Two of the restitution-collection programs, California and Michigan, differ in scale and some of the methods used, but both are grounded in a commitment by the State's chief justice to make increased restitution collections a priority. Both programs have adopted statewide mandates that allow local jurisdictions to use a certain number of best practices from a list developed at the State level. Both States have tools to help local courts improve their tracking and reporting of collections. A third paper addresses a statewide effort in Vermont that has a different framework than California and Michigan. Rather than improving local collection efforts throughout the State, Vermont has created a centralized Restitution Unit that pays individual victims upfront and then assumes the responsibility of collecting restitution payments from offenders. Two local restitution-collection programs are also featured. In Maricopa County, AZ, the commitment of a local judge and the probation department led to the creation of a Restitution Court that uses existing legal tools in order to improve restitution collection from offenders. In Florida's Eighth Judicial Circuit, Project Payback prioritizes victim restitution as a means of rehabilitating juvenile defendants and repair the harm done to their victims. All of the five programs have key elements in common: leadership from an individual with the authority to change the status quo; commitment to change and the development of collaboration; and openness to new thinking about the importance of restitution collection and ways of doing it. Each case study includes attachments of tools and documents used in the restitution-collection program.