Restitution was customary both in ancient civilizations and primitive societies, but its use diminished when victims lost their central role in the penal process. The concept resurfaced in the mid-1960's as penal reformers advocated two types of restitution: direct compensation of the victim by the offender and unpaid service for the larger community. Only a small minority of U.S. courts, however, order either of these sentences with regularity. The paucity of systematic studies of the effects of restitution and community service impedes their broader use by the courts. There is no evidence that using these sentences reduces the subsequent criminality of adult offenders. For juveniles, the sentences may have some positive effect. Both sentences are often advocated as alternatives to imprisonment. Judges are most likely to use these sentence alternatives when they are established as punitive and are enforced. If restitution and community service are to be used more in the future, there must be a concensus among judges as to why these sentences are imposed, under what conditions, and within what limits. 8 references, discussion questions. See NCJ 104210 for videotape.