What’s the difference between restorative practices and mediation?

“So…how is this different from mediation?”

This is a common question we hear from clients. It’s a reasonable one. Mediation is the primary method of alternative conflict resolution; how different could another ‘alternative conflict resolution’ practice really be?

In many ways, mediation and restorative practice are in fact similar. And lots of mediators will use some elements or even a completely restorative approach within their work. The main similarity is that these two approaches may look structurally similar in practice.

But we think there’s a key difference that’s important for clients to understand.

The primary difference between mediation and restorative practice is the core question that sits underneath each approach. Meditation generally asks, “What can we both live with?” and seeks to elicit agreement on specific issues with an aim towards conflict resolution. Fundamentally, mediation seeks ‘agreement’. 

Restorative approaches ask, “What’s important about what has happened and how you’ve been affected, how can we repair the harm and prevent any further harm?” and seeks to elicit understanding and collaborative repair of harm. Restorative approaches fundamentally seek ‘repair’.

Restorative approaches look through the lens of relationship and harm repair. They additionally include flexible approaches such as group circle work, and proactive interventions like relationship and trust building. Restorative approaches are focused on needs identification and a response to those needs. 

Practically, restorative approaches may require more individual preparation time than mediation. Restorative approaches don’t assume that a facilitation is the best way to move forward, where mediation you typically seek agreement to participate in the entire process from the outset.

In restorative practices, we strongly encourage participants to speak for themselves, and we strive to create an environment in which they feel safe to do so. This means that we do not use advocates or lawyers as representative speakers in a restorative process. Support people are welcome to be present and to speak in a process when appropriate from their own perspective. This is because of the key principle of restorative practices that the focus is on the people most affected by a situation. Through a restorative lens, this ‘focus’ means trusting that those most affected (and responsible) know what they need to repair the impact of the harm they experienced (or caused).

So while these two approaches may look similar on the surface, simply asking different questions with different aims (agreement or repair) can lead to remarkably different responses, and remarkably different outcomes.