FAQs

Transformative justice is a community-based approach that addresses harm by focusing on accountability, healing, and changing the conditions that allowed the harm to happen. It seeks to transform the root causes of harm, creating lasting change in individuals, relationships, and systems.

We can address a wide spectrum of harm and conflicts because our focus is understanding and repairing relational impacts and ruptures. We address everyday and interpersonal harm like conflicts, miscommunication, bullying, community, neighborhood disputes, workplace harm like sexual harassment, breach of trust, racial issues, and employee misconduct, as well as structural and systemic harm, collective and historical harm.

No. Participation is always voluntary. No one is pressured to take part, and cases proceed only when all ethical, safety, and readiness conditions are met.

Safety is foundational. Extensive one-on-one preparation occurs before any joint conversation, and survivors retain full agency throughout the process. Facilitators are trained to recognize trauma, pace the work responsibly, and stop or pause the process if safety is compromised.

No. This work requires a high level of accountability. Individuals who caused harm are expected to acknowledge responsibility, understand the full impact of their actions, and engage in meaningful repair. This process often creates more real accountability than the justice system which penalizes individuals, with no formal process for repair. Avoidance, denial, or minimization are not accepted.

No. Our work in this area does not replace legal accountability where it is required. It may take place alongside or after system involvement, depending on the case. In some cases, a District Attorney can formally divert a case away from the criminal justice system to a Restorative Justice process, which we facilitate. Our role is to address harm in ways that traditional systems often cannot, not to excuse or erase responsibility. We also work within the justice system to provide in-custody programs.

We customize our processes to the specific situation and the needs of those involved. In general, our processes begin with careful screening, followed by extensive individual preparation with each party. Only when readiness is established do facilitators guide structured dialogue focused on accountability, impact, and repair. Follow-up supports integration and lasting change.

No. Forgiveness, reconciliation, or closure are never required or expected. Each person determines what healing looks like for them. The process focuses on accountability, truth, and dignity—not prescribed emotional outcomes.

In some cases, restitution or other concrete forms of amends may be appropriate and mutually agreed upon. When included, restitution is only one part of accountability and never a substitute for responsibility or healing.

Because harm that is not fully addressed often continues to cause damage—to individuals, families, and communities. When accountability includes understanding impact and making amends, the likelihood of future harm is reduced and public safety is strengthened.

Our work is led by highly trained professionals experienced in mediation, trauma-informed practices, psychotherapy, accountability-centered dialogue and restorative practitioners with lived experience. Our staff includes survivors and formerly incarcerated leaders — who translate restorative values into real practice.

Our work is supported by community partners, foundations, donors, faith communities, and justice-system stakeholders who believe that addressing harm responsibly and humanely makes communities safer and stronger.

People can learn more by contacting us, reaching out to someone on our team, volunteering or donating.

We support a range of situations — from community conflict and housing disputes to justice-system diversion, in-custody conflict resolution, family reunification, workplace and HR, and reentry/reintegration support. Fit depends on safety, readiness, and whether a dialogue-based accountability process is appropriate.

Sometimes, yes. But fit and timing matter. Some restorative processes are designed for serious harm, often in post-conviction contexts, with careful preparation, voluntary participation, and strong safety planning. Not every situation is appropriate, and we don’t force a restorative process when it isn’t a fit.

We believe both perspectives bring essential insight and that our work is stronger when it is shaped by people who understand harm from different sides. Survivors bring clarity about impact, safety, and what real accountability must include. People with lived experience of causing harm and doing repair bring a hard-earned understanding of responsibility, change, and what it takes to follow through. Both bring knowledge of the shortcoming of status quo approaches. Together, we model the kind of healing-centered accountability we aim to build in communities.