An examination of the various restitution responses to criminal behavior notes that the most frequently employed sanctions for offenders in the State restitution program being evaluated are financial restitution and, to a lesser extent, community service. However, some objectives overlap or conflict, as shown in the following three purposes frequently given for implementing a restitution and community service program: (1) to benefit the offender, (2) to benefit the victim or the community, and (3) to benefit the criminal justice system. The operations of the Minnesota Restitution Center are described to illustrate the difficulties encountered by restitution proponents. These difficulties resulted either because the basis for their support did not match other interest groups' motives for pursuing restitution, or because their restitution goals did not coincide with more general operating goals and procedures of agencies in the criminal justice system. Further instances of strategic or political manipulation of the restitution concept for ulterior purposes are cited form the Iowa, Georgia, and California projects. The establishment of diversionary residential programs and the assignment of program participants to community service work are two means by which restitution concept was manipulated without reference to crime victim restitution. It is concluded that, if potential competing interests among the advocates of restitution are not accommodated in the early stages of project planning, the exacerbation of difference may lead to failure when the restitution project is implemented. Footnotes are provided.