COST CONTROL IS THE MAJOR THEME OF THE COMPENSATION PROGRAMS EXAMINED. IN GIVING PRIORITY TO COST CONTROL, MANY JUSTIFIED CLAIMS ARE EXCLUDED FROM COMPENSATION. WHILE FAIRNESS SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING WHICH EXCLUSIONS ARE PROPER, EFFORTS AT COST CONTROL AND THE THREAT OF LOSING FEDERAL FUNDS MAKE MANY EXCLUSIONS APPARENTLY ARBITRARY. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS THE FEDERAL MODEL WILL TEND TO CREATE UNIFORMITY IN STATE COMPENSATION PROGRAMS. HOWEVER, THE STANDARD OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPARABILITY SEEMS TO CONTAIN ENOUGH FLEXIBILITY TO GIVE THE STATES FREEDOM TO LEGISLATE MINOR MODIFICATIONS THAT MAKE PROVISIONS MORE RATIONAL AND LESS ARBITRARY. ONE RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION IS REPLACEMENT OF THE ARBITRARY RELATIONSHIP TESTS WITH FUNCTIONAL TESTS FOR DETERMINING A COMPENSABLE OFFENSE, WHO IS A DEPENDENT, AND WHO IS RELATED TO THE OFFENDER. AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION IS TO QUALIFY EACH RELATIONSHIP TEST WITH A CLAUSE ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS IN SITUATIONS WHERE JUSTICE DICTATES AN AWARD. THE FINANCIAL NEED REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE ABOLISHED, ALONG WITH THE MINIMUM CLAIM REQUIREMENT, AND THE MAXIMUM AWARD CEILING SHOULD BE ELEVATED TO CORRESPOND WITH THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL FIGURE OF $50,000. LIMITS ON THE AMOUNT OF EMERGENCY AWARDS SHOULD ALSO BE ABOLISHED. FINALLY, THE CATEGORIES OF COLLATERAL SOURCE PAYMENTS DEDUCTIBLE FROM THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD OTHERWISE PAYABLE SHOULD BE NARROWED TO EXCLUDE PAYMENTS FOR LIFE INSURANCE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND WELFARE. ALTERNATIVELY, ALL DEDUCTIONS SHOULD BE MADE FROM THE TOTAL LOSS INCURRED RATHER THAN FROM THE AWARD THAT WOULD BE OTHERWISE PAYABLE. (RCB)