THE HISTORICAL REVIEW SHOWS THAT THE CONCEPT OF RESTITUTION HAS UNDERGONE FOUR PHASES: A MEANS OF OBTAINING INDIVIDUAL VENGEANCE AND SATISFACTION, A STATE-REGULATED MEANS OF CURBING FEUDS FOR VENGEANCE, FINES PAID TO THE STATE, AND AN ELEMENT OF DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW. A DISCUSSION OF TERMINOLOGY POINTS OUT THAT RESTITUTION DIFFERS FROM VICTIM COMPENSATION IN THAT THE FORMER FOCUSES ON THE OFFENDER RATHER THAN THE VICTIM. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN DISCUSSIONS OF RESTITUTION ARE PRESENTED, TOGETHER WITH BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF RESTITUTION PROGRAMS IN TUCSON, ARIZ.; POLK COUNTY, IOWA; GEORGIA; MINNESOTA; AND COLUMBUS, OHIO. A TABLE SUMMARIZES THE MAJOR FEATURES (LEVEL IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, CLIENT POPULATION, RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL BASE) OF 19 RESTITUTION PROGRAMS. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING A STATEWIDE RESTITUTION PROGRAM IN OHIO COVER THE GOALS, PROCEDURES, AND STAFFING OF THE PROGRAM. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT NONMONETARY FORMS OF RESTITUTION BE PERMITTED WHEN NECESSARY, THAT CONTACT BETWEEN OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS BE ENCOURAGED, AND THAT THE COURT DESIGNATE THE TERMS OF RESTITUTION AFTER AN OFFENDER PLEADS GUILTY DURING ARRAIGNMENT OR IS FOUND GUILTY AFTER TRIAL. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT, IF AN OFFENDER FAILS TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OF RESTITUTION, THE ORIGINAL SENTENCING JUDGE SHOULD REVIEW THE CASE WITH BOTH THE OFFENDER AND THE VICTIM IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE TYPES OF RESTITUTION BEFORE RESORTING TO INCARCERATION. RESTITUTION IS TO BE USED AS A SOLE SANCTION RATHER THAN A SUPPLEMENTAL SANCTION AND IS TO BE MANDATORY FOR ALL PROPERTY OFFENDERS. METHODS OF DETERMINING RESTITUTION TERMS AND OF COLLECTING AND RECORDING RESTITUTION PAYMENTS ARE SUGGESTED, AND A STAFFING MODEL FOR THE PROGRAM IS PROPOSED. JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR A STATE RESTITUTION PLANNER AND FOR DISTRICT-LEVEL RESTITUTION SUPERVISORS AND SPECIALISTS ARE PRESENTED. A BIBLIOGRAPHY IS PROVIDED. (LKM)