A quasi-experimental study measured the program's effectiveness and its impact on criminal justice and government as viewed by board administrators and especially by violent crime victims. A comparative design contrasted the New York and New Jersey compensation plans, which differ in awarding compensation as welfare and as a matter of right, respectively. A control group of crime victims in Brooklyn and Newark, having no contact with their State's compensation plans, was compared to an experimental group in each city which had applied for compensation. Questionnaires were administered both to board officials and to 342 victims comprising the 4 separate samples. Findings indicate that victim compensation pays few violent crime victims and often inadequately. Applying for compensation does not improve victim attitudes of willingness to cooperate with law enforcement or government. It also does not produce more favorable attitudes than those held by victims not applying for compensation and, in fact, the attitudes frequently are worse. The two States' programs can be distinguished by their working atmospheres: New York's diverse and bureaucratic and New Jersey's homogeneous and personal. This difference constitutes the only major competition to the effects of the board's differing award philosophies (welfare versus right) for explaining why Newark claimants were significantly more satisfied (with compensation, criminal justice, and government) than Brooklyn claimants. Tables, survey questionnaires, and over 400 references are appended. Chapter notes are included. (Author abstract modified)