With the proliferation of restitution and community service sentencing practices and programs in the United States, a variety of individual and institutional rationales and approaches have developed. Such programs focus on offender rehabilitation, punishment of the offender, compensation of the victim, and/or education of the community. It is suggested that the historical failure of court processing is that it separates itself from those it supposedly serves. Decisions are made on restitution orders without consulting other sources. In addition, court officials must be careful not to subtly discriminate by favoring restitution programs for those offenders whose higher incomes allow them to pay victims more readily. With regard to the community, one of the major difficulties in the rehabilitation of prisoners has been their separation from familial and community ties. Formal programs can offer opportunities to show restitutioners that they are part of the community, thereby diminishing their alienation Like offenders, victims have feelings about specific criminal events that could best be served by offering full services of counseling, assistance, and opportunities for emotional expression. Financial reimbursement can certainly begin to satisfy victim desires for repayment but may ultimately foster a fragmenting of the victim from the offender, court, and community unless preventive measures are taken. Restitution needs the support of local public service organizations such as women's leagues and government agencies. Public sponsorship is necessary for funding and media support. Involvement of the business sector of the community is also crucial for restitution program support and survival. Finally, the teacher, student, or researcher should approach the practice of restitution with a community-based orientation. Footnotes and an appendix of recommendations are provided.