This study assesses the use of reparation under the act with the use of data obtained from a variety of sources, including court files, the Wanganui Computer, judges, probation officers, crime victims, and the general public. This assessment found that reparation was imposed for 60 percent of the cases where there was an identifiable victim loss in police reports. Reparation was most often imposed if the police requested reparation for the victims in police reports or probation officers commented favorably on reparation in presentence reports. Most often, in cases that involved a victim loss and for which a presentence report was prepared, probation officers did not recommend that reparation be imposed. Reparation was seldom used as the sole sentence. Offenders sentenced to reparation during the first 3 months of 1988 were followed up after 1 year. A group of 1,672 offenders had been ordered to pay reparation of $1,071,633. Forty-eight percent of the total amount of reparation due to be paid within 1 year had been paid. The judges who were interviewed indicated that the most common consideration in deciding whether reparation is an appropriate penalty for a specific offender is the offender's means. The evaluation concludes that it is necessary to clarify whether or not the principal purpose of the reparation sentence is as an offender penalty or a victim service. Recommendations are offered for increasing the use of the reparation sentence. 22 references and appended tables