Myths & Facts: Restorative Practices in Nonprofits

There are many myths about Restorative Justice. It is important to name these myths and to address the truths behind these myths; to discover what Restorative Justice is and what it is not. The following myths, Adapted from Marieke van Woerkom (2019), are common in youth serving organizations. 

Restorative processes help aid in the creation of spaces that are caring, productive, and equitable; where staff, volunteers, and community partners can collaborate effectively and remain connected to the mission. Drawing from years of implementation across schools and community organizations, restorative practices have demonstrated their power to strengthen relationships, increase trust, and support accountability without relying solely on punitive or exclusionary responses.

In nonprofit settings, where work is often values-driven, emotionally demanding, and relational by nature, restorative practices require organizational commitment, time, and resources. However, the benefits extend well beyond managing conflict or reducing staff turnover. Leaders frequently report improved team trust, stronger collaboration, higher staff engagement, and healthier organizational culture when restorative approaches are fully embedded.

As one nonprofit director shared:

“Since implementing restorative practices, we see stronger relationships across departments, fewer unresolved conflicts, and greater accountability. Staff feel heard, supported, and more committed to our shared mission.”¹

What Are Restorative Practices in Nonprofit Organizations?

Restorative practices are a set of values, and processes that help nonprofit organizations build and sustain healthy workplace communities and services to clients while addressing harm and conflict in relational ways. The core premise is that people and relationships are central to mission success, intentionally building a relational practice of harmony. When harm occurs, whether through miscommunication, unmet expectations, or breaches of trust, restorative practices support individuals and teams in understanding impact, repairing harm, and restoring relationships. 

Restorative practices offer an alternative to punitive workplace responses such as avoidance, silent resentment, termination without dialogue, loss of privilege or services, or rigid disciplinary processes. When implemented effectively, restorative practices enable staff and leaders to:

• Strengthen trust and connection among staff, volunteers, leadership, clients and partners²

• Build social-emotional skills, cultural humility, and equity awareness³

• Address conflict and accountability in ways that repair harm, rather than deepen division⁴

• Align daily interactions with organizational values and mission

Common Myths About Restorative Practices in Nonprofit Settings

Myth 1: Restorative accountability is “soft” and lacks consequences.

Fact: High expectations and accountability are central to restorative practice. Individuals, clients, staff and leaders, alike, are expected to take responsibility for their actions and actively participate in repairing harm. Unlike traditional disciplinary approaches that often isolate or remove individuals, restorative responses emphasize meaningful accountability, acknowledging impact, making amends, and changing behavior moving forward⁵.

Importantly, the organization is also accountable for creating conditions that support learning, growth, and repair. Consequences are intentional, relevant, and connected to the harm caused, reinforcing shared responsibility and trust.

Facing colleagues, peers, or superiors is challenging and requires strength and courage that is unique in social interactions that is not conflict avoidance.

Myth 2: Restorative practices eliminate formal HR processes and place all responsibility on supervisors.

Fact: Restorative practices complement, not replace, formal organizational policies. Their primary purpose is learning, growth, and accountability within a relational framework. While supervisors play a key role, responsibility is shared among individuals, clients, teams, and leadership.

There may still be times when temporary role changes, mediation, loss of privileges or services or formal HR steps are necessary to ensure safety and clarity. However, restorative conversations, circles, or conferences should accompany these actions to support understanding, healing, and reintegration into the team⁶.

Myth 3: Restorative practices take too much time in already overstretched nonprofit environments.

Fact: While restorative practices require time upfront, particularly for relationship-building, they often save time in the long run. Punitive or avoidant approaches tend to leave underlying issues unresolved, resulting in recurring conflict, burnout, and turnover⁷.

By addressing root causes and building staff capacity for self-reflection and conflict resolution, restorative practices reduce the need for ongoing managerial intervention and crisis response. For clients, time is saved that would otherwise be spent on onboarding, and intake. The disruption of services can also take time away from support and recovery work with clients.

Myth 4: Restorative practices are the responsibility of HR or leadership only.

Fact: For restorative practices to succeed, they must be embraced across the organization. Culture change cannot be driven by a single department or role. Leadership, staff, volunteers, clients and board members all contribute to how relationships are built, maintained, and repaired⁸.

Restorative practices are not simply a response to conflict; they shape how people interact daily, during meetings, feedback conversations, decision-making, and collaboration.

Myth 5: Restorative practices require everyone to follow a scripted set of questions.

Fact: Restorative practice begins with a restorative mindset, not a script. While shared language can support consistency, nonprofit organizations benefit from flexible restorative approaches that respond to diverse roles, identities, and situations⁹.

Effective practitioners adapt restorative questions and processes to fit context, culture, and need, while maintaining core principles of respect, inclusion, and accountability.

Myth 6: Restorative circles are therapy.

Fact: While restorative circles can be healing, they are not therapy and do not require clinical training. Circle facilitators create structured, equitable spaces for dialogue, shared understanding, and collective responsibility. Facilitators act as both hosts and participants, modeling authenticity, listening, and accountability¹⁰.

Circles support equity of voice, reduce power imbalances, and strengthen relationships across the organization, critical needs in nonprofit environments.

Myth 7: Restorative practices are just about sitting in circles.

Fact: Circles are foundational but represent only one aspect of restorative practice. Restorative practices encompass a broad range of processes and approaches that shape organizational culture, communication, and problem-solving.

In nonprofit settings, restorative practices are used to:

• Build trust and alignment with mission

• Navigate conflict and difficult conversations

• Reflect on impact and decision-making

• Repair harm and restore relationships

As with any community, you cannot restore what you have not built. Investing in relationships and harmony lays the groundwork for accountability, healing, and long-term sustainability.

Reflection Questions:

1. Which myth about restorative practices do you notice showing up most often in your organization or sector, and how has it shaped the way conflict or accountability is currently handled?

2. How do your organization’s current responses to harm or conflict align, or misalign, with its stated values and mission? What might change if a restorative mindset were applied more consistently across all policies and services of your organization ?

3. What relationships, structures, or daily practices increase restorative culture and relational practice and which processes might need to be strengthened in your organization before restorative accountability might truly take root?

4. In what ways could shared responsibility for restorative justice (beyond HR or leadership) shift your organizational culture, trust, and sense of collective accountability?

Works Cited

1. Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining Restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices.

2. Pranis, K. (2005). The Little Book of Circle Processes. Good Books.

3. Gorski, P. (2018). Reaching and Teaching Students in Poverty. Teachers College Press.

4. Zehr, H. (2015). The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Good Books.

5. Morrison, B. & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative Justice: Pedagogy, Praxis, and Discipline. Journal of School Violence.

6. Hopkins, B. (2015). Restorative Justice in Practice. Pavilion Publishing.

7. Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization. Wiley.

8. Schein, E. (2017). Organizational Culture and Leadership. Wiley.

9. Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2010). Restorative Circles in Schools. IIRP.

10. Boyes-Watson, C. & Pranis, K. (2015). Circle Forward. Living Justice Press.