Restorative Justice in the Adult Criminal Justice Arena

  
Restorative Justice has been gaining momentum since the first provider group was established in 1995. Since then up to 40 groups have formed covering a wide range of courts in New Zealand. [Find a provider group near you]
Restorative justice gained legitimacy in 2002 with the Sentencing, Parole and Victims’ Rights Acts encouraging the use of restorative justice processes, requiring consideration of outcomes in sentencing, and allowing adjournment of proceedings for such processes to happen and agreements to be completed.
 
In 2005 a collective formed from restorative justice providers collaboratively produced the seminal Statement of Restorative Justice Values and Processes which was included in the Restorative Justice in NZ Best Practice document produced by the Ministry of Justice. Further collaboration resulted in the formation of Restorative Justice Aotearoa Inc. [RJA] which was duly constituted and registered with the Companies Office in May 2005.
 
Provider groups vary in size, the level of funding they receive from external stakeholders such as the Ministry of Justice and the extent to which they are able to interact with other groups providing similar services. Some provider groups also offer restorative justice services outside the criminal justice system, the most popular being to schools. (A growing number of schools have their own restorative justice processes.)
 
 
Models of Restorative Justice
The two main models of restorative justice are Victim-Offender Conferences and  Community Panel process. The main differences between the two models are
 
·        The victim-offender conference process is largely begun by a coordinator and carried out by separately contracted facilitator/s. The panel process is usually almost entirely carried out by the coordinator.
·        The panel process includes community representatives. Policy around victim attendance varies among groups using this process. The victim-offender conference does not take place without a victim/victim representative.The panel process (for providers where a victim presence is usually required) has a significantly higher victim uptake, and therefore completion, than the conference process.
 
There are considerable differences in follow-up of outcomes.
In the victim-offender conferencing model the outcome is more likely to have arrangements which include the participants monitoring plans, with minimal input from the provider. In the panel process the provider often assists with arrangements to complete the plan, does the follow-up and reports to stakeholders accordingly. This can take a considerable amount of coordinator time. This difference is significant in the development of restorative justice in diversion, using the panel model, across the country