Bail allows accused persons to remain free while preparing for trial in return from some insurance that they will appear when required. Texas recognizes personal recognizance, cash, and surety bonds, and some court sanction percent deposit bond procedures. In 1981, Texas passed a bill that minimized the risk involved in acting as surety. It created a monopoly for bondsmen and attorneys, prohibiting all others from making surety bonds in the State. Courtroom practices also contribute to minimizing the risk associated with bail bond forfeitures. The experiences of one Texas county illustrate a pattern of nonenforcement and noncollection of bail bond forfeitures for which both public officials and bondsmen share blame. In the assistance rendered to public officials in managing the jail population, in the diffusion of responsibility, in retrievals, in political favors and kickbacks, bondsmen assist public officals in the administration and conduct of the criminal justice system. Texas law should be reformed to prohibit attorneys from acting as bail bondsmen, to reduce the maximum remittitur amount to 95 percent of the bond value (the higher the remittitur, the less incentive for the defendant to appear in court), and to reduce the time period within which a maximum remittitur will be granted to 1 year following the signing of a judgment nisi or a judgment becoming final. Other specific statutory changes are recommended. The article also suggests that the State establish Bond Forfeiture Enforcement Units, independent of courthouse politics. A total of 198 footnotes and data illustrating bond collections and dispositions are provided.