EVEN THOUGH THIS BILL REPRESENTS A PROPER REFORM, IN ITS PRESENT FORM THE BILL SUFFERS FROM MANY OF THE SAME SHORTCOMINGS WHICH HAVE CHARACTERIZED THE LEGISLATION OF MANY OTHER STATES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE BILL CONTAINS NO PROVISION FOR ADVERTISING THE PROGRAM'S EXISTENCE. INSTEAD IT RELIES ON MEDICAL PERSONNEL, RATHER THAN THE POLICE, TO INFORM VICTIMS OF THE PROGRAM. SUCH AN APPROACH CAN ONLY BE CHARACTERIZED AS ONE OF BENIGN NEGLECT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE NEW YORK EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT EVEN WITH AN ACTIVE PUBLICITY PROGRAM MOST CITIZENS REMAIN UNAWARE OF THE STATE PROGRAM. THE FAILURE TO IMPOSE MORE ACTIVE DUTIES ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MAY BE BUT ONE EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IOWA BILL FAILS TO MEET STANDARDS SET FORWARD IN PENDING FEDERAL LEGISLATION. AN EXAMINATION OF THE HISTORY, THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS, AND ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL VICTIM COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, LEADS INTO A DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE IOWA BILL. THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIMANTS, HARDSHIP REQUIREMENTS, COMPENSABLE LOSSES, MONETARY LIMITS ON AWARDS, COMPENSABLE CRIMES, ADMINISTRATION, PROCEDURE, AND PAYMENT PROVISIONS ARE EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND COMPARED TO OTHER STATES. IOWA LEGISLATORS SHOULD KEEP INFORMED OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION IN THIS AREA. IN ADDITION, THEY SHOULD EXAMINE THE DATA CONTAINED IN THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF SIMILAR PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES. THIS SHOULD ENABLE IOWANS TO PROFIT FROM THE MISTAKES OF OTHERS AND TO ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF A FAIR AND EFFICIENT PROGRAM. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KCP)