Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or your own local model: paste this prompt and your AI will co-facilitate this exercise with you.

Help me prepare and run the exercise below. First ask for my participant count, time, setting, access needs and intended result. Check these against the stated limits. Use the supplied rules and materials. Explain any proposed changes before using them, and label them as adaptations. Do not invent source claims or require personal disclosure. Give me one step at a time when I say start. I manage the people, physical activity and clock; do not claim to observe the room. Ask me what happened before choosing a next step.

Reference revision: 06363ab0acf8ff05b25e20bbb635864cbda43dd9d915a1ddc5646fc815a7856d

# Restorative Circles

Participants affected by a concrete incident meet in a structured circle to build mutual understanding, explore personal choices, and draft agreed reparative actions. The facilitator guards the dialogue container while the participants determine the commitments.

**Time:** 120 minutes. Source specifies a live circle running 90 to 180 minutes. UWT standardizes the live circle run sheet to 120 minutes, with separate preparation pre-circles and follow-up post-circles.
**People:** 5 to 24. Single circle of chairs for 5 to 15 people. For 16 to 24 people, use a fishbowl layout: an inner circle of 6 chairs (the person who acted, the impacted person, the facilitator, and 3 open guest chairs) surrounded by an outer ring of chairs for community members. Outer participants rotate into an open guest chair to speak, then return to the outer ring.

## Choose this exercise

**Purpose:** Produce a documented, consensus-approved plan of specific reparative actions following a clear incident of harm.
**Use it when:** Use when a clear incident has damaged working relationships, all key parties agree voluntarily to participate, and everyone seeks restorative repair instead of top-down punishment.
**Skip it when:** Skip when participation is coerced, when an active safety risk or severe power imbalance exists, when no specific incident occurred, or when the person who caused harm refuses to engage.

## Materials and tools

- 1 physical talking piece such as a smooth stone or carved wood block
- 1 flip chart or whiteboard with markers
- Chairs for all participants arranged in a circle without tables
- Lined paper and pens for optional participant notes
- 1 room clock or timer visible to the facilitator
- Drinking water and cups
- Printed copies of Circle Guidelines for all participants

## Before participants arrive

1. Hold mandatory individual pre-circle meetings (30 to 60 minutes each) with every participant days before the circle: explain the non-punitive purpose, confirm willing participation, hear their account without judgment, review the guidelines, and identify other affected community members.
2. Arrange chairs in a circle with no tables or barriers in the center (or concentric inner and outer rings if over 15 people).
3. Establish a planned turn roster before beginning each dialogue round to ensure equity across in-person and remote participants.
4. Place the talking piece in the center of the circle on a low stool or table.
5. Position the flip chart where commitments can be recorded clearly without blocking sightlines.
6. Designate a quiet breakout space nearby where anyone may step out temporarily if needed.

## Say this to open

Welcome. We are gathered because a specific incident occurred, and it has affected each of us. Our work today is not to debate guilt or decide punishment. We are here to understand how this event landed, explore what drove our choices, and agree on practical actions to repair relationships. Only the person holding the talking piece speaks, and you may pass at any time. Let us begin with our opening check-in round.

## How to run it

### 1. Opening and Check-in (15 minutes)

Distribute the circle guidelines. Read the core rules: speak from personal experience, listen to understand, respect the talking piece, and keep shared dialogue confidential except for recorded commitments. Pass the talking piece clockwise. Ask each person to share one word or short sentence describing how they arrive today. Participants may pass if preferred.

### 2. Mutual Comprehension (45 minutes)

Hand the talking piece to the impacted person. Ask what they want everyone to understand about how this affected them. The person who acted reflects back what they heard without defending. The speaker confirms or clarifies until satisfied. Hand the piece to the person who acted, ask the same question, and have the impacted person reflect back. Then open the floor to community members. For each community speaker, the facilitator designates an inner-circle guest or one primary party to reflect back their words. Repeat until each speaker feels understood.

### 3. Self-Responsibility (25 minutes)

Shift focus to personal choices. Pass the talking piece and ask: 'What would you like people to understand about what you needed or looked for when you chose to act or react?' The person who acted speaks first, followed by reflection from the impacted person. Impacted parties and community members take subsequent turns. For each subsequent turn, the facilitator designates another participant to reflect back what they heard before the piece moves on.

### 4. Agreed Action (25 minutes)

Ask the impacted person what specific actions would repair what was damaged. Invite proposals from the person who acted and community members. Write every proposal on the flip chart. Review each item against three standards: specific, achievable, and accepted by all affected parties. For example, replace 'be supportive' with 'hold a 15-minute weekly coordination check-in on Mondays'. Record clear owners and completion deadlines for each accepted item.

### 5. Closing and Next Steps (10 minutes)

Confirm the scheduled date and time for the post-circle review, usually 2 to 4 weeks out. Pass the talking piece around the circle for a closing round. Ask each person for one word or short phrase describing what they take away from today. Thank participants for their commitment and close the circle.


## Debrief questions

- How accurately did the reflection turns capture what speakers intended to convey?
- Which agreed action will need the most intentional community support to succeed?
- How did exploring personal needs during choices differ from typical disciplinary conversations?

**Finished output:** A consensus-approved, written action plan naming specific reparative commitments, designated owners, completion deadlines, and a scheduled post-circle review date.

## Remote

Run individual pre-circle meetings beforehand by 1-on-1 video calls. In the main video meeting, everyone keeps cameras on. The facilitator posts an explicit speaking order in the chat before each round, placing primary parties first. The facilitator serves as custodian of the floor, calling each person in order. Designated reflectors speak only when cued by the facilitator, maintaining the single-speaker rule. Record agreed actions live on a shared document visible on screen.

## Hybrid

In hybrid circles, arrange in-person chairs in a semi-circle facing the screen and microphone. The facilitator prepares a master turn roster that alternates between in-person and remote participants, pre-assigning reflection pairings to maintain balance. The facilitator controls turn-taking: handing the physical talking piece to the listed in-person speaker, or placing it on the central table while cueing the listed remote speaker. Reflectors speak only when explicitly called on.

## Access and participation choices

- Participants may pass the talking piece without speaking during any round.
- Anyone may step out to the designated quiet room at any point without penalty.
- Written notes can be handed to the facilitator to read aloud if vocal sharing causes distress.

## If the session gets stuck

**A participant starts debating or defending themselves during their reflection turn instead of reflecting what was said.**

Intervene immediately and calmly: 'Right now we are only confirming what you heard the speaker say. You will have your own turn to share your experience shortly. What did you hear them express?'

**Proposed action items are vague, emotional platitudes such as 'respect each other more'.**

Ask clarifying probing questions: 'What observable behavior would show that respect is happening on a Tuesday morning? Let us write down that specific routine.'


## Terms used here

- Talking Piece: A physical object passed from person to person; only the individual holding it may speak.
- Pre-Circle: A private preparation meeting between the facilitator and an individual participant before the circle.
- Post-Circle: A follow-up meeting held weeks later to assess completion of agreed actions.

## Participant material: Circle Guidelines

Circle Guidelines:
1. Speak from personal experience using 'I' statements.
2. When someone else speaks, listen to understand rather than to respond.
3. Respect the talking piece: only the person holding it speaks.
4. You may pass whenever the talking piece reaches you.
5. What is shared in the circle stays in the circle, except for the agreed actions recorded on the action plan.

## Sources and adaptation

Observed in WorkshopBank documentation, which attributes the Restorative Circles model to Dominic Barter and community residents in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, originating in the mid-1990s.

Retained the core three-phase flow (mutual comprehension, self-responsibility, agreed action) and restorative principles from WorkshopBank evidence. Standardized the main circle session to 120 minutes with pre-circle details integrated into setup. Formatted group scaling up to 24 using an explicit fishbowl rotation. Clarified reflection protocols and reflector assignments across in-person, remote, and hybrid deliveries while maintaining strict single-speaker custody.

[WorkshopBank](https://workshopbank.com/tools/restorative-circles)

Current run sheet: https://unitedwetransform.com/exercises/restorative-circles-workshopbank/