Ongoing Efforts to Enhance Minority Farmers’ Participation in Farm Programs

FSA’s efforts to achieve equitable treatment for minority farmers are overseen by the agency’s Civil Rights and Small Business Development Staff. During fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the Staff closed 28 cases in which discrimination was alleged on the basis of race or national origin. In addition to investigating individual complaints of discrimination, the Staff periodically evaluates state and county offices’ compliance with EEO and civil rights requirements as part of its routine assessments of these offices’ overall operations. None of the evaluations concluded that minority farmers were being treated unfairly. More recently, in July 1996, FSA created an outreach office to increase minority farmers’ knowledge of, and participation in, the Department’s agricultural programs. Employment of Minority Staff in County Offices and Representation of Minority Farmers on County Committees

In the 101 counties with the highest numbers of minority farmers, representing 34 percent of all minority farmers in the nation, FSA employees and county committee members were often members of a minority group. Eighty-nine percent of these employees were county executive directors, who manage the operations of FSA’s programs, or program assistants, who, among other things, provide information on programs to farmers. In these 101 counties, minority farmers make up about 17 percent of the farmer population. Reasons Provided for Disapprovals of ACP and Direct Loan Applications

According to FSA’s data, applications for the ACP for fiscal year 1995 and for the direct loan program from October 1994 through March 1996 were disapproved at a higher rate nationwide for minority farmers than for nonminority farmers. To assess the differences in disapproval rates, we examined the direct loan applications for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 at five district loan offices.Table 2 shows the number of applications for direct loans during this period for minority and nonminority farmers in each of the five districts, as well as the number and percent of applications disapproved. Our review of the direct loan program files in these locations showed that FSA’s decisions to approve and disapprove applications appeared to follow USDA’s established criteria. These criteria were applied to the applications of minority and nonminority farmers in a similar fashion and were supported by materials in the files. Finally, we obtained information on the equal employment opportunity and civil rights training the Staff has provided to the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) employees. To examine minority staffing in county offices and minority representation on county committees, we first used the 1992 Census of Agriculture to identify the 101 counties with the highest numbers of minority farmers.We then used the Department’s databases to obtain information on the number of minority staff serving the 101 counties and the number of minority farmers on the county committees in each of these counties. To examine the treatment of minority farmers at the local level, we visited county offices and district loan offices that either had higher disapproval rates for minority than nonminority farmers for the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) in fiscal year 1995 and for the direct loan program from October 1994 to March 1996 or had high numbers of minority farmers.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) efforts to conduct farm programs in an equitable manner, focusing on: (1) FSA efforts to treat minority farmers in the same way as nonminority farmers in delivering program services; (2) minority representation in county office staffing and on county committees in the counties with the highest numbers of minority farmers; and (3) the disposition of minority and nonminority farmers' applications for participation in the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP) and the direct loan program at the national level and in five county and five district loan offices.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) FSA's Civil Rights and Small Business Development staff oversees the agency's efforts to achieve equitable treatment for minority farmers; (2) in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the staff closed 28 complaints of discrimination against farmers on the basis of race or national origin, and found discriminatory practices in 2 of the 28 cases; (3) in addition, as part of its routine assessments of FSA's overall operations in 13 states, the staff assessed the performance of the agency's employees in treating all farmers equitably, but none of the evaluations found that minority farmers were being treated unfairly; (4) the staff has also trained about one-half of FSA'S employees in equal employment opportunity and civil rights matters and expects to finish training all of the employees by the end of 1997; (5) in July 1996, FSA created an outreach office to increase minority farmers' participation in, and knowledge of, the Department's agricultural programs; (6) at the time of GAO's review, 32 percent of FSA's employees serving the 101 counties with the highest numbers of minority farmers were members of a minority group; (7) about 90 percent of these employees were county executive directors or program assistants involved in conducting and managing FSA programs; (8) minority farmers make up about 17 percent of the farmer population in these counties; (9) at the national level, FSA data show that applications for the ACP in fiscal year 1995 and for the direct loan program from October 1994 through March 1996 were disapproved at a higher rate for minority farmers than for nonminority farmers; (10) three of the five county offices GAO visited had higher disapproval rates for minority farmers than for nonminority farmers applying to the ACP, and three of the five district loan offices GAO visited had higher disapproval rates for minority farmers than for other farmers applying for the direct loan program; and (11) GAO's review of the information in the application files in these offices showed that decisions to approve or disapprove applications were supported by information in the files and that decision-making criteria appeared to be applied to minority and nonminority applicants in a similar fashion.