This article presents the results of intervention research that compared the impact on victims of restorative and conventional approaches to juvenile justice. Using a quasi-experimental design that allowed for statistical control of select pre-intervention differences, victims were compared on nine variables across the domains of accountability, relationship repair, and closure. A brief review that describes and locates each variable in the literature is offered to provide clarity about their conceptual meaning. The findings support the conclusion that restorative responses in the aftermath of harm are significantly more beneficial for victims than conventional approaches.