VISIONS FOR THE FUTURE

Expanding programming

Many practitioners expressed their visions for RJ in Michigan and beyond. These included robust programming in schools, sustainable and holistic alternatives to incarceration, especially for youth and substance abuse issues, and access to a network of like-minded practitioners.

Nearly every practitioner that I spoke with expressed a desire to see more RJ-based programming across sectors in Michigan. More specifically, there was a desire for holistic RJ programming which attends to all areas of an individual's life, beyond the incident of harm. Moreover, school-based practitioners were dissatisfied with the way school districts have adopted RJ in practice, and reported the need for funding to support the training of all school staff and the hiring of dedicated RJ staff. In essence, practitioners wanted to see a "restorative justice culture" within schools rather than schools using RJ exclusively to deal with conflicts and disciplinary issues.

There was also widespread support among practitioners for holistic court-based RJ programming, including expanding eligibility to adults and violent offenses.

Tashmica Torok, founding co-Executive Director of The Firecracker Foundation said during our interview, " we aren't going to stop sexual violence by just healing survivors". Her sentiments, mirrored by many other practitioners I interviewed, reflect an understanding of how cycles of violence might be interrupted if victims/survivors and harm doers were provided with wrap-around services to support their healing and reintegration into the community Accordingly, several practitioners felt that the current status of RJ programming within the legal system is insufficient to stem the patterns of harm in communities Instead, their visions for RJ necessarily implicate adequately funded and expertly staffed diversion programming which is accessible to as many people as possible. However, practitioners also recognized the limitations of relying on the legal system to transform communities and expressed visions of communitybased interventions which circumvent the legal system entirely and allow community members the agency to facilitate accountability between each other.

Networking and connection

The other emergent theme across interviews with practitioners was a desire for intentional community Many practitioners expressed an interest in community and network-building with other practitioners. Some practitioners were contending with workplace limitations and bureaucracy which prevented them from engaging with community-driven RJ and broader social justice work. Furthermore, practitioners discussed the need for community as a source of peer support for those doing RJ work that is particularly demanding of one ' s psychological and emotional capacities. In addition, practitioners wanted opportunities to engage in mutual learning and skill-sharing outside of conventional modes of formal training, etc. Overall, practitioners expressed a need for communal spaces outside of their respective work contexts as a way to stay connected with like-minded others and as a way to strengthen their skills as facilitators.