< Previous10 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 CoreCivic Shannon Carst Managing Director 5501 Virginia Way Ste 110 Brentwood, TN 37027 Phone: 303-842-8301 Email: shannon.carst@corecivic.com Website: https://www.corecivic.com Corrisoft Susan Harrod VP, Sales & Marketing Corrisoft 1648 McGrathiana Pkwy, Suite 225 Lexington, KY 40511 Phone: (217) 899.5323 Website: https://corrisoft.com/ Corrections Software Solutions James Redus President 316 North Lamar Street Austin, TX 78703 Phone: (512) 347.1366 Fax: (512) 347.1310 Email: jredus@correctionssoftware.com Website: https://www.correctionssoftware.com Geo Care Monica Hook Marketing Communications Director 621 NW 53rd Street, Suite 700 Boca Raton, FL 33487 Phone: (800) 241.2911 x 1230 Email: monica.hook@bi.com Website: https://www.geogroup.com Intoxalock Linda Vadel Affiliate Marketing Coordinator 11035 Aurora Avenue Des Moines, IA 50322 Phone: (515) 251.3747 Email: lvadel@intoxalock.com Website: https://www.intoxalock.com Journal Technologies Heidi Henry Senior Account Executive Micro Distributing Roy G. Whiteside, Jr. Vice President Micro Distributing II, Ltd. PO Box 1753 620 Kennedy Court Belton, TX 76513 Primary: (254) 939-8923 Office: (254) 939-5867 Website: https://www.micro-distributing.com/ Management and Training Corporation (MTC) Alisa Malone Director, Partnerships 500 N. Marketplace Drive Centerville, UT 84014 Primary:(801) 693-2600 American Community Corrections Institute Trevor Lloyd President American Community Corrections Institute Phone: 435 767-9658 Acivilate Louise Wasilewski CEO Acivilate, Inc. 75 5th Street NW, Suite 2310 Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: 678.662.6465 Website: https://www.acivilate.com Attenti Kerri Ryan Director of Marketing and Business Development 1838 Gunn Highway Odessa, FL 33556 Phone: (813) 749.5454 x 1275 Email: kryan@attentigroup.com Website: https://www.attentigroup.com averhealth Justin Manni Director of Business Development 1700 Bayberry Court, Suite 105 Richmond, VA 23226 Phone: (848) 992.3650 Email: jmanni@averhealth.com Website: https://www.averhealth.com Axon Zach Austin Director of Sales, Corrections 17800 North 85th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85255 Primary: (917) 789-0916 Website: https://www.axon.com/industries/ corrections Buddhi Kyle Chapin Director of Account Management Buddi US, LLC 1964 Bayshore Blvd., Suite B Dunedin, FL 34698 Phone: (727) 560-8432 The Change Companies Jesse Tillotson National Director of Justice Services The Change Companies 5221 Sigstrom Dr Carson City, NV 89706 Phone: (888)889-8866 Cordico Brady Pilster Director of Business Development 2377 Gold Meadow Way, Suite 100 Gold River, CA 95670 Phone: (844) 267-3426 Website: https://www.cordico.com Corporations with an interest in the field of probation, parole, and community corrections are invited to become APPA corporate members. Corporate members receive benefits such as enhanced visibility among APPA’s international network of community corrections professionals, as well as shared information on the latest trends and issues that specifically affect community corrections. APPA CORPORATE MEMBERS11 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION APPA ASSOCIATE MEMBERS Performance-Based Standards Learning Institute Kim Godfrey Lovett Executive Director 350 Granite Street, Suite 1203 Braintree, MA 02184 Automated Breathalyzer Kiosk Technologies David Kreitzer General Manager 2855 Country Drive, Suite 100 Little Canada, MN 55117 Phone: (651) 383.1213 Email: Website: https://abkiosk.com/ National Curriculum and Training Institute Gary Bushkin President 319 East McDowell Road, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1534 Phone: (602) 252.3100 Website: https://www.ncti.org Northpointe Primary Contact Chris Kamin General Manager Equivant office: (608) 416-4302 mobile: (608) 577-1755 Promise Diana Frappier Chief Legal Officer 436 14th Street, Ste 920 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (415) 305.4560 Website: https://joinpromise.com Reconnect, Inc Sam Hotchkiss Founder & CEO 1 Faraday Drive Cumberland, Maine 04021 Email: info@reconnect.io Website: https://www.reconnect.io RemoteCOM Robert Rosenbusch President/CEO www.Remotecom.net 2251 Double Creek Dr. Suite 404 Round Rock, TX 78664 Phone: (866)776-0731 SCRAM +LifeSafer Jed Rosenberg Senior Marketing Manager Scram Systems 1241 West Mineral Avenue Littleton, CO 80120 Phone: (720) 261-6576 Securus Technologies Chris McDowell Director of Marketing Securus Monitoring Solutions 5353 W Sam Houston Parkway N, Suite 190 Houston, TX 77041 Direct: (512) 515-1405 Mobile: (480) 215-3482 Shadowtrack Robert L. Magaletta ShadowTrack Technologies, Inc. Cypress Bend Office Building 1001 Ochsner Blvd., Ste. 425A Covington, LA 70433 Office: (985) 867.3771 Ext 120 Website: https://www.shadowtrack.com Smart Start, Inc. Michelle H. Whitaker Conference and Promotions Coordinator 500 East Dallas Road Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (919) 604.2513 Email: michelle.whitaker@smartstartinc.com Website: https://www.smartstartinc.com Track Group Matthew Swando VP of Sales and Marketing 1215 North Lakeview Court Romeoville, IL 60446 Phone: (877) 260.2010 Email: matthew.swando@trackgrp.com Website: https://www.trackgrp.com TRACKtech Ben Williams Vice President - Business Development 6295 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Phone: (303) 834-7519 Email: ben.williams@tracktechllc.com Website: https://tracktechllc.com/ Tyler Technologies Larry Stanton Director of Sales - Courts & Justice 5101 Tennyson Parkway Plano, TX 75024 Phone: (904) 654.3741 Email: larry.stanton@tylertech.com Website: https://www.tylertech.com Uptrust Susan Rice Director of Community Supervision Partnerships 1 Sutter Street, Suite 350 San Francisco, CA 94104 765-469-1593 Email: Website: Vant4ge Sean Hosman National Sales Leader – Public Sector Vant4ge P.O. Box 802 Salt Lake City, UT 84110 Phone: (877) 744-1360 Email: Website: https://vant4ge.com/INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 12 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 BY NYREE LEWIS NEW ZEALAND’S EXPERIENCE INSTITUTIONALIZING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE13 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE This article was made possible by Hayley Mackenzie from New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice, who authored the keynote speech for the 12th Annual Alberta Restorative Justice in 2018 (Mackenzie 2018). Hayley has allowed this author to utilize much of the information contained in her speech and has reviewed and approved the use of this article. It is a continuing cause of contention in New Zealand. Briefly, there are two versions of the document. One is written in English and the other in Te Reo Māori (Māori language). The treaty in Māori was intended to convey the meaning of the English version, but there are important differences due to its translation. Most significantly, the word “sovereignty” was translated to mean “governance.” Some Māori believed they were giving up governance over their lands but retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed “undisturbed possession” of all their “properties,” but the Māori version guaranteed “tino rangatiratanga” (full authority) over “taonga” (treasures, which may be intangible). New Zealand has a centralized system of government similar to a federal system and operates a traditional adversarial criminal justice system to which all New Zealanders are subject. Some Māori argue for judicial autonomy as per the original intent of the treaty but remain embroiled in a system they did not sign up for. With no firm resolution of these issues, all government partnerships with communities are required to honor the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. These are partnership, protection, and participation. For the justice system this entails: • Partnership involves working together with iwi (tribes), hapū (sub-tribes), whānau (extended family), and Māori communities to develop strategies that support Māori well-being if they are in contact with the justice system. • Participation requires Māori to be involved at all levels of the justice sector, including in decision-making, planning, development, and delivery of services. It is about empowering Māori communities to achieve their aspirations Introduction New Zealand has often been hailed as leading the world in the field of restorative justice (RJ). While we were the first country to institutionalize a form of RJ through legislation (Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989), the mechanism (the family group conference) mirrored and acknowledged traditional approaches to harm and wrongdoing used by our indigenous peoples–the Māori. RJ is now embedded in our criminal justice system, thereby requiring courts to adjourn proceedings to determine whether RJ is appropriate for eligible cases. The New Zealand Government has obligations to the Māori as the first people of this country. We must acknowledge their culture and practices and the contribution these have made to what we know as RJ today. This article will discuss some of the strengths and challenges of RJ practice in the adult jurisdiction. I will focus in on the relationship between the Crown and community restorative justice providers and the complexities and opportunities this relationship provides. I will also discuss current and future plans for strengthening RJ practice across New Zealand. Background New Zealand is a small island nation in the South Pacific with an estimated population of 5 million. Approximately 72% of people identify ethnically as European, 15% Māori, 15% Asian, and 9% Pacific Islander. Our first nations people are the Māori, who arrived from Polynesia and settled in New Zealand in the 13th century. New Zealand became a British colony in 1840 when the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between Māori tribes (iwi) and the British government. The treaty agreed to a nation state and the building of a government. INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 14 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 • Protection involves the government working to ensure Māori have at least the same level of justice outcomes as non- Māori and to safeguard Māori cultural concepts, values, and practices. Māori Justice Like many traditional societies, legal systems in Te Ao Māori (Māori world view) were based on the principles of kinship, and sources of law were generally derived from their belief in the laws of the universe in which they lived. In Te Ao Māori, for example, intricate realms existed that were connected by whakapapa (lineage) and operated through whanaungatanga (kinship). Knowledge was passed down, and ways to behave were known as tika (correct) and pono (true). “Discussions of principles, augmented by ancestral precedent, allowed people to focus on what they ought or ought not to do in their relationships with others” (Quince, 2016, p. 315). Where a breach of tikanga (right doing) occurred, the restoration of right relationships was sought. A kaumatua (chief) would facilitate a meeting but be supported by kin of both parties and their collective knowledge and wisdom. The aim was to have the offending party understand his or her transgression and to hence feel whakama (shame) and remorse. Acceptance of the utu (punishment) resolves the matter, and the person’s mana (dignity) place in the community was restored through collective teaching, healing, and restitution (Wijeysingha, 2018). It is important to examine and understand the differences—some significant—between indigenous justice and RJ. For example, a focus on both restitution and healing rather than blame and punishment must take place. For Māori there is strong alignment between their principles and values such as reconciliation, reciprocity, and whanau (family and close community) involvement. Effects of Colonisation Like other countries with first nations people, the effect of colonisation has been devastating. Māori are overrepresented at every stage in the criminal justice system. They comprise 37% of people proceeded against by police, 45% of people convicted, and 52% of people in prison (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2021). Māori are also over-represented as victims in criminal justice matters. In 2018, over one third of Māori adults (38%) were victimized within a 12-month period. This is significantly higher than the New Zealand average of 30% (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2018). The Evolution of RJ’s Institutionalization New Zealand first institutionalized a form of RJ/alternate justice through legislation in the 1989 Children Young Persons and Their Families Act, Throughout the 1980s, juvenile offending was rising and the system was overburdened. The punitive system of addressing wrongdoing by young people was ineffective. Sanctions and incarceration were not requiring young people to address the harm they were causing. Communities and Māori leaders argued that “Western justice” wasn’t working for young people, particularly young Māori. While there is some dispute regarding government objectives at this time, there is a general narrative that these concerns were listened to by the presiding government. The resulting legislation enabled and mandated the use of “family group conferences (FGC)”–a mechanism for addressing issues and making decisions about a young person without the requirement for a court hearing The FGC was developed based on Māori principles and practices (Maxwell & Morris, 2001). While little was known about RJ at this time, the FGC can be described as “innovative justice” based on what was known about indigenous responses to wrongdoing and harm. Where RJ is now often described as a response to the failings of the Western criminal justice system in modern liberal society, it falls retrospectively into this definition. The FGC was praised as a justice reform success (Maxwell & Morris, 2001), and people began to advocate for legislative reform in the 15 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE adult jurisdiction to allow for RJ. Beginning on an ad hoc basis in the 1990s, a four-year pilot programme began in 2001 in selected courts (Maxwell & Hayes, 2006). The 2002 justice reform package gave judges discretion to refer eligible cases to an RJ service. Despite the fact that four acts had previously passed in New Zealand that changed the law to enable restorative justice with regard to adults (Sentencing Act 2002, Victims’ Rights Act 2002, Parole Act 2002, Corrections Act 2004), there was no mandate for it to be used until 2014. An amendment to the Sentencing Act was passed in that year which changed the language so that, for all eligible cases, the Court must adjourn trial proceedings prior to sentencing to allow for RJ options to take place. A case is eligible if the person pleads guilty and there is an identifiable victim. RJ must not have previously taken place for the same offense, and the court registrar must confirm that a suitable RJ process is accessible. Since the move from discretionary to mandatory consideration of RJ, the number of referrals has grown drastically. In 2011, 2252 cases were referred. In 2017, this was 12,867. Of these referrals, 1360 progressed to conference in 2011 and 2401 in 2017 (Wood, Suzuki, Hayes, & Bolitho, 2021). The pre-sentence opportunity for RJ does not allow for offenders to exit the justice system. The offender is still sentenced after the restorative conference has gone ahead, but the court takes into consideration the restorative conference and any outcomes. These can range from a formal apology to reparative acts or reparation payments. The perpetrator may also complete counselling or other rehabilitation at the victim’s request. How Pre-sentence RJ Works in New Zealand The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) funds nearly all pre-sentence restorative justice in New Zealand. It is the primary or only funder for many smaller, community-based organizations. These providers are dependent on their contract with MoJ for their continued existence and ability to pay their staff (MacKenzie, 2018). The MoJ currently provides 9 million dollars to 23 community-based RJ providers across New Zealand each year. Seven of these are Māori providers. Although the legislation requires judges to refer eligible cases for RJ, it is often initially unknown whether a conference will go ahead due to the many factors involved. The mandate for RJ may have increased opportunities for restorative conferences, but it has also caused an increased administrative burden on providers, who are now required to process all referrals even though many do not make it to the conference stage. The MoJ funding calculations have taken into consideration the number of court attendances, pre-conferences, and conferences delivered. Each case type is funded at a different rate to reflect the difference in experience, time, and accreditation required to deliver restorative justice safely and effectively. Historically, the MoJ applied a fee-for-service model to reflect the varying rates. However, it is currently working with providers to pilot an upfront annual fee to further reduce the administrative burden on providers. RJ services are divided into three categories: standard, family violence, and sexual violence cases. All RJ facilitators must complete a training and accreditation process to deliver RJ services funded by the MoJ. Facilitators who undertake family violence or sexual violence cases are required to have a specialist qualification (called an endorsement) and need to meet additional practice standards to ensure the process is safe (MacKenzie 2018; New Zealand Ministry of Justice 2013, 2018). The training, accreditation, and endorsement costs for facilitators are paid for by the MoJ, which contracts with a specialist training and accreditation agency. The parameters of the adult conferencing mechanism are not defined by the legislative INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 16 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 acts. Instead, adult conferencing is governed by a framework of best practices (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2017, 2019). The framework applies to all MoJ-funded RJ providers and their facilitators. The Framework The framework is guided by a Whakatauki (Māori proverb), “He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata, he tangata.” This translates to “What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people.” It is informed by a set of values, principles and standards. Values • Tika – We do things in the right way. • Pono – We’re truthful, honest, and sincere in our interactions with people. • Whanaungatanga - we develop relationships and work together. • Āhurutanga – We provide a place of warmth and safety. • Manaakitanga – We show respect, generosity, and care for others. • Mana motuhake - We enable people to achieve self- determination. • Aroha – We feel compassion and empathy for others. Principles • Participation is VOLUNTARY throughout the RJ process. • The victim and the offender are the CENTRAL PARTICIPANTS in the RJ process. • UNDERSTANDING is key to effective participation. • Offender ACCOUNTABILITY is key to the RJ process. • RJ processes are FLEXIBLE AND RESPONSIVE to the needs of participants. • RJ processes are SAFE for participants. The standards are linked to stages in the RJ process, as depicted in Figure 1. There is flexibility for the providers in the way they deliver their processes as long as they meet these standards: Figure 1. Stages in the RJ Process A working group was established to develop these standards comprised of provider representatives, the professional association Restorative Practices Aotearoa, and MoJ staff. They were not imposed by the MoJ but instead belong to the wider provider network that helped to develop them. This means that providers don’t feel “done to,” because it has been an inclusive process. Challenges Government “Ownership” of RJ The operationalization and institutionalization of RJ is often referred to as a 17 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE “Faustian bargain.” The argument regarding the co-option of RJ by the government to achieve its priorities is particularly contentious in academic circles (Mansill, 2013; Workman, 2016). In New Zealand there is also the issue of cultural co-option of traditional Māori practices and philosophies regarding harm resolution that began with the introduction of the FGC through the 1989 Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. Furthermore, issues remain related to the Treaty of Waitangi and whether Māori should have judicial autonomy in a decolonized justice system. Insofar as RJ as a social movement is concerned with transforming the justice system, the issue of its dilution and other issues regarding standardisation have emerged. In New Zealand we are doing a number of things to move RJ forwards. It may be just nudging, but there is always movement. To the extent that fundamental changes are made in how we address wrongdoing and harm through innovative justice mechanisms, dramatic alterations may be made to the current criminal justice system. Later I will talk to some of these innovations. The people responsible for delivering restorative services are less concerned with the positioning of RJ, as their focus is on bringing people together for restoration and healing. The standardisation of RJ in New Zealand has shown the expected benefits for providers, as local community groups/providers are empowered to implement RJ, and the MoJ provides safeguards, transparency, resources, and regular work. However, the mainstream government approach does render community providers vulnerable with regard to their concerns about delivering a good service, being adequately funded, having flexibility, having sustainability, and having a voice. The government is required to deliver a cost-effective service and to be accountable for public spending. It has a duty to be transparent. It also needs to demonstrate that it is improving outcomes for New Zealanders. There is an obvious balancing act between the needs and objectives of the government and community providers. While the partnership could be argued to be inherently imbalanced, there is a symbiosis that also requires recognition. Accreditation Opinions are mixed in regard to the need for accreditation of RJ providers in New Zealand. Some providers believe it is too limiting and doesn’t allow for enough flexibility. Other providers believe it has supported them in their efforts to maintain good quality practice among their staff. While this is an ongoing conversation, New Zealand nevertheless does currently have a system of accreditation for individual providers and organisations delivering RJ services. Providers were involved in developing the framework for accreditation, and this inclusive approach has contributed to a general acceptance of accreditation practice. The current contractual requirement is that facilitators are trained and accredited or “working towards” accreditation. Hayley Mackenzie, manager of Community Services for the MoJ, stated: Being accredited as a restorative justice facilitator means that the person has the skills to facilitate RJ cases. Facilitators must have had the training, mentoring, and guidance to perform the facilitator role. To ensure consistency, facilitators must follow the best practice standards. Additionally, facilitators can be endorsed for specialist expertise such as family violence and sexual violence. Advanced accreditation is also available, which recognizes facilitators who work on complex cases, and who supervise and mentor others. The advanced accreditation was introduced in 2015 to provide a professional pathway for restorative justice facilitators, and to recognize the skills and experience they gain through years of practice (MacKenzie 2018).INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE 18 PERSPECTIVESVOLUME 45, NUMBER 4 In addition to individual facilitator accreditation, organizational accreditation is required. An all-government social sector accreditation agency requires providers to demonstrate that they follow employment, health, and safety legislation and have appropriate governance in place. Monitoring requirements in place include quarterly reports, six-monthly site visits, and audits each contract term. Measuring Outcomes Measuring outcomes of social services is always difficult. We know from speaking to people who have participated in RJ that it can literally be life changing, but to be truly accountable RJ needs to offer tangible benefits such as proving a reduction in reoffending or a reduction in the seriousness of reoffending. This is another aspect of government ownership of RJ that is difficult to navigate. In New Zealand, the MoJ uses a “results-based accountability” framework. This framework asks: 1. How much did a provider do? 2. How well did they do it? 3. Is anyone better off? The first question is answered through quantitative analysis: how many referrals a provider received, how many pre-conferences were delivered, and how many conferences were held. The question of “How well did they do it” is assessed based on the experience of the facilitators, whether services were developed within the timeframe required, and whether any complaints were received. The question of “Is anyone better off” is much more complex. Two Ministry research projects have been looking at this question. First, the MoJ has conducted three studies that look at reoffending rates for offenders who participated in RJ. A study released in 2016 included data from conferences held between 2008 and 2013. The method used in the reoffending studies compared offenders who participated in the restorative justice process to a matched comparison group of offenders who went through the police diversion or court process and who would have otherwise been eligible for restorative justice (Ministry of Justice, 2016). Four key findings from this study include: 1. The reoffending rate for offenders who participated in RJ was lower than for comparable offenders who did not participate (15% lower over the following 12-month period and 7.5% lower over the following three years). 2. Offenders who participated in RJ committed 20% fewer offences over three years. 3. RJ appeared to reduce reoffending across many offence types, including violence, property abuse or damage, and dishonesty. While there was no significant difference for participants who committed a driving offence causing death or injury, the reoffending rate for this type of offence is already low. 4. RJ is effective for Māori. The reoffending rate for Māori who participated in RJ was 16% lower over the following 12-month period than for comparable Māori offenders. Māori offenders who participated in restorative justice committed 23% fewer offences per offender within the next three-year period than comparable Māori offenders. Second, in 2011, 2016 and 2018, RJ victim satisfaction surveys were administered to victims who had attended an MoJ-funded RJ conference. The 2018 survey showed three significant results. First, a large majority (86%) were satisfied with the conference they attended. Next, a large majority (84%) said they were satisfied with their overall experience of restorative justice. Lastly, a large majority (84%) said they would be likely to recommend restorative justice to others. Of interest, family violence victims were as equally satisfied with the RJ process as victims in non-family violence cases.19 AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL RESTORATIVE JUSTICE Regarding the question of “Is anyone better off,” participants were asked whether they could identify any benefits of participating in restorative justice. Seventy-nine percent of victims identified one or more benefits, most commonly: • I feel that I can move on or I got closure (29%); • I got to have my say or the offender heard how the offence affected me (25%); and • I got to hear the offender’s point of view and understand what happened (20%). Other commonly mentioned benefits included that the victim was given financial compensation, the person apologised, victims felt they could communicate better with the person who had harmed them, it helped the victim to build up confidence, the experience was empowering, the victim is now aware of the help available, and it provided the opportunity to see the person face-to-face. Fifty-nine percent of participants said that their views of the criminal justice system as a whole had become more positive following their participation in the restorative justice process. How RJ is Moving Forward Earlier I alluded to some developments in New Zealand criminal justice. While not wholly relevant to how RJ is enabled currently through legislation, these initiatives help to demonstrate how New Zealand is evolving in terms of our approach towards alternative justice mechanisms. The “Hāpaitia te Oranga Tangata Safe and Effective Justice Programme” was established in 2018. It began with a public justice system summit to start the conversation about what criminal justice reform might look like. The consistent theme was that New Zealand’s criminal justice system has failed for Māori and that Māori need to lead reform. “Hāpaitia” has allowed for a new direction and vision by the Chief District Court Judge. One of the first initiatives born of Hāpaitia is the judicially-led “Te Ao Mārama,” which is a new vision for the District Court that will enable more solution-focused courts that better partner with Māori. It will take practices from specialist courts and apply them to the mainstream criminal system (Radio New Zealand, 2020). The new model will change the courtroom experience by inviting iwi and community groups into court, toning down formalities, and identifying the underlying drivers of crime. During a 2020 Radio New Zealand interview, New Zealand’s Chief District Court Judge said: These courts focus on offenders where issues such as addiction, homelessness, cultural disconnection and poor mental health, among others, are driving or contributing to their offending. This approach is underpinned by extensive academic and jurisprudential theory. It is not mere trend or fad. It is both evidence- based and legally sound (Radio New Zealand 2020). Below are some of the organisations and activities supporting RJ as a movement and a professional practice in New Zealand. Restorative Practices Aotearoa Restorative Practices Aotearoa has been funded by the MoJ since 2005 to help build practice among RJ providers, raise the profile of restorative justice, and contribute to the current and future direction of restorative practice. Restorative Practices Aotearoa has undertaken significant training on when and how to safely involve children in restorative justice processes in a child-centered way. Restorative Practices Aotearoa also represents the views of its members to government agencies, including the MoJ, and looks for opportunities for restorative practices to be involved. Next >