Return to CRAT

In 1997 when the Civil Rights Action Team held their listening sessions in Albany, GA, New Orleans, LA, Halifax, NC, Belzoni, MS, and other places, they got an earful. Minority and limited-resource farmers recounted story after story of discrimination in the county offices of the FSA. If services were offered, delays and other things would block their usefulness.

More minorities were disapproved than non-minorities. In one state, 67% of African-American loans were approved and in another state 78%, which compared with 83% and 90% non-minority, makes things look pretty bad for the Black farmers of those states. In terms of processing times for loans, the process oftentimes took three times as long for minority farmers than for non-minority farmers. While limited-resource farmers have their own unique set of challenges given acreage, yield levels, problems with collateral, cash flow, etc., the sytem should not discriminate against Blacks versus non-Blacks.

Other problems were highlighted in the CRAT report such as lack of diversity on county committees, lack of availability of relief funding offered to White farmers, and lack of relief in the complaint processes, especially when the process leads back to the point at which the complaint was filed in the first place. Black farmers would often choose not to file a complaint because they were pessimistic about the potential outcome including fear of further reprisals. This was described as "the fox guarding the hen house (p. 24)."

One farmer is quoted in the CRAT as saying, "when hearings officers rule for the agencies, they were competent [upheld] 98 percent of the time, but when they ruled for the farmer, these same hearing officers were incompetent [reversed] over 50 percent of the time....This is indisputable evidence of bias and discrimination against a whole class of farmers..... (p. 24)."

Another farmer said, "I felt like that if I enter a complaint, then that would just speed up (the) foreclosure process on me. And I didn't want to do that, because some farmers, they already have complaints in with Farmers Home. And it didn't do them any good (p. 24)."

A graphic illustration was described by a farmer in the southeast: ".....and we never received our moneys on time. We never received our moneys on time. Which normally you would get a check November/December so you could start paying for the upcoming year. But I’ve never received a loan to my memory, it was already into the operating years, most of the time it was April when I received the money. My records would show that, that it was mostly in April when I would receive my loan. Too late to plant, actually to receive the total benefits from your crop that it was able to produce the maximum amount of production. It was too late to get that, receiving your moneys in April. You plant in maybe the last of April and May. You never would see the full benefits of the production from the crop."

He was one of those few who prevailed under the Pigford Class Action Case, so he still owns the land and is on the land, working the land, but it hasn't been easy. It's been far more difficult than for the average farmer in that area.