How were the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program awards calculated and who administered claim evaluations?

Checked on February 7, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

The Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program paid roughly $121–125 million to more than 135–150 survivors after vetting about 225 claims; awards were calculated on a claim‑by‑claim basis under a confidential, voluntary protocol and administered independently by Jordana H. Feldman and her team [1] [2] [3] [4]. The estate funded the payouts but, by design and repeated public statements, had no authority to alter eligibility determinations or award amounts, which the Administrator alone made in her “sole and exclusive discretion” [5] [6] [7].

1. The program structure: independent, voluntary, confidential

The Epstein VCP was created as a voluntary, non‑adversarial claims resolution program that accepted claims from people who had alleged sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and was administered independently of the estate; the program publicly emphasized confidentiality for claimants and that participation did not preclude later litigation unless a claimant executed a release accepting an award [6] [7] [2].

2. Who ran the evaluations: Jordana Feldman as sole Administrator

Jordana H. Feldman, a lawyer with prior experience on the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, was appointed the program’s Administrator and was repeatedly described as having exclusive authority to determine eligibility and award amounts, with Kenneth R. and other compensation‑program experts credited in the program’s design [2] [6] [7] [8].

3. The decision process: “bottom‑up, claim‑by‑claim” subjective assessments

According to descriptions from the Administrator and reporting, the program used an individual, bottom‑up approach that assigned a dollar value to each claimant based on the facts and circumstances of that person’s claim; Feldman has said the awards reflected her team’s experience with other compensation programs and individual determinations rather than a single mechanical formula [8] [7].

4. Evidence and credibility: what claimants had to show

Eligibility and award amounts were determined by assessing the credibility of the claim and any supporting evidence; public reporting and materials indicate administrators could rely on documentary proof or, in some cases, anecdotal testimony about physical or psychological injury, and the Administrator could meet claimants or their legal representatives as part of the review [9] [7] [10].

5. Funding and legal boundaries: estate paid, but couldn’t interfere

Epstein’s executors funded the program and paid awards from the estate, but the protocol and repeated public statements stressed that the estate could not reject or modify determinations issued by the Administrator, and the program operated “entirely independently” of the estate [5] [11] [6].

6. Scale and outcomes: applications, acceptance rates, and totals

The program received roughly 225 submissions, certified about 150 claimants as eligible and paid roughly $121–125 million to approximately 135–150 survivors, with about 92% of eligible claimants accepting the offers and a handful opting to reject awards to pursue civil litigation instead [1] [4] [2] [3] [11].

7. Critiques, limits, and contested valuations

Some survivor advocates and lawyers argued awards undervalued harm and that victims should have received larger shares of Epstein’s estate, an opinion Feldman herself noted publicly, while others praised the speed and validation the program provided compared with protracted litigation; a small number of claimants rejected program offers to continue lawsuits [8] [11] [2].

8. Important reporting gaps: no published numerical formula

Public program documents and news reporting establish that award determinations were discretionary and individualized, but none of the cited sources disclose a fixed points‑based rubric, a public matrix, or the precise valuation benchmarks used to translate injury, timing, or corroboration into dollar awards; therefore it is not possible from these sources to provide a precise algorithm or table of weights used by the Administrator [7] [8] [6].

Want to dive deeper?
What criteria did other large victim compensation funds (e.g., 9/11 VCF) use to value non‑economic harms and how do they compare to Epstein VCP descriptions?
Which claimants rejected Epstein VCP awards and what reasons did they give for pursuing litigation instead?
How have courts treated confidentiality and release provisions from the Epstein VCP in subsequent related lawsuits?