Department of Agriculture
Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers Would Benefit from Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights Program Gao ID: GAO-02-1124T September 25, 2002For years, some minority and women farmers have alleged that the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) discriminates against them, treating them differently from other farmers during the loan approval or foreclosure process. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, FSA took, on average, four days longer to process loan applications from Hispanic farmers than it did for non-Hispanic farmers: 20 days versus 16 days. The FSA's direct loan approval rate was somewhat lower for Hispanic farmers than for non-Hispanic farmers nationwide: 83 and 90 percent, respectively. USDA's policies for staying foreclosures when discrimination has been alleged depend on the method used to lodge complaints. When an individual's discrimination complaint is accepted by the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), FSA's policy is to automatically issue a stay of adverse action, such as foreclosure, until the complaint has been resolved. OCR has made modest progress in the length of time it takes to process discrimination complaints. USDA requires OCR to complete the investigative phase of processing a complaint within 180 days of accepting it. In fiscal year 2000, OCR took an average of 365 days to complete just the investigative phase. Although OCR slightly improved this average to 315 days in fiscal year 2001, this continues to exceed the department's internal 180-day requirement.
GAO-02-1124T, Department of Agriculture: Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers Would Benefit from Improvements in the Operations of the Civil Rights Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1124T
entitled 'Department of Agriculture: Hispanic and Other Minority
Farmers Would Benefit from Improvements in the Operations of the Civil
Rights Program' which was released on September 25, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Testimony:
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and
Forestry, Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 a.m. Wednesday, September 25,
2002:
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE:
Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers Would Benefit from Improvements in
the Operations of the Civil Rights Program:
USDA Civil Rights:
Statement of Lawrence J. Dyckman,
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-02-1124T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate this opportunity to come before you today to discuss our
work related to civil rights issues at the Department of Agriculture
(USDA). As you know, for a number of years, some minority and women
farmers have asserted that the USDA‘s Farm Service Agency (FSA)
discriminates against them, treating them differently from other
farmers during the loan approval or foreclosure process. Furthermore,
USDA has faced charges that its Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has not
conducted proper and timely investigations of complaints of
discrimination.
In my testimony today, I will address (1) differences in the processing
times and approval rates for direct loans for Hispanic farmers and non-
Hispanic farmers, (2) USDA‘s policies for staying foreclosures and how
these policies have been implemented, and (3) OCR‘s progress in
addressing previously identified problems associated with untimely
processing of discrimination complaints and human capital issues. Our
statement is based on the report that we issued September 20, 2002, to
Representatives Baca and Reyes.[Footnote 1]
In summary:
* During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, FSA took, on average, 4 days
longer to process loan applications from Hispanic farmers than it did
for non-Hispanic farmers: 20 days versus 16 days. We also found that
the FSA‘s direct loan approval rate was somewhat lower for Hispanic
farmers than for non-Hispanic farmers nationwide: 83 and 90 percent,
respectively. Although FSA monitors variations in loan processing times
and approval rates between minorities and non-minorities, it does not
have established criteria for determining when variations are
significant enough to warrant further inquiry. In addition, while FSA
conducts periodic field reviews of state offices‘ performance in civil
rights matters and suggests improvements, it does not require the state
offices to implement the recommendations and does not monitor the
offices‘ follow-up efforts.
* USDA‘s policies for staying foreclosures when discrimination has been
alleged depend on the method used to lodge complaints. When an
individual has a discrimination complaint accepted by OCR, FSA‘s policy
is to automatically issue a stay of adverse action, such as
foreclosure, until the complaint has been resolved. Although FSA
followed this policy in most of the cases we reviewed, it did not
always do so because of miscommunication with OCR in reconciling their
respective lists of complainants. In contrast, USDA does not have a
similar policy for staying foreclosures for members of discrimination
class actions. Instead, USDA makes these stay of foreclosure decisions
on a case-by-case basis, considering the merits of each class action.
Since 1997, USDA has issued stays of foreclosure for two class actions-
-although the stay has expired for one of these groups--but has not
issued stays for two other class actions, including the Hispanic
farmers‘ suit, because the agency believes that the circumstances did
not warrant a stay.
* OCR has made modest progress in the length of time it takes to
process discrimination complaints. USDA requires OCR to complete the
investigative phase of processing a complaint within 180 days of
accepting it. In fiscal year 2000, OCR took an average of 365 days to
complete just the investigative phase. Although OCR slightly improved
this average to 315 days in fiscal year 2001, this continues to far
exceed the department‘s internal 180-day requirement. More importantly,
because USDA does not have a processing time requirement for all phases
of complaint resolution, the department lacks a meaningful way to
measure its overall performance. When all stages of complaint
resolution are accounted for, average processing time decreased from
772 days in fiscal year 2000 to 676 days in fiscal year 2001. Although
OCR has implemented many recommendations made in the past by USDA‘s
Inspector General and agency task forces, these actions have not
resolved fundamental, underlying problems adversely affecting the
office‘s ability to process complaints in a timely manner. Of most
significance, OCR continues to experience problems in obtaining and
retaining staff with the requisite skills needed to process complaints.
Severe morale problems and poor working relationships among staff have
exacerbated these problems and hindered OCR‘s ability to significantly
improve its complaint processing times.
To help reduce problems and confusion surrounding stays of foreclosure
in cases where discrimination has been alleged, we recommended in our
report that FSA and OCR improve communication about the status of
complaints; develop a policy statement that explains how USDA makes
stay of foreclosure decisions when class action lawsuits have been
filed; and retain historical information on foreclosures. To help
improve the timeliness of processing discrimination complaints filed by
farmers, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture establish
time requirements for all stages of the complaint process and develop
an action plan to address ongoing staffing problems. In responding to a
draft of our report, USDA generally agreed with these recommendations.
Background:
Among other things, FSA is responsible for implementing USDA‘s direct
and guaranteed loan programs. FSA‘s district office staff administer
the direct loan program and have primary decision-making authority for
approving loans. As of September 30, 2001, there were about 95,000
borrowers with direct loans outstanding, with an unpaid principal
balance of about $8.5 billion. FSA farm loan managers are responsible
for approving and servicing these loans. The factors FSA staff consider
in approving or denying a loan include the applicant‘s eligibility,
(i.e., he or she must operate a family-size farm in the area), credit
rating, cash flow, collateral, and farming experience. Once a farm loan
application is complete, FSA officials have 60 days to approve or deny
the application and notify the applicant in writing of the decision.
Once FSA approves a direct loan, it helps borrowers develop financial
plans; collects loan payments; and, when necessary, restructures
delinquent debt. Direct loans are considered delinquent when a payment
is 30 days past due. When a borrower‘s account is 90 days past due, FSA
county staff formally notify him or her of the delinquency and provide
an application for restructuring the loan. To be considered for loan
restructuring, borrowers must complete and return an application within
60 days. FSA staff process the completed application and notify
borrowers whether they are eligible for loan restructuring. If a
borrower does not apply or is not eligible for loan restructuring, and
the loan continues to be delinquent, FSA notifies the borrower that it
will take legal action to collect all the money owed on the loan
(called loan acceleration). If the borrower does not take action to
settle their account within a certain period of time, FSA may start
foreclosure proceedings.
When farmers believe that FSA has discriminated against them, they may
file a discrimination complaint with USDA‘s OCR. For the complaint to
be accepted, it must:
* be filed in writing and signed by the complainant;
* be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory event; and:
* describe the discriminatory conduct of a USDA employee or the
discriminatory effect of a departmental policy, procedure, or
regulation.
Farmers may also seek compensation for violations of their civil rights
by filing individual or class action lawsuits. In 1997, African-
American farmers filed a class action against USDA (Pigford v.
Glickman). In 1999, this suit resulted in a multimillion-dollar
settlement agreement for the farmers. Since then, women and other
minority farmers have also filed class actions against USDA. As you
know, to elevate the attention of civil rights matters at USDA, the
Congress created the position of Assistant Secretary of Agriculture for
Civil Rights in the 2002 Farm Bill. In addition, in September of this
year, the Secretary of Agriculture announced the creation of a new
office within FSA to work with minority and socially disadvantaged
farmers who have questions and concerns about loan applications filed
with local offices.
Direct Farm Loan Application National Processing Times Were Longer for
Hispanic Farmers than for Non-Hispanic Farmers but Were Shorter in Most
States with Large Numbers of Hispanic Borrowers:
During fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the national average processing time
for direct loans for Hispanic farmers was 20 days--4 days longer than
for non-Hispanic farmers--but well within FSA‘s 60-day requirement. At
the state level, loan processing time differences were more varied. For
example, in the four states that account for over half of all Hispanic
applications, processing times for Hispanic farmers were faster than
for non-Hispanic farmers in three states and slower in the fourth
state. However, all times fell well within FSA‘s 60-day requirement.
Table 1 shows the average processing times of non-Hispanic and Hispanic
farmers‘ applications nationwide and for the four states.
Table 1: Average Processing Times for Non-Hispanic and Hispanic Farmers
for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 Combined:
National; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 39,725; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Average processing time: 16; [Empty]; Hispanic
farmers: Number of applications: 793; Hispanic farmers: Average
processing time: 20.
California; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 635; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Average processing time: 21; [Empty]; Hispanic
farmers: Number of applications: 99; Hispanic farmers: Average
processing time: 15.
New Mexico; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 172; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Average processing time: 24; [Empty]; Hispanic
farmers: Number of applications: 49; Hispanic farmers: Average
processing time: 15.
Texas; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 3,395; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Average processing time: 24; [Empty]; Hispanic
farmers: Number of applications: 194; Hispanic farmers: Average
processing time: 22.
Washington; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 514; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Average processing time: 27; [Empty]; Hispanic
farmers: Number of applications: 69; Hispanic farmers: Average
processing time: 37.
Source: FSA direct loan data.
[End of table]
The vast majority--91 percent--of all direct loan applications from
Hispanic farmers were processed within FSA‘s 60-day requirement.
However, the loan approval rate for Hispanic farmers was lower than for
non-Hispanic farmers during this 2-year period: 83 and 90 percent,
respectively. FSA officials maintain that approval rate differences
were not significant and attribute them to differences in the
applicants‘ ability to repay the loans they requested. Despite national
differences, as shown in table 2, in three of the four states that
received the largest number of Hispanic applications in fiscal year
2001, direct loan approval rates were similar.
Table 2: Percentage of Direct Loan Applications Approved by FSA for
Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 Combined:
National; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 35,685; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 90; [Empty]; Hispanic farmers:
Number of applications: 678; Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 83.
California; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 530; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 89; [Empty]; Hispanic farmers:
Number of applications: 82; Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 88.
New Mexico; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 156; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 93; [Empty]; Hispanic farmers:
Number of applications: 48; Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 92.
Texas; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 2,099; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 87; [Empty]; Hispanic farmers:
Number of applications: 142; Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 85.
Washington; Non-Hispanic farmers: Number of applications: 491; Non-
Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 80; [Empty]; Hispanic farmers:
Number of applications: 76; Hispanic farmers: Loan approval rate: 61.
Note: The numbers of applications are different from those shown in
table 1 because some of the applications were not approved or denied in
the year in which they were received.
Source: FSA direct loan data.
[End of table]
As part of FSA‘s assessment of its civil rights performance, the agency
monitors differences between minority and nonminority loan processing
times and approval rates at both the national and state levels. In
addition, FSA sends teams to state offices to conduct civil rights
reviews. The teams review loan files to verify compliance with FSA
policies and procedures and, if warranted, provide written
recommendations to remedy problems they find. Through fiscal year 2001,
each state office was reviewed once every 3 years; beginning in fiscal
year 2002, the offices will be reviewed every other year.
While FSA monitors variations in loan processing times and approval
rates for minorities and nonminorities, it does not have established
criteria for determining when observed variations are significant
enough to warrant further inquiry. In addition, while FSA conducts
periodic field reviews of state offices‘ performance in civil rights
matters and suggests improvements, it does not require the offices to
implement the recommendations and does not monitor state office follow-
up efforts. FSA is currently considering requiring state offices to
provide information on how they have addressed weaknesses noted during
reviews.
USDA Only Has a Policy for Staying Foreclosures When Discrimination
Complaints Are Filed with OCR:
USDA has a policy for issuing stays of foreclosure in cases when
discrimination has been alleged in individual complaints filed with
OCR, but not in response to individual or class action lawsuits with
similar allegations. When an individual files an administrative
discrimination complaint with OCR, FSA‘s policy is to automatically
issue a stay of adverse action--including foreclosure-until the
complaint has been resolved. During fiscal years 2000 and 2001, this
policy was followed in 24 of the 26 applicable cases involving Hispanic
borrowers. The policy was not followed in the remaining two cases
because of miscommunication between OCR and FSA in reconciling their
respective lists of complainants. When FSA learned that complaints had
been filed with OCR, it stayed its foreclosure actions, and, as of
August 2002, no further collection actions had been taken against the
two farmers. Although future data system improvements should alleviate
this problem, OCR and FSA officials acknowledge that improvements could
be made in the interim.
USDA does not have a similar policy for issuing stays related to
discrimination claims raised in an individual or class action lawsuit.
Instead, FSA makes decisions on whether to issue stays on a case-by-
case basis based on the advice of USDA‘s General Counsel and the
Department of Justice. Since 1997, USDA has issued stays of foreclosure
related to African-American and Native American farmers‘ class action
discrimination lawsuits involving FSA loan programs. In contrast, USDA
did not issue stays of foreclosure for other class action
discrimination lawsuits involving FSA loan programs because the
department believed that the circumstances did not warrant a stay.
These class action lawsuits and how USDA handled stays of foreclosure
are discussed in greater detail below.
* In October 1997, African-American farmers filed a class action
lawsuit against the Secretary of Agriculture (Pigford v. Glickman)
alleging racial discrimination by USDA in its administration of federal
farm programs. On October 9, 1998, the court certified the class--
issued the criteria for class eligibility.[Footnote 2] On January 5,
1999, USDA entered into a 5-year consent decree with the claimants of
the suit to settle it. The federal district court approved the consent
decree and a framework for the settlement of individual claims in April
of the same year. As of August 29, 2002, about 21,800 claims have been
accepted for processing. As part of the consent decree, USDA agreed to
refrain from foreclosing on real property owned by a claimant or
accelerating their loan account.[Footnote 3]
* In November 1999, Native American farmers filed a class action
lawsuit against the Secretary of Agriculture (Keepseagle v. Glickman)
alleging that USDA willfully discriminated against Native American
farmers and ranchers when processing applications for farm credit and
farm programs. Further, claimants alleged that some class members had
previously filed discrimination complaints with USDA and that the
department had failed to thoroughly investigate the complaints. In
December 1999, USDA issued a notice to FSA offices directing them not
to accelerate or foreclose on any direct loans held by Native American
borrowers unless the national office, with the concurrence of the
Office of General Counsel, specifically authorized such action against
an individual. As scheduled, this directive expired at the end of 2000.
* In October 2000, Hispanic farmers (Garcia v. Glickman) and women
farmers (Love v. Glickman) each filed class action lawsuits against
USDA alleging similar claims that USDA willfully discriminated against
them in processing applications for farm credit and farm programs.
Specifically, they alleged that loans were denied, provided late, or
provided with less money than needed to adequately farm. In addition,
the plaintiffs alleged that when they filed discrimination complaints
about the handling of their loan applications, USDA failed to
investigate them. The department has not issued stays of foreclosure in
either of these lawsuits.
In June 2001, USDA‘s Acting General Counsel wrote a memo that explained
the department‘s reasoning for issuing stays of foreclosure in response
to some class action lawsuits, but not others. According to the memo,
the stay of foreclosure agreement included in the Pigford consent
decree was reached only in the context of litigation and only to settle
a lawsuit in which a class action had already been certified by the
district court. The memo went on to say that the stay of foreclosure
policy issued in response to the Keepseagle lawsuit was implemented
during the infancy of the lawsuit while USDA and the Department of
Justice were evaluating how to proceed in defending it. In addition,
the memo stated that USDA did not intend to continue a stay of
foreclosure beyond the evaluation. Further, the Acting General Counsel
wrote that in all three of the pending lawsuits--Keepseagle, Garcia,
and Love--no adequate factual bases had been alleged to support the
claims of discrimination made by most of the named plaintiffs. As a
result, the department saw no reason to implement a policy to halt
foreclosures and other similar actions affecting borrowers potentially
involved in these lawsuits. As of September 2002, a class has been
certified for the Keepseagle lawsuit, but not for the Garcia suit. USDA
has not issued any further stays of adverse action for participants in
any of these lawsuits.
Although USDA has not issued stays of foreclosure for potential class
members in Garcia, relatively few Hispanic farmers have been affected
by this decision. According to our survey of state offices, FSA
accelerated the direct loans of almost 1,500 borrowers during fiscal
years 2000 and 2001; only 41 of these borrowers were Hispanic. FSA also
foreclosed on the loans of 6 of these 41 farmers during this period. In
addition to these 41 borrowers, 10 other Hispanic borrowers who had
their loans accelerated in prior years were foreclosed on during fiscal
years 2000 and 2001. To put these figures into context, during this
period, FSA foreclosed on the loans of approximately 600
borrowers[Footnote 4], 16 (or 3 percent) of whom were Hispanic. During
this period, Hispanic farmers made up about 4 percent of the agency‘s
direct loan portfolio.
FSA does not maintain historic information on accelerations or
foreclosures in a manner for this information to be readily retrieved
or analyzed. FSA officials acknowledged that such information is needed
in light of the frequent charges of discrimination it faces.
Office of Civil Rights‘ Problems with Processing Discrimination
Complaints Persist:
OCR has adopted many recommendations made in the past by USDA‘s
Inspector General and agency task forces. For example, in 2000, a USDA
task force identified 54 tasks to help address problems with OCR‘s
organization and staffing, database management, and complaint
processing. As of July 2002, the office had fully implemented 42, or
nearly 80 percent, of these recommendations and plans to complete
implementation of most of the others by October 2002. In addition, OCR
has made some organizational modifications, such as creating separate
employment and program directorates and adding three new divisions to
the latter--Program Adjudication, Program Compliance, and Resource
Management Staff. Further, from the beginning of fiscal year 2000 to
the end of fiscal year 2001, OCR has made significant progress in
reducing its inventory of complaints from 1,525 to 594.
Despite these actions, however, OCR continues to fail to meet USDA‘s
requirement that program complaints be processed in a timely manner.
Specifically, USDA directs OCR to complete its investigative reports
within 180 days after accepting a discrimination complaint. However,
during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, OCR took on average 365 days and 315
days, respectively, to complete its investigative reports. Furthermore,
as shown in figure 1, the 180-day requirement covers only a portion of
the three major stages of the entire processing cycle.[Footnote 5]
Accordingly, even if the 180-day requirement were met, OCR still take 2
years or more to complete the processing of a complaint. In fact, when
all phases of the complaint resolution are accounted for, OCR took an
average of 772 and 676 days in fiscal years 2000 and 2001,
respectively, to completely process complaints through the entire
complaint cycle and issue the final agency decision.
Figure 1: OCR Complaint Processing Cycle:
[See PDF for image]
Source: USDA Office of Civil Rights.
[End of figure]
OCR has made only modest progress in improving its timely processing of
complaints because it has yet to address severe, underlying human
capital problems. According to USDA officials, OCR has long-standing
problems in obtaining and retaining staff with the right mix of skills.
The retention problem is evidenced by the fact that only about two-
thirds of the staff engaged in complaint processing in fiscal year 2000
were still on board 2 years later. OCR officials also pointed out that
this staffing problem has been exacerbated because management and staff
have been intermittently diverted from their day-to-day activities by
such tasks as responding to requests for information from the courts.
Furthermore, severe morale problems have exacerbated staff retention
problems and have adversely affected the productivity of the remaining
staff. Management officials told us that they spend an inordinate
amount of time and resources addressing internal staff complaints. In
fact, during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, OCR had one of the highest
rates of employee-filed administrative complaints in the department.
This atmosphere has led to frequent reassignments or resignations of
OCR managers and staff. According to senior OCR officials, the problem
has reached the point where some staff have even threatened fellow
employees or sabotaged their work. Although OCR‘s Director believes
that the situation has improved over the past few years, he
acknowledges that some of the more serious morale problems have not
been resolved.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, USDA has continuously faced allegations of
discrimination in its making direct loans to farmers over the past
decade. To help guard against such charges, FSA needs to improve its
monitoring and accountability mechanisms and make its systems and
decision processes more consistent and transparent. Although FSA
monitors variations in loan processing times and approval rates, it
lacks criteria for determining when discrepancies warrant further
inquiry. Similarly, while FSA conducts periodic reviews of its state
offices‘ civil rights conduct and makes suggestions for improvement, it
cannot ensure that these suggestions have been effective--or even
adopted-without a requirement that state offices implement its
recommendations or, if not, explain their reasons for not doing so.
In addition, USDA has also been criticized for its handling of the
allegations themselves--whether they were handled through litigation or
the agency‘s complaint processes. In the case of class action lawsuits,
USDA has been charged with treating different minority groups
inequitably because it grants stays of foreclosures to some groups but
not to others. Without a standard, transparent policy that lays out the
factors USDA considers in deciding whether or not to issue stays, the
department faces the continued problem of having its decisions viewed
as unfair. Furthermore, if FSA and OCR do not improve their process for
reconciling their respective lists of complainants, FSA runs the risk
of violating its policy of not taking foreclosure actions against
farmers with pending discrimination complaints. In addition, without
maintaining historical information on foreclosures, USDA lacks an
important tool to help it understand its equal opportunity performance.
In the case of USDA‘s processing of complaints, OCR continues to be
untimely. Also, without a time requirement that covers all stages of
complaint processing, USDA lacks a meaningful way to measure
performance or to identify and remedy problem areas and staffing needs.
Furthermore, until USDA addresses long-standing human capital problems
within OCR, it is unlikely that the timeliness of complaint processing
will significantly improve. Our report contains a series of
recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture to resolve these
issues:
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Lawrence
J. Dyckman at 202-512-3841. Individuals making key contributions to
this testimony included Gregory A. Kosarin, Natalie H. Herzog,
Jacqueline A. Cook, Lynn M. Musser, Robert G. Crystal, and George H.
Quinn Jr.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Department of Agriculture: Improvements in the Operations of the
Civil Rights Program Would Benefit Hispanic and Other Minority Farmers,
GAO-02-942 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002).
[2] The class is defined as African-Americans who: (1) farmed, or
attempted to farm, between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996; (2)
applied to USDA during that time for participation in a federal farm
credit or benefit program and who believed they were discriminated
against on the basis of race in USDA‘s response to that application;
and (3) filed a discrimination complaint on or before July 1, 1997,
regarding USDA‘s treatment of their credit or benefit application.
[3] During the Pigford case, a general stay of foreclosure was in
effect. On December 18, 1996--before the Pigford lawsuit was filed--the
Secretary of Agriculture, in response to concerns about inconsistencies
and discrimination in USDA programs, ordered FSA to stay foreclosures
until it could be determined for each case whether there was evidence
of discrimination in program lending.
[4] In responding to our survey about direct loan foreclosures, some
states provided estimates of the total number of borrowers affected,
instead of exact numbers.
[5] According to OCR‘s Deputy Director of Programs, additional time
requirements for complaint processing were developed in July 2002.
However, the requirements will not go into effect until proposed OCR
restructuring takes place. In addition, OCR has yet to establish time
requirements that address all stages of complaint processing.
