The program really aims for long-term results rather than short-term ones. It is difficult to obtain quantitative measurements on such a program. However, Lawson points to a study launched in 1997 at Indiana University that measured the overall satisfaction of offenders and victims who used a restorative justice approach. The findings were that “90% of victims were satisfied with the way their cases were handled, compared to 68% whose cases were handled by conventional means” (Lawson p186 2004). “80 percent of offenders completed their restitution agreements, compared to 58 percent for juveniles assigned to restitution through other means, and rearrest rates for those who completed restorative justice conferences were 25 to 45 percent. lower than those of their counterparts” (Lawson p186 2004). . To me this means the program is working. Since this program aims for long-term solutions, I would encourage communities that use restorative justice to monitor offenders. They should keep a working database with offender names and check in with law enforcement every few years to see how the offender is doing. I would follow each person for at least twenty years. I would continually check to see if the juvenile is still committing crimes, what types of crimes he or she is committing, and how much time passes between each crime.