The opportunities for restorative justice exist mostly on more local or state levels in the USA, and are represented to a limited degree. While I understand the rationale behind mandatory sentencing regulations and laws, they often conflict with and override local and state initiatives for restorative justice. There is no one size fits all, and the stakeholders are many.

At the time I was not familiar with the researched concepts of restorative vs retributive justice, but for several years when I worked in pubic mental health, I was the clinical consultant on a county (grant funded) Community Resource Court - a diversion program for people with mental health issues who ended up with criminal charges against them (usually relatively minor and never felony charges.) The "team" consisted of a judge, assistant prosecutors, probation and parole officers, mental health case managers, ACT team members, designated public defenders, and me. Our county also had a "Drug Resource Court" that was also a diversion program and operated in a similar manner.

Good programs and often effective. Also complex, given all the stake holders. The term "restorative justice" wasn't around then, but that essentially was the principle behind these two courts. Not appropriate for all offenders with mental health or substance abuse issues, and the sorting out of who was appropriate and who wasn't was a complex and imperfect task, but both were good and effective programs.