Restitution programs have been conceived with a myriad of expected benefits, from victim compensation to alleviation of institutional overcrowding and cost savings. It is because of the multiple benefits expected that many restitution programs have failed as implementers have emphasized goals and benefits given lesser priority by policymakers: for example, some implementers of restitution programs have emphasized diversion from incarceration and system cost savings while policymakers gave priority to victims' receiving compensation from offenders' earnings in restitution programs. An important first step in conceptualizing restitution programs is to develop an awareness of the diversity of purposes for which restitution has been embraced by its various advocates. The next step is establishing a hierarchy of goals acknowledging preferences in the event of conflict between goals. Decisions can then be made about matching implementation strategies and operational procedures with the goals being sought and setting evaluation standards against which to make continual assessments. Eight references are listed.