Perceptions of Procedural and Distributive Justice in the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

The September l1th Victim Compensation Fund (the Fund) was created in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Much has been written about the Fund, both pro and con, in both popular media and scholarly literature. Perhaps the most widely used term in referring to the Fund is "unprecedented." The Fund is intriguing for many reasons, particularly for its public policy implications and its impact on the claimants themselves. The federal government has never before provided compensation to victims of terrorism through a special master who had virtually unlimited discretion in determining awards. Consequently, this formal allocation of money by a representative of the federal government to its citizens has provided an opportunity to test theories of procedural and distributive justice in a novel context. This article tests these theories by analyzing the results of a study of the Fund's claimants. Part I provides general background, summarizes existing commentary on the Fund, and discusses prior research on social justice that is relevant to the 9/11 claimants' experiences with the Fund. Part II of this article describes the methodology behind the study, in which seventy-one individuals who filed claims with the Fund completed surveys about their experiences with and perceptions of the Fund. Part III discusses the survey results. We found that participants were reasonably satisfied with the procedural aspects of the Fund, such as representatives' impartiality and respectful treatment. Participants were less satisfied, however, with the distributive aspects of the Fund, such as the unequal distribution of compensation and the reduction in compensation if claimants received compensation from other sources (e.g., life insurance). Part IV of this article addresses the implications of the study results for public policy and for theories of social justice.

Modifying Fences to Prevent Ungulate Use of Cropland and High-Value Pastures

Big game can damage crops and compete with livestock for valuable forage. Ranchers have reported their tolerance for big game would increase if the animals could be prevented from using key areas critical for spring livestock use. Likewise, some farmers have high value areas that must be protected. Fences provide the most consistent long term control compared to other deterrent methods, but are costly to erect. Many designs of woven wire and electric fences are currently used. Costs of erecting deer proof fencing could be greatly reduced if an existing fence could be modified instead of being replaced entirely. This study investigates the possibility of modifying existing fences to prohibit deer and elk crossings. Preliminary results indicate effective modifications can be made to existing fences for $1300- $3500 per mile for materials. Traditional complete construction of game fences cost more than $10,000 per mile. These fences may be used in lieu of compensation programs for ranchers. Also, if farmers and ranchers can keep big game out of important foraging areas, their tolerance for these animals on the rest of their property may greatly increase.