Restorative justice is an approach to addressing harm that centres the people most affected — victims and offenders — rather than the state. Instead of focusing primarily on punishment, restorative processes seek to repair harm, rebuild relationships, and address the underlying causes of offending. In New Zealand, restorative justice is an established part of the justice system, used at both adult and youth levels, and supported by a network of community providers and government investment.
Philanthropic grants play an important role in extending and deepening restorative practice beyond what government funding covers. This guide explains the landscape and how funders can support it.
Restorative justice involves facilitated meetings between people who have committed an offence, the people harmed, and their respective support communities. Skilled facilitators guide conversations about what happened, who was affected and how, and what can be done to make things right. Outcomes from restorative processes typically include:
Research consistently shows that restorative justice produces higher rates of victim satisfaction than conventional court processes, and lower rates of reoffending for those who complete the process. It's particularly effective when integrated with other support — rather than as a standalone intervention.
New Zealand has a significant track record in restorative approaches:
Youth Justice Family Group Conferencing (FGC): Introduced in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, FGC is the primary mechanism for responding to serious youth offending. It brings together the young person, their family, victims, and other stakeholders to develop a plan. This model has been internationally influential.
Adult restorative justice: The Sentencing Act 2002 requires courts to consider restorative justice processes. Government-funded restorative justice providers conduct conferences that can inform sentencing decisions. The majority of adult restorative justice in New Zealand is delivered by community providers contracted by the Ministry of Justice.
Schools restorative practice: Schools across New Zealand increasingly use restorative approaches to address conflict and misbehaviour, as an alternative to punitive responses. This is an area of growing demand and significant variation in quality.
Community restorative centres: Some communities have established community-based restorative justice centres that address harm outside the formal justice system — neighbourhood disputes, workplace conflict, community harm.
Tikanga Māori and restorative principles: Māori have long-established practices for addressing harm within whānau and hapū — hui, whānau conferences, marae-based processes. These align with restorative principles but operate from a distinct cultural and values base.
The Ministry of Justice funds restorative justice providers for adult cases referred by courts, under the Restorative Justice Provider Standards framework. Funding is per-case and covers facilitation costs. This is the primary government funding stream for adult restorative justice.
Youth justice FGCs are funded through Oranga Tamariki, the Ministry for Children.
Restorative practice in schools is not specifically funded by the Ministry of Education as a separate programme — schools absorb the cost within their operational budgets, which means quality varies significantly with school resources.
Extending restorative practice in schools: The evidence for school-based restorative practice is strong, but implementation quality is highly variable. Grants supporting training, coaching, and school-based implementation improve quality where government funding doesn't cover it.
Community restorative centres: Government restorative justice funding is tightly focused on cases within the formal court process. Community restorative centres that handle disputes before they reach the courts, or in situations where formal justice involvement isn't appropriate, often rely on philanthropic support.
Māori and Pacific restorative models: Culturally grounded restorative approaches — rooted in tikanga Māori or Pacific community values — are not always well-served by mainstream government-funded models. Philanthropic grants can support the development and delivery of culturally specific approaches.
Practitioner training and quality development: Restorative justice facilitation requires skilled, well-trained facilitators. Investment in training, supervision, and professional development improves practice quality across the sector.
System reform advocacy: Expanding the use of restorative justice — earlier in the justice process, in more contexts, with better integration with support services — requires advocacy and research. Philanthropic grants support this systemic change work.
Victim support: Restorative processes should centre the needs and choices of victims. Grants supporting victim-specific services — preparation, support, follow-through — ensure that restorative processes genuinely serve the people harmed, not just the offenders.
Evaluation and evidence: The evidence base for restorative justice is strong internationally, but New Zealand-specific evaluation is limited. Grants supporting rigorous evaluation of New Zealand restorative justice programmes build the evidence base that justifies policy expansion.
Victim-centred vs offender-centred: A common pitfall is restorative justice programmes that are de facto offender rehabilitation programmes, with victim participation as an afterthought. Strong restorative processes are genuinely victim-centred — participation is voluntary and the process proceeds at the victim's pace.
Facilitator quality: Restorative justice processes require skilled, well-supervised facilitators. Assess whether funded organisations have robust facilitator training and supervision.
Cultural safety: Restorative justice processes touch on traumatic experiences. Cultural safety for Māori, Pacific, and other community participants is essential. Assess whether funded organisations have culturally appropriate practice.
Integration with support systems: Standalone restorative justice — without connection to housing, employment, health, and addiction support — is less effective. Assess whether funded programmes are connected to wraparound support.
Community legitimacy: Restorative justice works within communities where it has legitimacy. Assess whether funded organisations are trusted within the communities they serve.
Tahua's grants management platform supports funders investing in justice reform and community safety — with the grant tracking, reporting, and portfolio analysis tools that help funders measure the impact of restorative justice investment.