It proposes that, although the present return is low (a recovery of $2 per $100 during the first 3 months of 1979), attempts to recover state-expended compensation funds from offenders are justified on the grounds of the public desire to see equitable justice done. The paper then assesses four different methods of recovery: (1) diverting revenue from fines or other monetary penalties to the fund; (2) imposing a levy or surcharge on convictions or monetary penalities; (3) requiring that criminal court compensation orders be payable by the offender to the fund and not directly to the victim; and (4) negotiating with offenders and proceeding by the civil process via subrogation of the victim's civil claim. The first two methods are found to be unacceptable in principle since they appear to violate the concepts of equitable and equal justice and the third would jeopardize the effective use of the compensation order as a criminal sanction. The last alternative is the most acceptable in principle but ineffective in practice because of the poverty or lack of resources of most offenders. It is proposed that the concept of community service be expanded to serve state compensation agencies as a method of recovery. Four references are given. (Author abstract modified)