Reflections on restorative perspectives: US and NZ
We recently had the privilege of spending time with a group of students from the University of Washington during their study abroad here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The focus of their learning was on restorative and criminal justice through historical and comparative perspectives. We, as two Americans living and working in Aotearoa, were in a unique position to reflect on this with them. Their questions and the ongoing discussions with their leaders – prominent practitioners and scholars in the field – provided a good opportunity for us to reflect on some of the comparisons in restorative justice work that we’ve observed between the U.S. and New Zealand.
Advocacy: One of the key observations in these discussions was the differing approaches to advocacy. In the U.S., restorative justice often requires persistent activism to challenge the deeply entrenched punitive justice system. Practitioners must continually push against systemic barriers and advocate for policy shifts. Meanwhile, in Aotearoa, restorative justice enjoys a stronger institutional foothold, so advocacy in restorative work is less present. However, there remains a need to be direct in confronting structural, racial, and historical injustices that compound individual harm. Likewise, we can approach individual harm through direct, constructive dialogue.
Innovation: In a similar vein, Aotearoa New Zealand has excelled in embedding restorative principles into legal and social frameworks, while the U.S. has pioneered innovative grassroots and community-led initiatives. As the saying goes, ‘necessity is the mother of invention’. In New Zealand, the Family Group Conference (and subsequently the implementation of restorative justice principles in both the youth and adult systems), was developed in response to a pressing need to dramatically improve the way young people and their whānau were treated, specifically in relation to the justice system. Today, because there is more institutional support, there is less innovation. In contrast, in the U.S. there is less institutional support and a high need for transformation; therefore, practitioners necessarily need to develop creative strategies for implementing restorative approaches.
Cooperation: Another distinction lies in the way restorative justice operates on different scales. North America’s vast size and diverse legal jurisdictions make cooperation between practitioners and systems complex. As we’ve established, an undercurrent of advocacy across multiple levels leaves little time and energy for it. In contrast, New Zealand’s smaller scale allows for more lateral collaboration between stakeholders, fostering an interconnected restorative justice network.
I think the takeaway from this comparative exercise, particularly at this moment in time, is not to determine which system is superior, but to draw on the positives that each perspective brings in order to strengthen the work happening in both contexts. In Aotearoa, we would benefit from boldly speaking about the emotional impacts of conflict, to name the structural, racial and historical harms that compound individual harm, and to continue pushing ourselves into areas of innovation and best practice. In the U.S., incorporating more balance and joy into restorative work could help sustain practitioners in increasingly demanding roles. With that said, I realise the current environment in the U.S. may feel too urgent and unjust to seek ‘balance’ and to find ‘joy.’ But to the extent that it is possible, it feels more necessary than ever for restorative practitioners (in all locations) to dig deep into our wells of resilience in order to better support others in fostering resilience in turn.