I'm longing to understand more about the circles you're describing - a sense of framework would be so helpful. 

First, there are two basic elements to RC – the restorative system, and the restorative conflict process. The Restorative System is the set of agreements a group/family/community makes (which includes process, structure, etc.) about how they are going to work with conflict the next time it expresses itself in the community. Within that set of agreements would be an outline of the restorative conflict process. The one developed by the communities in Brazil has three phases – Pre-Circle phase where a facilitator meets with the different groups, involved separately; a Circle phase where all the groups come together in dialogue around three guiding questions using a specific dialogue process; and a post Circle phase where people evaluate their satisfaction with actions that were developed at the end of the circle phase. 

In my experience, participating in a circle is all choice and voluntary, and people have freedom to leave the circle. so, hearing each person before the circle begins helps them understand the process. Duke, I imagine you explain the process in your meetings with people before the circles? 

Ideally, a group or community would have established a Restorative System first. Part of a restorative system is educating the wider community about what it is, how to access it, how it functions, etc.; so in that case the facilitator would just review the process and answer any questions people may have about it. If there is no system set up, then I would invite them to explore how they want to participate in a conflict, and I may suggest the classic start a circle process as developed in Brazil and asked participants to change/adapt the process to better fit there cultural, religious, community environment. Once we have agreement on the process, then we begin the process itself. 

When it takes time to hear each side, enough that everyone’s positions might shift, how do you keep the circle to a reasonable length? Or do you plan for them to take as long as they take? (Days?) 

The length of the circle hours/days is determined by the community itself. As a circle progresses the community will be given. Updates to where they are in the process and have the opportunity decide how to proceed. I sometimes a group will start with a three hour window of time, when they realize this is not enough time, they often extend it for additional. This may happen several times. Often, when I am working with the community, I suggest they said aside three full days; one day to complete the preparatory meetings – the pre circle’s; two days to complete the circle. The post circle happens after the action plan has been completed, and usually takes around three hours. 

How do people know of your work and get to you for circles? 

Most people find out about the work I do from attending workshops; my own (www.togetherwethrive.world) or the CNVC website; or most frequently, word of mouth. I am not a natural marketer, so this is one area that requires further work for me. 

How can people be heard at that deep level of need on an individual basis when operating in community dialogue though? 

Empathic listening, is embedded in the title entire restorative circles process. It happens in the Pre-Circle phase where the facilitator empathically listens to the different groups of participants, usually on an individual level. In the circle itself when someone speaks, they are invited to choose a listener, and the chosen listener, from time to time is asked to say back, not the content but the deeper meaning of what that person said; this continues until the speaker feels complete. Everyone in the circle has this opportunity to be heard to their satisfaction. 

I have seen the impact of restorative circles. I am curious about power. When you have two or more parties with very different power levels, in terms of position, institution, or identity, how do you address that?

The question of power is an important one, and not a simple or short answer. Some of the question of power is answered in the process itself – by the circle format, where everyone has an equal place; by the dialogue, format, firstly where everyone in the circle has the opportunity to speak until they feel fully heard, and secondly by the fact that each speaker can choose who they would like to listen to them, so even those who have more power in the outside world can be asked to reflect back the words of those who seem to have no power. In the action planning actions are not agreed-upon until all needs are considered. These are a few examples of how the circles move towards an equalized, shared power. There are at times more that can and needs to be done regarding power, but this is beyond of the scope of responses for today. I hope to look at the issue of power during the RC learning event with NVCA. 

I am thinking of the real hot-button topics like guns, bodily autonomy, climate, legislating hate. There is such violence that must be blunted, when people don’t want to engage in dialog and can’t see the damage they are doing. 

Yes, there can be a lot of fear and pain in many forms around some of these topics. It sounds like you are recognizing and in order to participate in dialogue. People experiencing these things around these topics would need a lot of support, especially in the form of empathic listening – is that it? That is one of the main reasons why empathic listening, is woven into every component of the restorative circles process. Without empathic listening, it can be extremely difficult to impossible to have any real form of dialogue where I am open to really hear you and be changed by what you say and vice versa. 

Is there a size of the circle where the process becomes less effective? For instance, are smaller more intimate circles more productive with this process? 

I have facilitated circles with four participants up to just short of 100 participants. I believe Dominic has done circles as large is 150 participants. Obviously when we get to larger groups some adjustments to the format need to be made to make it workable. The decision on size/number of participants is not based on the number itself, rather it is mostly based on a question to each of the community members, “Who needs to be in the dialogue to work with this conflict.” We would like to have all the community members who need to be there to be present if possible; that is the most important consideration. Which may be slightly adjusted by other smaller considerations, depending on circumstances. 

What is the structure to make things happen at a community level? I can hear a sense of it between family members/individuals, but not how it would work at the complex level of larger groups at loggerheads 

Actually, the concerns and considerations are mostly similar, just scaled up. Some key considerations are: dialogue with all those who have power/influence in the group; education about the system and process to the wider community; having a place where the dialogues take place, ideally somewhere that has symbolic meaning for the group; human resources to run the system – facilitators, coordinators, etc; and universal access points where the community can activate the system when they need support around a conflict. 

The course Restorative Circles: Transforming Conflict, Building Community Resilience starts Tuesday, May 9 at 10:00 am Pacific Time.

• Find detailed information here. 
• Register here.