The setting for the development of restitution programs is indicated to be an awareness of the poor cost-effectiveness of incarceration, disillusionment with the rehabilitation ideal, a focus on offender culpability and accountability, and increased attention to victim needs. In Great Britain, community service programs have given varying degrees of attention to punishment, reparation, and rehabilitation, although lack of precise legislative standards for community service has contributed to confusion about the prioritizing of these three objectives. There is also confusion about the implementation of restitution programs and community service in America due to an absence of precise legislation specifying the objectives and procedures for restitution programs. Legislation should specify the maximum limits for restitution sanctions according to offense so as to set parameters for judicial discretion. The effectiveness of restitution in both Great Britain and the United States can be measured by the percentage of offenders who complete restitution assignments, the extent to which it serves as an alternative to incarceration, and reduction in recidivism. In the first area, restitution orders do have a high percentage of completions, but it has had limited impact on the numbers of persons incarcerated, primarily because there is no statutory specification for its use with serious offenders. While there is no clear evidence yet in either country that restitution is more effective than incarceration in reducing recidivism, it is certainly not less effective, and it is less costly than incarceration. Suggestions are offered for how restitution programs can be improved.