Long Time Coming and to What End, Part II

I realize that stats and numbers are really dry, are rarely interesting, but please hang in their with me as I line things out to let us all know where we are with the workings of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

And here, the wheels of justice also ground slowly. Farmers who claimed to be "distressed borrowers" received their checks almost immediately under section 22006. As of January 15, 2025, the FSA had paid out over $2.74B to more than 58,000 farmers and ranchers who had outstanding debts. This was a "race neutral" law signed by Congress and the President. Race neutral meant any farmer of any color or gender or sexual orientation could be eligible. The maximum for this category was $3.1B. Only 2,225 Black farmers were eligible and received debt relief. My understanding is that since the USDA/FSA knew about the indebtedness, a check was simply cut and shipped to their checking account. At one point in time, our group of advocates across the country could count on two hands the number of Black farmers who had benefitted from this operation. In one case, the dollars were so far away from actual indebtedness that the farmer refused it. 

Here's the problem. By all acceptable methods of counting, in 2012 there were 46,582 Black farmers; in 2017 there were 48,697; and in 2022 there were 46,738.  And if there are by all means available counting 13,000+ Black farmers in Texas, why are there only 2,225 reported as prevailing under 22006. If these 2,225 are .038% of the grand total of farmers who prevailed under 22006, then their total anticipated income would be $104,166,236. Or, figured another way, the mean of dollars received would be $46,816. These figures do not add up against themselves or against the figures USDA released as part of the 22007 package. 

These numbers do not compare favorably with the Ag Census data nor the data released by the USDA that account for funding under section 22007

At one point a few months back, I reported on these pages that a staffer of a congressional had shared with us that the total indebtedness for all Black farmers was approximately $210,000,000 for 3,100 farmers. 

Again, the numbers do not add up. Even with Ag Sec Tom Vilsack and the FSA reporting numbers by state X borrowers, X number of loans, X IRA payment, and X race, the numbers do not add up. Even if we add another 198 for those who identify as biracial, i.e., Black/African American and other races, the total only comes to 2,423, not 3,100. The total of dollars allocated was $104M+ and not $310M. 

Something still looks pretty crooked. 

Also found within the pages of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 was section 22007 or $2.2B for those farmers/ranchers of any color, age, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., who could prove that they had been discriminated against. Since this is "race neutral," and not just for farmers and ranchers who qualify for the 2501 designation, the number should be astronomically high. 

My assertion all along has been that by adding other farmers to the 2501 categories, that the number of dollars would be artificially dampened as more people are added to the pool. The total pool of $2.2B would not change, but the total gaining access to it. It made no sense to me that there would be an outpouring of farmers and ranchers other than African Americans and a few other minorities. 

A set of factors that artifically suppressed the numbers for this section, also known as DFAP, or Discrimination Financial Assistance Program. Applicants had a very narrow deadline, from July 7, 2024 to January 17, 2025. Each had to fill out a 40-page document complete with necessary papers.  The burden of proof was on the farmers. There was no appeals process. One of two "hubs" would process the documents, and the final decision would be a third party entity in concert with Secretary Vilsack and the USDA.  

Lest my comments be met with skepticism, several months back, I lined out the malfeasance committed against the Black farmers who participated in the documentary co-produced by Shoun Hill and Waymon Hinson. A review of that page could clarify pretty much what Black farmers face unlike white farmers. 

Under section 22007, there was no onerous application process and the money was automatically transferred into the farmer's account with the Farm Service Administration County Office. Much easier than for Black farmers.  

At the end of the day, USDA reported that 58,000 applied to the two hubs via the three hub process and the 40-page document process. More than 23,000 prevailed, or 54% of all applicants. Those who prevailed received awards totaling $1.9B and individually $10K to $500K. Over 20,000 awards went to applicants who had planned to farm but were prohibited from doing so. They received $101M with awards ranging from $3,500 to $6,000. 

The USDA released data by state, number of recipients, total dollars for those recipients, the number of producers, the number of planned producers, congressional district within each state, race/color/national origin/ethnicity, sex/sexual orientation/gender identity, marital status, age, religion, disability, acreage,  reprisal for prior civil rights activity, and total number, dollars, and producers by category. 

The document reports that Black or African American recipients, or 38,263, or all producers numbering 19,585, or planned producers of 18,678 prevailed to the tune of $1,622,788,610. All recipients numbering 43,244 received $1,998,580,380. 

Readers must do their own math in order to drill down for more specifics. For instance, if you want to know the number of Black farmers who prevailed, you have to calculate the percentage of Black farmers from the data provided. And if you want to know how Black farmers prevailed financially, you have to calculate those figures. 

One of the more fascinating features of the DFAP document was for state total and then for various districts within the states. I only tallied the number of Black farmers by districts in Texas. The lowest district, for instance, was District 19 which covers West Texas. There were only sixteen Black farmers in that district. Or District 31 in Central Texas had only 8 Black farmers who prevailed. The largest district for the number of Black farmers was District 17 in Central East Texas that had 67 Black farmers who prevailed. People living in specific states will find this data of much interest. 

The report of "Black or African American" were of much interest. The total number of recipients was 38,263 while the actual number of current producers in 19,585. Those who planned to farm but could not due to discrimination numbered 18,678.  When comparing these figures with the reported number of 3,100 from a congressional's office, the numbers do not compute well. That 19K+ would report discrimination when 3K+ are farming, where do the additional 11K+ go? Is it accurate to say that 19K+ report discrimination and have it validated out of a total of 3K+? The number is staggering. 

Some truths are stranger than fiction. Since I live in Texas, I have a deep interest in matters related to Black farmers in this state. I follow the Texas Small Farmers & Ranchers Community-Based Organization with much interest. When the data for the awards was released, I immediately went to Texas' information. Texas, according to the 2022 Ac Census has 10,818 Black farmers on 7,235 farms, by far the largest numbers in the country. However, the DFAP document indicated that there are 1,311 recipients in Texas who received $59,157,570. There are 661 producers and 650 planned producers, those who wanted to farm but were prohibited from doing so by USDA's malfeasance. The average farmer received $45,124, no doubt lowered by the large number of planned producers who received lesser sums of money. Still, however, the gap between 10,818 farmers and 1,311 who participated in the DFAP process is quite stark. One farmer volunteered that there is a low level of trust in USDA, so fewer Black farmers would particpate in the process. Makes sense to me. 

Data revealed that the award type fell into categories of $10,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to $99,999, $100,000 - $249,999, $250,000 - $499,999, and $500,000. The bill written by Congress created an arbitrary cap of $500K regardless of the figures reached by the farmer in terms of actual damages. Some farmers also were told not to participate in this process because it would inhibit their being appropriately award under individual or class action suits later on. This has turned out to be fallacious. 

Curiously enough, the lowest category resulted in awards to 14,543 and the cumulative of the other categories added up to 8,627. The cap of $500K was reached by 889 farmers. 

I am supposing that some of my melanin-challeged friends are saying, "What a waste! Why give away dollars to undeserving farmers and ranchers?"  To which I'd reply, "What do you mean, 'waste' and 'undeserving'?" White folks need  to step out of their whiteness and learn about people of different races, because after all, we are all Americans regardless of how we look. 

One penalty is hard to explain. One set of farmers, white farmers, got a specific 1099 which did not demand payment of taxes. They got a free card to get out of the proverbial economic jail. For others, specifically Black farmers got a specific type of 1099 that demands that taxes be paid on the amount allocated on the 1099. For many, that will put them under. They don't actually see the money, and they are not required to pay taxes on it. If they were under, stayed under, and now have to pay taxes, how much under do you have to be before you can't breathe. 

I'm hoping against hope for my Black brothers and sisters, that they have the wherewithall and the economics to pay their taxes and that there is enough from this settlement to give them a new lease on life. 

For some farmers, the dollars are too little too late. For others, it was not enough to get them going again. There may be enough to pay off the feed company or the implement company, but very little to start over again. For others, it's a real do over and we're all celebrating with them. 

"How Many Deaths Will It Take.....?" Or Will the USDA's Discrimination Funds Settle the Score?

“Blowin’ In the Wind,” originally written and recorded by Bob Dylan back in the ‘60s sends a chilling message to those of us who are involved in the Black Farmer Movement. Here is a cover by Pentatonix that moves me deeply. The line, “How many deaths will it take till we know that too many people have died?” sends chills down my spine. And the refrain, “The answer is blowin’ in the wind” rings true. Sometimes in radio programs or presentations or even the Whistleblowers Conference and Film Festival, we will read the names of Black farmers who have died fighting these battles. Seeing that list and reading those names brings tears to our eyes as our emotions run deep.

By now many know that checks have been written to various farmers of all races and genders from the United States Department of the Treasury. We know that some are pleased and some are still in agony, and those are just the ones who applied.  

But the questions remain, how did we get here? And what were the governmental processes that allow for these decisions to be made?

You will find in other places my opinions about how Black farmers have been discriminated against since the very beginning of the US Department of Agriculture from the days of President Lincoln all the way up to now. Those articles of mine and of others tell the brutal truth of “farming while Black in America.” It is an ugly picture, especially for those of us who value our country and freedom to choose and the knowledge that we will be respected as all of us are created equal.

The Justice for Black Farmers Act never saw the light of day, but we appreciate its authors, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Raphael Warnock, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, and perhaps others.

While the American Rescue Plan Act was being debated back in 2021, Senator Warnock placed a couple of things into the Bill that was a stroke of genius. That Bill, had it not been sabotaged by a group of white farmers with their racist, in my opinion, attorneys, would have covered 100% of the farmers’ indebtedness plus 20% for taxes. However, as I have written elsewhere, Secretary Vilsack slow-walked the process, American bankers protested, and lawsuits were filed in the name of “reverse discrimination” across the country. Two judges made decisions to halt the process of covering the indebtedness of Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (SDFF).

Then, Congress, knowing that a “race neutral” approach must be used, developed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2023 and with it were two significant areas for farmers, regardless of color or gender or any number of other areas where discrimination can occur. Section 22006 offered $3.1B for “distressed borrowers” and wiped out the debts of Black farmers back to owing $0 plus one extra check to give them a heads up. We know of several who were recipients of these funds.

Section 22007 provided $2.2B for those who could prove that they had been discriminated against. Some thought of this as a great deal, but others of us knew better.

This is where it gets interesting for those of us in the Black Farmer Movement.

The USDA, first of all, issued an announcement about it. It even had a catchy acronym, the DFAP program, the “Discrimination Financial Assistance Program.”  For those who like a lot of details, here is the website.  

The DFAP evaluation guide is a 201-page document. Those wish to do deep dives into processes for receiving application forms, how they were adjudicated, and all, this source is invaluable.

Second, there were a number of flaws in the process and we protested about it. For instance, no immediate ag economist was involved, no fees for lawyers, no appeals process, and Black farmers had to submit a 40-page document while white farmers completed a three-page process. We understand that white farmers had their checks almost immediately, as within a few days, while Black farmers had to wait and wait and wait.

Third, the USDA appointed two “hubs” with a rather limited range of experiences with farmers in general and aggrieved farmers specifically. USDA paid these entities millions of dollars. Those hubs were Analytic Acquisitions and Windsor Group. The national administrator group was The Midtown Group. See this page for details.

Fourth, a number of “cooperators” were brought on board, most if not all without any application process, but instead were those identified by Secretary Vilsack as “friendly” to the USDA. I wrote about them in another location, about how this process was flawed from the get go. On the other hand, it is true that these “cooperators” were able to surface, meet, and inform Black farmers as to processes. I listened to one early on as the speaker informed listeners as to broad generalizations of the program. Then, later I listened to a person with more details about the process. Here is the announcement by USDA as the process came to a close.

Fifth, the process dragged on for months, deadlines were changed, and eventually an announcement was released with a number of curious details. While Secretary Vilsack has maintained that releasing data by race is illegal despite the fact that it is mandated in the 2008 Farm Bill and again in the 2018 Farm Bill.

According to the USDA,

 

“The recipients include over 23,000 individuals who have or had a farming or ranching operation, who are receiving between $10,000 and $500,000 of assistance, with an average of nearly $82,000. Recipients also include over 20,000 individuals who planned to have a farming or ranching operation, but reported they were unable to do so because they couldn’t get a USDA loan. These individuals are receiving between $3,500 and $6,000 of assistance, with an average of $5000.”

Other sources released information as to numbers and dollars. These details add to the information we need but that the USDA is concealing from us, because “it would make us look bad,” so an insider told us. We are informed that 58,000 applied for the funds for discrimination, 48,000 “prevailed,” and received some sum of money from the $2.2B pot. A majority of the 48,000 were Black farmers and ranchers and they received $1.76B of the total pot of $2.2B. Over 80% were Black farmers who received these funds. Over 70% of the Black farmers are from the southeastern region of the US. Those who attempted to farm but were kept from it received anywhere from $3,500 to $6,000. The average payout was $82,000.

At the end of the day, it is a mixed bag. Some farmers are very pleased with their check. Some are extremely disappointed. At face value, probably there is not a Black farmer in the country who received a check in the total amount of damages incurred. Some readers may remember that scholars estimated that between 1920 and 1997 Black farmers lost approximately $326B in generational wealth that their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will never see.

In addition to those disappointed with the numbers on their checks, there is a sizeable group of Black farmers who did not trust the process that USDA utilized, so they did not apply for the DFAP funds. There is another group of farmers who were told by at least one person who had at one point held a high position with USDA that applying for these funds would disallow applying for other funds via individual lawsuits or class action suits. That is not the case, but some of our people trusted misinformation.

Ultimately, “the last plantation” lives on and as it does Black farmers and family members continue to suffer under the boot to the neck of injustices. Until USDA wipes out racism from its halls and offices and personnel, discrimination will continue.