Before recent enactment of victim compensation programs by several States, victims could only recover losses through civil actions against the offender, insurance, or restitution. Like most compensation programs, the Texas Act compensates victims of violent crimes for pecuniary losses incurred as a result of their physical injuries and is administered by the Industrial Accident Board. Following a summary of eligibility requirements and claims procedures, theoretical justifications for victim compensation are explored. Some proponents of State programs claim that the State is obligated to protect the citizenry and should compensate victims of crime when it has failed in this duty, while others maintain that innocent victims are morally entitled to State aid. Realistically, the State has the unique ability to spread severe losses suffered by a relatively small number of victims. The Texas law mandates that the victim, regardless of the size of the loss, show that injuries have caused financial stress. The requirement imposes a substantial administrative burden on the board and involves an unwarranted invasion of the victim's financial privacy. The provision is neither fiscally justified nor related to the primary goal of loss spreading and should be deleted. Another weakness in the act is the household exclusion provision which can result in major injustices when applied to innocent children. Arguments advanced to justify this requirement are eviscerated by other provisions that prevent fraud and the compensation of victims partially to blame for the crime. The possibility of indirect benefit to the criminal could be eliminated by adoption of the unjust benefit exclusion clause of the Uniform Crime Victims Reparations Act. The effectiveness of any compensation statute will be influenced by adequate public information efforts, easy access to application forms, and the nature of these forms. Texas requires hospitals and law enforcement agencies to inform victims about the program, but needs to adopt a more aggressive publicity approach, improve police cooperation, and simplify claims procedures. The Son of Sam provision tries to preserve the criminal's crime-related profits for the victim's civil recovery, but may violate constitutional amendments protecting free speech and due process rights. Notwithstanding these imperfections, the Texas Act is a laudable effort that ranks the best of the State victim compensation acts. Statistics on claims and awards for the first quarter of 1980 are appended. Over 190 footnotes are provided.