
4. Needs
Restorative justice encourages people to understand their own needs and the needs of others so that they can be addressed. Similarly, mediators can help parties to consider and express the needs and interests that underlie their positions, allowing for a greater mutual understanding and a wider range of solutions.
5. Agreement
Like mediation, restorative processes may culminate in the parties reaching an agreement. In RJ, the agreement is often called a repair agreement, in which the parties agree on what actions can be taken to repair the harm, reduce the risk of further harm, and set relations right.
In addition to these similarities, restorative justice offers practices that mediation usually does not. Mediators seeking to facilitate in a more restorative way might consider how to incorporate these features into their work:
1. Recognizing harm and supporting accountability
RJ recognizes the difference between conflict and harm. Some situations require more than conflict resolution; they require a party to take accountability for harm they have caused others. Restorative practitioner Mia Mingus teaches that accountability has four parts: self-reflection, repair, apology, and changed behavior.
2. Providing tools for emotional regulation
RJ recognizes that when conflict and harm have occurred, the people involved are often experiencing trauma, shame, and threat responses that affect their ability to communicate and problem-solve. Part of the restorative facilitators’ role is to help the parties move from self-protectiveness to openness, carefully preparing parties to come together. Facilitators support parties separately until they are ready for a meeting, providing non-judgmental listening and asking questions to help participants start to make sense of what happened and become open to hearing from the other party. Facilitators assess whether a meeting between the parties is likely to be restorative and, if not, suggest alternate processes.
3. Incorporating community
RJ recognizes that an incident of harm or conflict often affects people beyond those directly involved. An RJ process can include more affected people than those officially considered to be parties.
4. Flattening Power Differentials
RJ facilitators may see their role differently than mediators do and may share more of themselves than a mediator would, by mentioning their own values, identities, experiences, and community memberships. Restorative practitioners do their best to keep the process as insulated from the legal system as possible and discourage attorneys from being present for any part of it. Many practitioners see their work in opposition to oppressive structures, including the legal system.
I have come to think of mediation and RJ as two practices on the same restorative continuum. For mediators looking to learn more, I highly recommend the book “Setting Relations Right in Restorative Practice: Broadening Mindsets and Skill Sets” by David V. Moore and Alikki Vernon (2024), which offers restorative facilitation techniques for a variety of situations.