Civil Rights at USDA (1997 Report)

1111 • • • ____ ---- - - -- -- -- --- -
Civil Rights at the

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A Report by the
Civil Rights Action Team
Washi ngton, DC
February 1997
1 t
I j
I
The Un ited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its pro
grams on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disabil ity, polit ical
beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.)
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for com munication of program
information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of
Communications at (202) 720-2791.
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C., 20250, or call 1 -800-245-6340 (voice) or (202) 720-1 1 27 (TOO). US D A
is an equal employment opportunity employer.
- -
1111 • • • ____ --------- -----
Contents
I ntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Lack of Management Commitment to Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Program Del ivery and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Workforce Diversity and Employment Practi ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Organ izational Structure of C i v i l Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 46
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Secretary of Agriculture
Daniel R . G l ickman. Recommendat ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Fol low-up/ Listening Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Acknowledgements . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Appendixes
A . C i v i l Rights Action Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
B. Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00
C . Agency -by-Agency Workforce Di versity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 09
D. List of Agency Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19

1111 • • • ____ ----- - -------- --
C i v i l R i g hts at the
Un ited States Depa rtment
of Ag r i c u l t u re
Introduction
S
ecretary of Agricultu re Daniel R. G lickman's goal is that each
employee and customer of the U . S . Department of Agriculture be
treated fairly and equitably, and with dignity and respect. The
Secretary's goal is that the U S DA become, as Abraham L i ncol n suggested
over 1 30 years ago. "the people's department," servi ng all of the people.
There are some who cal l USDA ·'the last p lantation." An "old l i ne" depart
ment. USDA was one of the last Federal agencies to integrate and perhaps the
l ast to i nclude women and m inorities in leadership positions. Considered a
stubborn bureaucracy and slow to change. U S DA is also perceived as play i ng
a key role i n what some see as a conspiracy to force m inority and socially
disadvantaged farmers off their land through discriminatory loan practices.
Many of the hundreds of m inority and socially disadvantaged customers
who addressed the c i v i l rights l isteni ng sessions held across the country spoke
poignantly of discrim i nation and )llistreatment by county-level employees and
advisory boards who adm i nister USDA programs. Employees also told of
discri mination by USDA managers.
The problems are not new. nor are they unknown. Studies. reports, and task
forces have documented the problems in report after report. In 1 965. the U . S .
Comm i ssion o n C i v i l R ights found discri m ination problems both i n U S DA
program del i very and in U S DA's treatment of m i nority employees. A 1 970
USDA Employee Focus Group Report concluded the agency was i nsensitive
to issues regardi ng equal opportunity and civil rights and that cronyism and
nepotism were frequent factors in making personnel and management deci
sions. A 1 982 C i v i l R ights Comm i ssion report found the Farmers Home
1 t
Administration had not placed adequate emphasis on deal i ng with the crisis
faci ng black farmers, and saw i ndications the agency "may be i nvolved i n the
very kind of racial discri mination that it should be seeki ng to correct." A
report by the Congressional Committee on Government Operations in 1 990
iden t i fied Farmers Home Administration as one of the key causes of the dras
tic dec l i ne i n b lack farm ownership.
Despite the fact that discri mi nation i n program del ive ry and employment
has been docu mented and discussed, it continues to ex ist to a large degree
unabated. USDA is a huge decentral i zed bureaucracy that administers several
hundred federal ly assisted and federal l y conducted programs with more than
90,000 Federal and nearly 20.000 non-Federal employees throughout the
world.
Many of its agencies del i ver programs through a l arge field office network
i n conjunction with local farmer boards which hel p direct how the programs
are administered local ly. Mai ntaining focus on c i v i l rights policy across the
far-flung bureaucracy is no easy task.
2 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

C:rIVViiliL�R"IG
I I I • • • • _ ••I( GHiiT
TiS o ;;-
n -
Slln;;ttro�dduucct·n;;;; --- -----------
Members of the C ivil R i ghts Action

Team at a liste n i n g sess i o n .
SECRETARY'S CHARGE On December 12. 1996. a group of black farmers demonstrated outside the
TO CRAT- W h i te House i n Washington. DC. cal l i n g on President B i l l C l i nton to assure
The Civil Rights Action Team fai r treatment for them in agricultural lending programs. The farmers also
fi l ed suit in court against Secretary of Agriculture Dan Gl ickman. asking for
was charged with developing an end to farm foreclosures and restitution for fi nancial rui n they claimed was
a set of recommendations to brought on by discri m i nation. The farmers' actions buttressed those by many
address institutional and U S DA employees who have relentlessly pursued c hange by writing letters.
underlying problems and holding press conferences. and fil i n g class act i on law suits.
Clearly. i t was t i me for USDA to address its long-standi n g civ i l rights
ways to implement actions to
problems.
ensure accountability and Secretary Gl ickman responded by appointing a team of USDA leaders to
follow-through at USDA. take a hard look at the i ssues and make strong recommendations for change.
The Civi l R i ghts Action Team ( CR AT) was charged with developing a set of
recommendations to address i nstitutional and underlying problems and ways
to i mplement actions to ensure accountabi lity and fol l ow-through at USDA .
I n addi tion t o audit i n g past reports. the team sponsored 12 l i stening
sessions i n January 1997. i n II l ocations across the country to hear from
customers--especially socially disadvantaged and m inority farmers-and
from USDA employees. The l istening panels were composed of e ither
Secretary G l ickman or Deputy Secretary R ichard E . Rominger ( with one
exception ), CRAT members. members of Congress. and members of the State
Food and Agriculture Counc i l . Customer sessions were tai lored to address the
civi l rights concerns of specifi c cultural groups.
Testimony at the sessions was often emotionally chmged and evoked com
passion. Hundreds of customers and employees provided valuable information
about how they perceive USDA . Many fanners told stories of years of bias.
hostility. greed. ruthlessness. rudeness. and inJifference not only by USDA
employees. but also by the local county comm ittees that provide access to
USDA's Farm Service Agency programs. M inority. socially disadvantaged. and
3 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r.c
�liV IL:lR
v1i l Ga:HnT�
RiiCi on;-------------
S�In;tro;dd;;ucti� ;'
listening
Forum
Some of the most poignant

comments, however, came
from minority farmers across
the country, who noted that
the Federal Government women fanners charged that USDA has participated in a conspiracy to acquire
writes off millions of dollars land belonging to them and transfer it to wealthy l andowners. M i norities.
women, and disabled employees charged that discrimination, scxual harass
in loans to foreign countries ment, favoritism. and reprisals are common at USDA.
that cannot pay, yet M any customers and employees who cou ld not attend the sessions, or who
forecloses on u.s. farmers did not want to comment publicly. faxed and mai led comments to the CRAT.
when they cannot pay. Others phoned a Hotline U S DA had established to handle civil rights issues.
The comments retlected the depth of pain and betrayal felt by so many cus
tomers and employees. M any sent page after page of documentation of their
situations.
A speaker i n Belzoni, MS. said USDA employees treat small-scale and
m i nority farmers "worse than I would treat a dog." Another, who felt he was
receiving unequal and unfair treatment from USDA employees. said "Al l I
ask i s for a level playing field."
A fem ale U S DA employee said she was told that her career would be jeop
ardized if she did not submit to sexual relations w i th her supervisor. While
the supervisor was eventual ly transfelTed as a result of an ensu i ng i nvestiga
tion. she said she was left "stigmatized and blamed for challenging the cul
ture." A nother woman noted that the system at USDA is broken, "perhaps not
i n tended to work ."
Somc of the most poignant comments, however, came from m inority farm
ers across the country, who noted that the Federal Government writes off m i l
l ions of dol l ars in loans t o foreign countries that cannot pay, yet forecloses o n
U . S . farmers when they cannot pay.
4 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UN ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r(c:rlVi GH
L�R"IG
vlii Tsill ;;
HTi n ------------
ntro;';; dduuccttw"j;,
· ;;-
T his is the report of Secretary Dan Glickman's Civil Rights Action Team.
It is the result of an audit of civil rights issues facing the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in 1997 in both program delivery and employment. It contains
findings and draws conclusions. Most importantly, it contains recommended
actions that can be taken to remedy many of the long-standing problems
plaguing the Department and weakening its credibility among customers and
employees alike.
5 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGR ICULTURE

- -
".1 • • • _ ___
-
-
-
-- - -----
-- -
Lack of Management
Commitment to Civil Rights
F
Background ------
indi ngs i n this report, and many olhers, lead to the conclusion that too
many managers-from the lowest to the highest levels, both career
civil ervants and pol i t ical appo intees-are not committed to and are
not bei ng held accountable for thei r actions on civil rights.
U SDA's pai n fu l h istory of i ndividual and class action law suits, court
orders, media exposes, numerous Congressional hearings, and reports depicts
the Department as a stubborn bureaucracy that refuses to provide equal
opportunity to all as the law requires.
The CRAT was told over and over, by farmers and employees, that man
agers at USDA operate in a system that does not hold them accountable when
t hey break the law.
Farmers Say That USDA's Managers Are Not

Held Accountable for Their Actions
During the CRAT l isteni ng sessions, hundreds of m inority farmers voiced

concerns, as they have for decades, that they are sti l l being denied equal access
to USDA's programs. An African-American farmer in Brooks County, GA,
which i s 62 percent black, said the Farm Service Agency ( FSA) wasn' t serving
black farmers there. He asked the Secretary "to come in and assist us to put
watchdog groups over these places, so they can see that we're treated fai rly."
Many echoed the sentiments of a farmer at the l i sten ing session i n
Wash ington, DC, who said U S DA has participated i n a "conspiracy t o strip
1
• b lack farmers of their land." They described a l i tany of neglect, racial bias,
unfair lending practices, and discrim ination by county officials who one
described as "short on moral rectitude and long on arrogance and sense of
immunity."
Blacks, as well as white smal l-scale farmers, i n the M i ssissippi Delta
charged that USDA officials deny them courtesy and respect while giving
large-scale farmers service and loans. A w h i te female fanner said that the
" single largest problem for women is to be taken seriously by the financial
community." A nother farmer added, "i f they [ county officialsJ don't l i ke you,
they won't give you the loan." And another said that county supervisors "are
play i ng with our l ives, play i ng w ith our l ivel i hoods . . . . We need people we can
trust."
Hispanic, Asian-American, and A merican I nd ian farmers in Texas,
Cal i fornia, and Oklahoma, and at other l i stening sessions, told stories with a
common theme: U S DA has done more to hurt than to help small and
m i nority farmcrs. One farmer said that the 400 Hispanic growers i n
6 C IVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'-�C
� IV�ii
l L:lRAlcIGiiHHTTsS �l..ac[;*k�o ffjM�ana�;ge�me
;;;'; C o;mm
nt;-;� ;;;jitme i -;hh�ts:-----
t;;;;;nt�to;CChiviilI.R�g
Cal i fornia Central Coast counties formed an association i n 1995 because the
Department of Agricu lture "systematically excluded " them from programs.
"Some [ US DA] staff need to change the i r att itudes towards members of our
community," he said. "I feel that everyone who is present and has testi fied
rei n forces this statement."
M any farmers complai ned about the regulations and cumbersome paper
work requirements which simply don ' t work for smal l farmers. However.
they also described a county committee system that shuts out m inorities and
operates for the favored few, where county officials. as another M ississippi
farmer said, have the power "to send you up the road to fortune. or down the
road to foreclosure:' a system where officials abuse their power with i mpuni
ty. They describe an entire system without accountab i l i ty.
Echoi ng feel i ngs expressed across the country. a farmer and representative
of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma said. "I have seen the abuses at the
county level personal ly and for many other farmers . . . . You know, I bel ieve
that people in Cherokee County. I don' t know if they're just bigots or i gno
rant, or if it's just such a tight-knit group there they don't want m inorities to
paI1icipate."
A field coordinator for smal l farm outreach in Texas said, "we had a super
v isor actual ly take an i ndividual ' s plan and throw it in the trash can . . I think
. .
we need to l ook at some pol icies which govern accountability and look at the
ethics of accountab i li ty as wel l ," That sen t i ment was repeated by a female
farm advocate from Louisiana. who said. "today we need somebody to hold
the offices accountable for their actions . . . that needs to be done if anybody 's
going to ever be treated fairly."
Farmers also charged that U S DA refuses to pay them damages, even after
adm itting that i t has discri m i nated. One fanner said that discri mination con
t inues because it has not yet cost the government "one single dime."
A farmer i n M i ssi ssippi recalled that in 1990 and 199 1. he and two other
m inority farmers were rejected for operati ng loans. They fi led appeals and
7 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'--Ci1C
I V�ii
l L:lRH
IGliHHTTsS �Lac
;;;:
k�offjMWa;n a;;;;;g;;'em-;;;';
e n;-;t CC;o;m;;; m ; itme
�ntttto; CC�i v�il�RU;ig�h�ts:-----
won. They filed d i scrim ination complaints. which were upheld by USDA.
"The same county supervisors and county comm ittee year after year used the
fact that wc fi led these complaints and that they had to attend civil rights
training classes as a reprisal against us, from '9 1 until the present." he said.
" And what have we received? Del i nquent accounts. What has the county
superv isor received? He walked out with h i s 25 years of ret i rement, leavi ng
us with this debt over our head."
Several farmers and farm advocates harshly criticized the Department's
Office of the General Counsel ( OGC) . The i r perception is that OGC has pre
vented U S DA from providing compensation to farmers who have been dis
cri m inated against; that OGC lacks divers i ty among its senior staff; and that
the agency lacks sensitivity to-and is even hosti l e towards--civil rights.
S i m i lar perceptions were also shared with the CRAT by the Department's
C i v i l Rights Leadership Counc i l .
Farmers also told t h e CRAT that U SDA's Office o f I nspector General i s
being used by management t o i nvestigate and bring unsubstantiated charges
Field employees ' peiformance against them. ''I 've got stories" of O I G i nvestigations and retal iation against
farmers, a farm advocate said. "If the Office of General Counsel says, 'this is
ratings are often based on the way it ought to be: then that's the way it is. I t doesn't matter about your
measurement systems that rights . So the system i s very badl y broken, as I see it."
favor large, wealthy One example of a "broken" system is that field-level employees, those clos
landowners who can afford to est to farmers, often work under an i ncentive system that is adverse to servi ng
m inority and other small producers. M inority and small farmers said that t he i r
repay loans or adopt
loans are processed too late. i f a t al l, and that often, "the money i s gone" b y
innovative farm management t h e t i me they are approved. F i e l d employees' performance rat ings are often
practices. based on measurement systems that favor l arge, wealthy landowners. County
loan officers are rewarded based on the total number of acres served by
program dol l ars, for hav i ng low defaul t rates, and for dispensing all of the
funds al located to them-a performance management system that rewards
service to large, financially sound producers while worki ng against small and
m i nority farmers.
U SDA's policy statements support the i dea of helping low-income and
socially d isadvantaged farmers. However, its management practices i nclude
pelformance measure ment systems that actually do the opposite.
USDA Employees Tell Similar Stories
U S DA employees at the l i sten i ng sessi ons-several of them at the emotional

breaki ng poi n t-told of acts of "i n t i midation, fear, threats, and retaliation" by
managers when employees complain o f discrim ination. They related stories
of abusive behavior by managers w ho. rather than being punished, were
rewarded with promotions and awards.
At the May 1996 Departmental Forum on C i v i l R ights, in CRAT l i sten i ng
sessions. i n focus group reports, i n the B lue Ribbon Task Force report, and
8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

\4;;;;
I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c�lv�liiL:lRiUcIGiiH"TTss-LaL;c*k�offjM ana;ge�me
;;;;
ntr;C�o;;; mm
;;;titme
;;;;;ntttto;c
C�iviilIiR�g
i �hsJts-----
elsewhere, USDA employees consistently have said that they bel ieve man
agers who are gui lty of d i scrimi nation are not being disciplined.
Abuse of manageri al authority was a common theme. expressed most often
by employees within the Forest Service. "Bel ieve it or not." one Forest
Service employee said at the Washington. DC. session, "management has
used Forest Service law enforcement to police their own employees. Clearly.
in these cases. the agency is not acti ng in the public's best i nterest. but as a
Gestapo. total l y out of control. . . . Added to this. there is a segment of manage
ment which may not be gui lty of these offenses. but chooses to ignore them
in the effort not to buck the system." Several employees said that when con
fronted by complaints. agency leadership at higher levels adopts an attitude of
"defending the troops"-the managers-rather than l i steni ng to employees or
customers.
Although many of the employees who attended the l i sten i ng sessions were
Pearlie Reed, Team Leader, from the Forest Service. U S DA's largest agency. s i m i lar problems were
Civil R ights Action Team. described by employees of other agencies at the l i stening sessions. in reports.
and i n letters. A report produced by Westover Consultants for the Foreign
Agricultural Service ( FAS ) i n 1993. for example. said that m inority and
female employees feel that they are discri m inated against and that many of
the agency' s managers lack the s k i l l s and training necessary for managing a
div:erse workforce. An employee i n the Econom ic Research Service said
Asian-Paci fic American employees at USDA "get reprisal" when they voice
their concerns to top management .
GAO Finds Agency Heads Not Accountable for

Affirmative Employment Plans
Managerial commitment to civil rights i s fundamentally an issue of account

abi l ity. Equal Employ ment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ) regu lations
make agency heads accountable. and require them to hold all officials. man
agers. and employees accountable. for the successful i mplementation of
Affirmative Employment Programs ( A EP's ) . AEP"s are mandated by
Congress for agencies with more than 500 employees. They are designed to
e l i m i nate the under-representation of women and mi norities i n each agency's
workforce. However. in 1995. GAO reported that at USDA. and three other
Federal agencies. "no formal mechanisms are in place to hold them ( agency
head s ) accountable for the success of their agencies" EEO/aflirmative
employ ment programs."' GAO also found that senior ofiicials treat AEP"s as
"paperwork requirements rather than as action plans to be taken seriously."
Contrary to EEOC regu lations. most senior managers at U S DA do not
actively participate in the preparation of AEP"s. According to GAO. orticials
with the authority to make personnel decisions regarding employment. job
assignments. training. promotions. and termi nations at USDA and the other
agencies were rarely involved in the process of ident ifying barriers and actions
to i mprove the representation of women and mi nol'ities in their agencies.

CIVIL RIGHTS Lack of Management Commitmentto Civil Rights
Accord i ng to GAO. accountab i l i ty "suggests that goals w i l l be establ ished,

performance w i l l be measured and reported, and that this i n formation in turn
w i l l be used to moni tor progress towards achieving the agencie" EEO objec
tives." However, as GAO noted. U S DA managers make h i ri ng, promotion,
and other employment decisions without reference to the agency's AEP's.
Many managers at the Department also v iew numerical goals for ending
under-representation as i l legal quotas. In its February 1 996 M emorandum to
General Counsels ( Post-Adarand Guidance on Affirmative Action in Federal
Employment). the Department of J ustice ( DOJ ) addressed this issue. I t stated
that agencies may establish reasonable numerical objectives for m i nority rep
resentation under specified conditions where race may be a factor i n decision
making. Further. J ustice said, "the establishment of numerical goals for m inor
i ty participation should not raise concerns under Adarand where race-ba ed
decision-making is not used to achieve the goal and the goal is commensurate
with availability of m inorities in the quali fied and appropriate labor pool."
Previous Reports Find Lack of Commitment

and Accountability
U S DA employees appear to agr�ee with GAO's findings. A 1 993 U S DA

employee focus group report noted "strong concerns that managers have not
been held accountable for their actions when discrim ination is fou nd ." Lack
of managerial accountabili ty was one of four critical i ssues identified by the
Department's B lue R i bbon Task Force on Equal Opportunity and Diversity i n
its recommendations to the Secretary i n 1 996.
Employees with discrim ination complaints often contend that managers are
not held accountable for c iv i l rights. A 1 993 study by Westover Consultants,
I nc., commissioned by the Foreign Agricultural Service's ( FA S ) C i v i l R ights
office, and marked "confidential." reported that many managers in FAS agree.
In focus groups, managers in the agency "expressed t hat their attempts to fos
ter a workplace where diversity i s recognized and respected have had negative
results and no support from top management. This has created in them a
reluctance to become i nvol ved."
Westover found many managers in the agency v iew the emphasis on civi l
rights and diversity as "a burden." The report continued: "Wh i te supervisors
were said by several groups to be tired of racial/ethnic issues. They are also
tired of t he EEO effort and perceive it to have a negative influence on the
workforce." Senior executives "admitted that they have had a management
style that reacts and is focused entirely on the D i rector's concerns. This has
meant that l ittle t i me is spent ensuring that employees are satisfied and that
issues such as workforce d ivers i ty are deal t with appropriately."
Like farmers, employees at listening sessions also complained that some
USDA managers harbor prej udices . This v iew was echoed in the Westover
report, which found that some managers in FAS sti l l hold stereotypes about
m inorities. "Major barriers consistently identified in each [ focu s ] group were

CIVIL RIGHTS Lack of Management Commitment to Civ il Righ ts
the preconceived notions and prejudicial attitudes that white managers appear
to have about the ski l l s and competencies of African-American and
H ispanic/Lati no employees. These attitudes are demonstrated by the k i nds of
tra i n i ng suggested; the level of assignments given; their presence in minimal
n umbers in the Foreign Service; and in the general lack of recognition of
pos i tive accomp l i shments and contributions."
At the New Orleans L i sten i ng Session, several USDA employees brought
up the i ssue of racism and racist comments. "lack of respect for people of
color:' and inc idents of physical abuse agai nst employees.
Assistant Secretary for Administration Lacks Authority
PE RFORMANCE RATINGS The Assistant Secretary for Admi nistration ( A S A ) has overall responsibility
Despite the problems for ensuring that agencies comply w i th all civil rights laws, ru les. and regula
tions. H owever, the ASA i s not involved i n the performance appraisal process
documented throughout this
for the agency heads and senior executives ( other than those in Departmental
report, no senior executive Admi nistration) whose actions-at least on c i v i l rights-the office ostensibly
was rated "does not meet oversees. The ASA has the responsibil i t y for ensuring comp l iance: i n real ity.
fully successful " in civil the ASA has minimal abi l i ty to i mpact the performance rati ngs, bonuses. or
pay adj ustments of senior executives, civi l rights directors, deputies for
rights at USDA.
marlagement. and others throughout the Department whose actions he or she
i s responsible for overseei ng.
Accountab i lity at the highest levels should cascade down through agencies'
organizational structures, where field supervi sors provide direct service to the
public. However, without measurable goals. agencies have no way or effective
ly assessing whether or not they are maki ng progress. Perfomlance Review
Boards ( PRS's) meet yearly to assess the performance of senior executives. In
fiscal year 1996, 59 percent of the Department's 3 I 8 senior execut ives
received a rati ng of "exceeds ful l y successfu l " in their EEO/Civi l Rights per
fomlance element. The other 41 percent received rati ngs of "meets ful ly suc
cessful ." Despite the problems documented throughout thi s repor1. no senior
executive was rated "does not meet ful l y successful" in civil rights at USDA.
PRB's also recommend to the Secretary the amount of bonuses. pay rai ses.
and awards for the Department's senior executives. In FY 1996. the
Department awarded a total of $564,000 to 87 sen ior executives. Career exec
u tives are also el igible for special act awards ( u p to $10,000) and Presidential
Rank awards ($10,000 or $20,000). With rare exceptions. senior executives
are rewarded for achievements in program areas. rather than civil rights.
Some Managers Lack Skills To Manage Diversity
M anagerial competence is another concern . The abi l ity to manage people,

according to a former U S DA personnel director. is the one area where USDA
candidates have the most trouble passi ng the Office of Personnel

•
I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c
cmlvilliiL:lR
RiC iiT
lGiiH Ts-Lac k�
S L;;;*of(j�
M�
anag
; e;;me
;;;;
; nt��Co ;;;mm
;;;iitme
;;;;;;;
nt�o�t C�
ivii i thh�ts-----
illiR�
g
Management's Qual i ty Review Boards. which cert i fy candidates for the

Senior Executive Serv i ce ( S ES ) .
[ n 1 994. the Department's National Performance Review Team supported
this observation. The team analyzed questionnaires from over I AOO USDA
employees on the issue of human resources management. The team reported
that many employees "cited an i n tlexible style of management as the reason
for h i ndering achievement of their ful l performance potentia!." The report
said that many USDA managers are selected on the basi s of their technical
competence and are "not trained as managers."
Level of Resources for Civil Rights

Also Measures Commitment
Final ly, commitment i s also a question of resources devoted to civil rights. A

report being prepared by the Department's Civil Rights Pol icy Analysis and
Coordi nation Center found that less than I percent of the Department's ful l
t i me equ i valent ( FTE ) resources, and budgetary resources, are allocated to
civil rights. C i v i l rights budgets were seriously reduced in the 1 980's, and
have not fully recovered. The C i v i l Rights Leadership Council told the
CRAT that agencies do not pro � ide adequate resources to carry out the
compl iance and oversight activities needed to enforce civil rights laws and
regu lations.
I
Conclusions ------ n recent years, every Secretary of Agriculture has said that i mprovi ng
c i v i l rights i s a priority at USDA . However, li ndings i n this report and
many others suggest that with few exceptions, senior managers at the
Department have not i nvested the ti me, effort. energy, and resources needed
to produce any fundamental change.

I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c
cmlvilliiL:lR
iiiC
il GiiH
iiTS
S-L;
Lac *k�
of(ji1,
M� aTUlge
;;;;me
�n; �
t C�o;;;mm
;;;jitme
;;;;;
n; t�ot;c
C�
ivii
ilRR�
g
i �h�
ts-----
M i nority and small farmers bel ieve that U S DA has participated in a con
spiracy to take their land. In l i stening sessions across the country. fanners and
employees descri bed a system without accountability: a system in which
some managers and supervisors abuse their power without concern for the
consequences. The percept ion persists that even when discri m i nation occurs,
appropriate discipli nary actions �u'e not taken.
USDA's employment and program del ivery systems appear to operate with
Management commitment and out sufficient checks and balances. Agency heads have delegated responsibi l i
accountability are key to the ty for eivi l rights t o agency civil rights directors w h o d o not have the
resources. or authori ty. to ensure compl iance with civi l rights laws and regu
civil rights issues at the U. S. lations.
Department ofAgriculture, Contrary to EEOC regulations. agency heads and senior officials are not
both from a customer and held accountable for results-oriented AEP's to end under-representation. or
program delivery standpoint for Civil Rights I mplementation Plans. which address program delivery. I n
most cases. agencies have not established measurable goab. i n empl oyment.
as well as from the standpoint
program del ivery. or procurement. for which managers are to be held
of employment practices and accountable.
workforce diversity. Senior officials receive awards. bonuses. and pay raises-but generally not
for docu mented i m provements in civi l rights. Sen ior nfticials who receive
"does not meet" for their civil rights performance e lements do not qual i fy for
bonuses or pay raises. However. few. i f any. oflicials have ever received thi�
rat ing. Field-level supervi sors also have performance i ncentives that favor
large producers w h i le putting small and m inority producers at a di sadvantage.
For example. accompl i shments are often measured in acres or dol l ars; there
fore. it is to field employees" advantage to work with large. wel l -fi nanced
farmers.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration. who is ulti mately charged with
ensuring that civil rights laws. rules. and regulations are enforced. does not
have the delegated authority to ensure that subcabinet officials. agency heads.
and other senior officials are held accountable. As a result. accountabi l ity has
not cascaded down throughout USDAs massive field structure.
Management commi t ment and accountability arc key to resol ving the civil
rights i ssues at the U.S. Department of Agricu lture. both from a customer and
program del i very standpoint as well as from the standpoint of employment
practices and workforce diversity. The sections that fol low detail t he CRAT's
findi ngs in both of these areas.
13 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF "-GRICULTURE

•
Prog ram Del ivery

and Outreach
M
Background ------
any m inority and l i m i ted-resource farmers believe that U S DA has
participated in a conspiracy to take their land. They cite as proof
the severe decl i ne in farm ownership by m i norities, especially
A frican-American farmers, i n the last 70 years. M uch of this land had been
owned for generations. in some cases acquired by these farm fami l ies after
s lavery was abol ished in the 1 860's.
Accord i ng to the most recent Census of Agriculture. the number of all
m i nority farms has fal len-from 950.000 i n 1 920 to around 60,000 i n 1 992.
For A frican Americans, the number fel l from 925,000. 14 percent of a l l fal111S
i n 1 920. to only 1 8,000. I percent o f all farms i n 1 992. A lthough the number
of farms owned by other minorities has i ncreased in recent years, particularly
among H ispanics, the total acres of land farmed by these groups has actual ly
dec l i ned. Only women have seen an i ncrease in both number of farms and
acres farmed.
During this time. the numbcr of nonminority farmers has also dramatica l l y
dec l i ned, although a t a slower rate. M any farmers have voluntari ly chosen
other pursuits. For some, however. especially m inority and l i m i ted-resource
farmers and ranchers, the loss of their land has been i nvol untary. Many of
these farmers and ranchers bel ieve that U S DA has been in part responsible
for their losses.
These fanners blame U SDA's program del ivery system, with its wide-rang
i ng and relatively autonomous local del ivery structure. They charge that
U S DA has long tolerated discrim ination in the distribution of program bene
fits and m i suse of power to i n fluence land ownership and farm profitabi l i ty.
1 They blame farm program regu lat ions that-intentional ly or not-shut out
m i nority and l imited-resource farmcrs and ranchers from the bencfits of the
programs that have helped larger nonm inority producers surv i ve the changes
in agriculture in the last 50 years. A nd they blame USDA's i nsensitivity to the
differing needs of m inority and l i m i ted-resource customers and neglect of its
responsibil ity to reach out and serve all who need U S DAs assistance.
Farm advocates compared m inority farmers to "endangered species." " We
keep up with endangered species of animals," one said. "And I guess what
we're say i ng is that black farmers, people-of-color farmers i n this country. . .
deserve the kind of registry, the kind of l ist s o that we cou ld preserve those
farmers." They cal led on U S DA to establ ish a vol untary registry of m inority
land owners. through the Farm Service Agency, that would establ ish a base
l ine of land ownership by people of color. They challenged U S DA to target
its various programs to ensure that the base l i ne level of ownership by these
farmers is sustained, and progreso ively i ncreased.
1 4 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

\ I I • • • • _ ••'-Cc;ji
lv L�RiiIG
�liL G�HnT�
S�Pro
;;;g;;1;
wn
i ;;n
D;Z
el�
ive;;ry;and
;;;jGO��acdh;---------
utre
Socially Disadvantaged Customers Perceive

USDA Is a Partner in Taking Their Land
Customers across the nation. but most particu larly i n the Southeast. echoed a
common theme at the recent l i stening sessions. They pointed to discrimi na
tion in USDA programs by Farm Service Agency ( FS A ). formerly
Agricul tural Stab i l ization and Conservation Service CASCS ). and Farmers
Home Admi nistration ( Fm H A ) county o ffices as the primary reason for their
A Common Theme: loss of land and farm i ncome. Detai ls varied from fami ly to fam i l y. but the
general out l ines of the stories farmers told the CRAT remained constant:
By the time processing is
completed, even when the The m inority or l i m i ted-resource farmer tries to apply for a farm operati ng
loan is approved, planting loan through the FSA county office well i n advance of planting season . The
season has already passed FSA county office m i ght claim to have no appl ications available and ask
the farmer to return later. U pon returning. the farmer might receive an
and the farmer has not been
application without any assistance in completing it. then be asked repeated
able to plant. ..profit is then ly to correct mistakes or complete oversights in the l oan application. Often
reduced. those requests for correcting the appl ication could be stretched for months,
since they would come only if the m inority farmer contacted the office to
check on the loan processing. By the t i me processing is completed, even
w hen the loan is approved. planting season has already passed and the
farmer either has not been able to plant at a l l , or has obtained l i m ited credit
on the strength of an expected FSA loan to plant a smal l crop. usually
w ithout the fert i lizer and other supplies necessary for the best yields. The
farmer's profit is then reduced.

CIVIL RIGHTS Prog ram Delivery and Outreach
I f the farmer's promised FSA loan final ly does arrive. i t may have been arbi
trari ly reduced, leav i ng the farmer without enough money to repay suppl iers
and any mortgage or equi pment debts. In some cases, the FSA loan never
arrives. again leav i ng the farmer without means to repay debts. Further
operati ng and disaster loans may be denied because of the farmer's debt
load, making it i mpossible for the farmer to earn any money from the farm.
The farmer then w i l l have to sel l the land or be foreclosed on to settle debts.
As an alternative. the local FSA ofticial might offer the farmer an opportuni
ty to lease back the l and with an option to buy it back later. The appraised
value of that land is set very high, presumably to support the needed
operat ing loans. but also making repurchase of the land beyond the
l imited-resource farmer's means. The land is lost finally and sold at auction.
where it is bought by someone else at half the price bei ng asked of t he
" . . . Somewhere there should minority fanner. Often it is al leged that the person was a friend or relative of
one of the FSA county officials.
be reparations. It 's good to
know that you 're saying The consequences of this scenario, repeated i n all its varieties, and the
we 're not going to have hopes of those who have lost land through this process, were summarized by
foreclosures, but what are a participant at the l i sten i ng session in Memphis, TN :
you going to do about those
. . . . . Somewhere there should be reparations. I t's good to know that you' re
hundreds of thousands of saying we're not going to have foreclosures. but what are you going to do
acres of land that have been about those hundreds of thousands of acres of land that have been lost,
lost, hundreds of thousands hundreds of thousands of black farmers who have been put out of business
of black farmers who have because of the pol icies that were adverse to them?"
been put out of business

because of the policies that Lack of Accountability Within the FFAS and
were adverse to them ? " Rural Development Mission Areas
Currently, the Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services ( FFAS ) M ission Area,
which manages the FSA program del i very system. provides i neffective over
sight of the local del i very of farm credit services. At a l l levels of management
in FSA. the Secretary must defer to interested outside constituencies in mak
ing appointments. Those appoi n ted to management positions then retain a
degree of autonomy i n their management decisions because of their connec
tion to i n fluential constituencies outside of USDA. A s i m i lar situation exists
within the Rural Development M ission Area.
The problem of autonomy from the Departmental chain of command is
ampl ified at the State and local levels of FSA program delivery and at the
S tate level in Rural Development program delivery. State committees and
State executive directors in FSA and State d i rectors in Rural Development,
although appointed by the Secretary and charged with carry i ng out the pol i
cies of U S DA , owe some l oyalty to those supporters who nominated them for
appoi ntment and retain some autonomy from the Secretary's authority by the
strength of that outside support.

I I I • • • • _ ••'-(CiIV
ViIL:lR
i RiC
IGiiHi'T
iis
SlP;';ro�g;;;ram
;;:D o;e�li�
ve;ry�;;d
andGo�
utre
r;;;acdh;---------
USDA Reporting Lines and Personnel-from

Headquarters to FSA County Committee Level
FSA
A dministrator
Deputies
-
�----
�
-
Q)
-
tr:1
-
Vl
....
<t
- Vl
dvlses
- LL.
-
E
tlJ
-
tA
>
> Vl
- Q)
C Q)
County Committee �
'!:::
Employees O ·
() E
farmers in <t E
county elect Vl O
County Committee LL. ()
• Non-Federal Em ployees (paid with Federal dollars)

At the county leve l , local farmers and ranchers e lect 3- to 5-member com
mittees to oversee FSA programs local ly. These committees h i re a county
executive director. who h ires a county office staff. The county executive
director is accountable to the county committee and supervi ses the county
committee staff. Neither the county executive director nor the county commit
tee staff are Federal employees, although they are paid through Federal funds
appropriated to operate FSA programs. County office employees are officiall y
responsible for i mplementing the pol icies o f U S DA and can b e removed, as
can State executive d i rectors and county and State committee members, for
fai l i ng to do so. [ n practice. however. that i s rare.
As in most large organ izations, FSA draws on its local and S tate staffs to
til l positions at higher level s in the organization. S i nce county executive
directors and employees owe their positions and allegiances to people, and
sometimes pol i tical parties, other than the Secretary, it is more d i fficul t to
hold people accountable and remove employees who do not fol low the
Secretary's pol i c ies. This appears to be particularly true at the local level ,
where employees tend to be i n fl uenced by the values o f their local communi
ties and county committees rather than by standard pol icies promulgated at
the national leve l . Farmers at the recent l i sten i ng sessions described i t as a
system where management and program staffs at the S tate and local level s are
relatively free to use their program authority and insider information to bene
lit themselves, their friends, and their fami l ies.
Lack of Diversity Among County Committees and

County Office Employees
Because of the ways in which S tate and county committees are chosen and
county offices are staffed. FSA lacks diversity in its program del i very struc
ture. Federal EEO and Affirmative Employment laws and pol icies do not
govern the FSA non-Federal workforce except by agency regulation.
Consequently. the diversity of the non-Federal workforce i s even less reflec
tive of customers than the Federal program del i very workforce. [n addition,
the non-Federal employees within this county committee system are not
covered by most Federal labor relations and labor standards protections. They
can be fired at the discretion of the county executive director.
A recent GAO study i ndicated that in the 1 0 1 counties with the largest con
centration of minority farmers, one-qulliter had no minOlity employees in their
offices. In those offices that did employ minorities, most were program assis
tants. although one-quarter of the offices had minority county executive direc
tors.
Perhaps the l ack of diversity that minority and l i m ited-resource customers
deem to be most critical, however-and this was confi rmed by comments i n
the recent l istening sessions-is the lack o f m i nority and female representa
tion on the county committees which can affect access to FSA programs.
Proportionate under-representation has been a particular problem in the

CIVIL RIGHTS Program Delivery and Outreach
FSA County Committee Members

by Race, Sex, and Ethnicity, 1 996
Midwest Northeast
Male ttttttttttttttt tttt 1 ,923 Male ttttttt 708
White White
Female ' 119 Female . 73
Male 0 Male 4 I
Black Black
Female 0
J
Female 0 . !
Male 0 , Male 1 I
Hispanic Hispanic
Female 0 Female 0
Male 0 Male 0
Asian American! Asian American!
Pacific Islander Female 0 Pacific Islander Female 0 Virgin Islands
"
American Indian! Male 3 American Indian! Male 0
Alaskan Native Alaskan Native
Female 0 Female 0
Northwest Southeast
,
Male tttttt 1 ,026 Male ttttttt tttt 2,287
White White
Female t 1 07 Female +, 1 2 1
Male 0 Male ' 27 \
Black Black
Female 0 I ,
Female 1 ,� \.
,
Male 0 Male \ 2 1 I
Hispanic Hispanic
Female 1 Female 7
Male 4 Male 1 Puerto Rico

Asian American! Asian American!
Pacific Islander Female 2 Pacific Islander Female 0
American Indian! Male \ 27 American Indian! Male 4 .

Alaskan Native Alaska Alaskan Native
Female 1 Female 0
Southwest Distribution of Minority-Operated Farms, 1 992
Male tttttt tt tttt; 1 ,441

White
Female � 1 52
Male 5
Black
Female 0
Male ; 33 ,
Hispanic
Female 2
Male ' 1 0
Asian American!
Pacific Islander Female 4 "
American Indian! Male ', 29 ".<'
Alaskan Native Hawaii

Female 4
Source: Farm Service Agency

Southeast and Southwest, but it is a problem throughout the ation.

In 1 994, 94 percent of all c o unty committees had no female or mi nority
representation. M inority producers were 4.7 percent of e l igible voters, but
held only 2.9 percent of county committee seats. Women were 28.8 percent
of e l i g i ble voters, but held only 1 .5 percent of county committee seats. GAO
found that in 1 995, only 36 of the 1 0 1 counties with the largest concentration
of minority farmers had a least I m i nority county committee member.
Representation has i mproved sl ightly for women i n the last few years, reach
i ng 7 percent in 1 997, but remains variable and di sproportionately low, at 2.3
percent in 1 997. for minorit ies.
Legislation passed by Congress i n 1 994 to reorgani ze the U S DA requires
[hat the county committees be representative of the agricultural producers in
the county or multi-county area. In counties w i th relative ly h igh concentra
tions of mi nority farmers without elected m i nority county committee mem
bers, FSA has requ i red appoi ntment of mi nority adv isors to i ncrease the
awareness of and participation of minorities in FSA programs. i ncluding
e lections. M i nority advisors are also i ntended to ensure that mi nority group
problems and viewpoints are ful l y understood and considered in all FSA
actions.
However. both FSA and mi nority and l i m i ted-resource farmers and ranch
ers recognize that the m i nority advisor system does not work. Without repre
sentation that has equal voti ng status on the county or area committees. the
interests of minorities and l i m ited-resource farmers and ranchers w i l l not
carry any weight.
20 C I V I L RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I . .. II ... II1II 1I1I1I--cC
�I�Vfll�
L�R
RHIG
iH
� T�S�P�r�
vg�I�
'a;
'l1LD 'l'e�,\�
�e�f1� . ·�a�
lId
dGO�U;
f,.�
ea;c�
h---------------------
Disparities in the Treatment of Minorities

in FSA Programs
M i nority and l i mited-resource customers stated repeatedl y in the recent lis

ten i ng sessions that their participation in FSA programs has been blocked by
d i scri m inatory county office staffs. I f they do succeed i n receiv i ng services,
their participation is often restricted by delays and lack of support.
Recent studies requested by Congress and FSA have found lower palticipa
tion and lower loan approval rates for minorities in most FSA programs.
Participation rates in 1 994 in programs of the fonner Agricultural
Stab i l i zation and Conservation Service C ASCS ), pruticularly commodity pro
grams and disaster programs, were dispropOltionately low for all m i norities.
The GAO found that between October I , 1 994, and M ru'ch 3 1 , 1 996, 33
percent of m.inority appl ications but only 27 percent of nonm.inority applica
LONGER LOAN tions i n the Agricultural Conservation Program ( ACP) were disapproved.
During the same period, 1 6 percent of minority but only 1 0 percent of nonmi
PROCESSING
nority loans in the direct loan program were disapproved.
In several Southeastern Approval rates for the FSA direct and guaranteed loan programs in 1 995
States, it took th ree times as and 1 996 varied by region and by State and showed no consi stent picture of
long on a verage to process disparity between mi nority and nonmi nority rates. Some States showed fairly
wi de ranges, however. For example, only 67 percent of African-American
African-American loan
loans were approved in Lou isi ana, compared to 83 percent of nonmi nority
applications as it did
loans. A l abama showed a similru' di sparity--only 7 8 percent of African
nonminority applications. American loans approved, compared to 90 percent of nonminority loans.
Loan processing rates for the FSA direct and guru'anteed loan programs
also varied widely in 1 995 and 1 996 and again showed no consi stent picture
of di sparity between mi nority and nonm.i nority rates. Aga.in, however, some
States showed consistently longer processing times for mi norities. In the
Southeast, for example, in several States it took three ti mes as long on aver
age to process African-American loan applications as it did nonminority
appl ications. S i m i l ru' di sparities between nonmi nority loan processing and
American I ndian loan processing appeared in records for a number of States
i nc luded in FSA's Northwest region.
These repOlts suggest that the disparity in participation and treatment of
nonminority and mi nority farmers may be partially accounted for by the small
er average size of minority- and female-operated fru'ms, their lower average
crop yields, and their greater l ikel i hood not to plant program crops, as well as
less sophisticated technology, insufficient col lateraL poor cash flow, and poor
credit ratings.

However, representatives of m inority and female farm groups poi n t out that
previous discrim ination i n U S DA programs has helped to produce these very
conditions now used to explain disparate treatment.
Opportunities for Relief Neglected
A program exists that could be more widely used to help with debt rel ief for
m inority and l i m i ted-resource farmers. The conservation contract debt reduc
tion program, fam i liarly cal led "Debt for Nature," reduces a landowner's debt
in return for placing a portion of the land under contract as a conservation
easement for a speci fied length of time, usuall y about 50 years. Use of the
program would al low m inority or l i m ited-resource farmers to retain owner
ship of their land and continue farmi ng on a large enough portion to remain
profitable, while contributing to the conservation of highly erodi ble land,
wetlands, endangered species habitats, and other fragi le lands.
However, because these contracts are considered debt write-downs, their
use disquali fies the landowner from further FSA l oans. A change i n legisla
tion to end that prohibition would make " Debt for Nature" contracts more
helpfu l to m i nority and l i m i ted-resource customers and wou ld i ncrease bene
fits to fragi le ecosystems.
Farmers Find Little Relief in USDA

Complaint Processes
Farmers who told the CRAT stories of discri mination and abuse by USDA
agencies also described a complaints processing system which, i f anything,
often makes matters worse. They described a bureaucratic n ightmare where,

I I I • • • • _ ••'-cc�lv
Vi
IL:lR I GUHi'TS
i RK rsJP;;;ro�g;ram
;;jD
o;e;Z;li;
ve;':ry�and
;;;;jCO��acdh;---------
utre
even after they receive a finding of d iscrimination, U S DA refuses to pay

damages. They charged U S DA with forcing them i nto court to seek justice,
rather than working with them to redress acknowledged grievances. They
painfu l ly described the toll these ongoi ng battles with U S DA has taken on
their fami lies, and on their health.
When U S DA denies a loan, payment, or any other benefit, the customer
almost always has appeal rights . Agency appeals processes vary but, typical ly,
an appeal goes to a h igher level agency official in the county. State, or region.
and then to the agency's national office or to the Department. Unti l 1 995,
Fm H A and ASCS ( now FSA ) appeals processes were handled entirely within
the agency. ] f the customer did not agree with the national decision. the only
appeal was to the courts.
However, many farmers, especially sma l l farmers, who have managed to
The D. 1. Miller report of appeal their cases to FSA charge that even when decisions are ovelturned,
1996 found anecdotal l ocal offices often do not honor the decision. They claim that decisions favor
i ng farmers are simply "not enforced." Farmers also mentioned the backlog
evidence suggesting that
and l ength of t i me needed to appeal. and the l ack of t i mely communication to
minorities and females use i n form them of the status of their cases.
the appeals process less. The D. J . M i l ler report of 1 996 noted that this system was not beneficial to
This is primarily due to mi nority farmers. It found that "the statistical evidence shows that m inority
and female farmers do not lile appeals of FSA decisions in proportion to their
discomfort with and lack of
sh a re of producers" and that "anecdotal evidence suggests that mi norities and
confidence in the decision females uti l i ze the appeals process less primaril y due to discomfort with and
makers; slowness of the l ack of confidence in the decision makers; slowness of the appeals process:
appeals process; lack of and l ack of knowledge of appeals rules and regulations; and the time-con
suming bureaucracy of the appeal s process." For those minority farmers who
knowledge of appeals rules
did use this system. the M i l ler report did not find a stat i stical ly significant
and regulations; and the difference between the outcomes of appeals between white male and female
time-consuming bureaucracy and minority farmers.
of the appeals process. A new. i ndependent, National Appea l s Divi sion ( NA D ) was estab l ished by
U S DA in 1 994. The director of NAD reports directly to the Secretary. A ny
customer may appeal to NAD after going through at least one stage of appeal
w i t h i n the agency.
Testimony at the l i steni ng sessions and written comments submitted ques
t ioned the i ntegrity of the new NAD appeals system . The principal complaint
was that after a NAD heari ng officer overturns an agency decision i n favor of
the farmer, the agency, usually FSA. appeals to NAD's Director to reverse the
heari ng officer's decision and rule against the fanner. Questions were raised
about the i n fl uence of OGC and the Justice Department over NAD. One
speaker said that farmers' civil rights have been violated when the appeals
system has not respected the bankruptcy laws. A l so, based on a meeti ng w ith
OGC, i t appears that NAD's appeals process i s not coordinated with the
Department's program discri mination complaints process.
H owever, one farm advocate at the Halifax, C. l i stening session stated
that according to information he received through the Freedom of

I I I • • • • _ ••'-(C�lv
ViIL:lR
i iiIGii
iC H
�TriSlP�ro�g;;;ram o;e�li�
;;;:D ve�ry�and
;;;tGO�
utre
t;;;ac
dh;---------
I n formation Act ( FOI A ) . "when hearing officers ru le for the agencies. they
were competent r uphe l d ] 98 percent of the t i me, but when they ruled for the
farmer. these same hearing officers were i ncompetent [ reversed] over 50 per
cent of the t i me . . . . This is i ndisputable evidence of bias and discrim i nation
against a whole c lass of farmers . . . ."
NAD does not process complaints which allege discri m ination. When they
beli eve they have been denied service because of discrim ination, as hundreds
of farmers told the CRAT, farmers can fi le discrim ination complaints directl y
with the age ncies they believe have discrim i nated, o r with the Department.
M any described this approach as "the fox guard i ng the hen house:'
Program d iscrim ination complaints generally fal l within two categories: ( I )
programs conducted directly by a U S DA agency, such as U S DA loan pro
grams, and ( 2 ) federal ly assisted programs. where U S DA does not d i rectly
offer services to customers, but reci p ients of U S DA funds do. The recipients
must obey civil rights laws. and USDA can be sued under such l aws as Title
V I , the Rehab i l itation Act, Title IX, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and
others.
CRAT members were informed by OGC that U S DA presently has no pub
l ished regu lations with c lear guidance on the process or t i me l ines involved in
program discrimination complaints. When a fanner does al lege discrim ina
'
tion, "pre l i m i nary i nvestigation s" are typically conducted by the agency that
has been charged with violat i ng her or h i s rights.
A lso, farmers charged that while complaints are work i ng the i r way through
the agency, USDA proceeds with farm foreclosures--even where discrimina
tion may have contributed to the farm rs' plight. This sent i ment was
expressed by a farmer in Albany. GA. who said, "I fel t l i ke 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 com
plaints in with Farmers Home. And it did n ' t do them any good."
Some charged that U S DA doesn ' t respond even when they do fi le com
plaints. In Tul sa. OK, an advocate representing b lack and American I ndian
farmers said, "we have fi led 7 2 civil rights complaints. Not one complaint has
ever been answered."
At the Memphis, TN, listening session, a farmer who fi led a complaint
against FSA I I months ago complained, " I have not. I cannot get, anyone to
talk to me about the status of this discrimination complaint. I cal led the office
and they tel l me don' t call back. . . that they have arthritis and that they don' t
want t o talk. They've got other things t o do. I 'd just l i ke t o know what I can
do to find out the status of this complaint that I 've fil ed."
The CRAT was unable to gather historical data on program discri mination
complaints at U S DA because record keeping on these matters has been v i rtu
ally nonexistent. Complaints filed with the agencies are not necessari l y
reported to U SDA's C i v i l R ights office.
Some figures are available, however, for cases that were open as of
December 3 1 . 1 996. The largest number of pending discrim i nation com
plaints. as comments at the l istening sessions suggest. are concentrated in
24 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'--(C�IV
ViIL�
i iUc �ri
RIGiiH ilP;;ro�
Ts ; g�ram
;;;:D
�;i c·ve;;ry�;;;jG
el� and O�u; dh�--------
tre�ac
Richard E . Rominger, Deputy

Secretary of Agriculture , at a
listening session .
three agencies at USDA. There were 205 cases pendi ng. representing 42
Number of Pending percent of the total. agai nst the FSA : 1 65. or 33.3 percent against the Rural
Program Discri mination Housing Service ( R H S ): and 62. or 1 2.5 percent, against the Food and
Complai nts at USDA
C o nsumer Service. Si xty-three cases, or 1 2.7 percent of the tota!. were
pending against other agencies. The Department had a total of 495 pendi ng
Other Agencies program discri m i nation complaints. Approxi mately one-half of the pendi ng
63
cases are 2 years old or older. verify i ng farmers' contention that complaints
are being processed slowly. if at a l l .
Food & According to t h e Complaints Processing Division at t h e Office of
Consumer
Operations ( 00 ) . which processes complaints that make it to the Department
Service
62 leve l . U S DA averages about 200 new program discri m ination complaints
each year. However. i n fiscal year 1 996. an average of only 9 cases were
Rural Housing
closed per month. or 1 08 during the year-increa. i ng a backlog of program
Service complaints.
1 65
Program Rules Reduce Minority and

Source: USDA Office of Operations Limited-Resource Customer PartiCipation
I n some cases. the CRAT found that program rule changes. either required by
Congress i n legislation or developed through the rule-mak i ng process. have
the effect of d i squa l i fy i ng many m inority and disadvantaged farmers from
participati ng in USDA programs. or signi ficantly reduci ng benefits they may
receive. M ost of t hese arise from lack of com munication by responsible
agencies with the m inority and l i m ited-resource communit ies.
A recent example of one such congressionally mandated rule change
i ncludes the abrupt end to the Lease Back/Buy Back option for farmers who
had been unable to repay FSA loans. A number of farmers who had entered

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c
SiIN
VriiIL
LiR"IG
Gi i T�S�
Hn p�
ro;;
g�
ra;
m�D�eilili�
ve;ry�;;;J"( tr�
and O);u; chh---------
ea�
i nto such agreements were unable to exerc i se their option to buy back their
land because of i nadequate program fundi ng i n the 3 years precedi ng the rule
change. Because the rule change ended the program altogether, w ithout pro
tection of exist i ng options, many m inority and l i m ited-resource farmers have
lost this opportunity to repurchase their land.
A nother example i s the prohibition i nstituted i n 1 996 agai nst continued
lending to farmers who had received a debt write-down or whose farms were
pending l iquidation. M any m inority and smal l farmers have l i mi ted access to
sources of credi t outside USDA. Without eligibil ity for FSA operating loans.
these farmers are u nable to continue farming and are l ikely to lose their land
even w i thout formal foreclosure.
Other agencies, i nclud i ng R H S and the Natural Resources Conservation
Serv i ce ( N RCS), requ i re particu lar practices or quali tications for loans that
are difficul t for l i m ited-resource customers to meet. Until U S DA agencies
rev iew their rules to identify and e l i m inate regulations that discriminate
aga inst socially disadvantaged customers, they w i l l not ach ieve the goal of
equitable treatment for all customers.
Improved O utreach Would Improve

Program Participation '
Lack of diversity i n the FSA county office delivery system d i rectly affects
partici pation of m inority and female producers in U S DA programs. U nder
representation of m i norities on county committees and on county staffs
means m i nority and female producers hear less about programs and have a
more d i fficult t i me participating i n U S DA programs because they lack specif
ic i n formation on avai lable services.
However, outreach efforts have fai led on a much broader front than just the
county committee system in FSA . USDA does not place a priority on servi ng
the needs of small and l i m ited-resource farmers and has not supported any
coordinated effort to address this problem. The many m i ssion areas and agen
cies within the Department have developed the i r own separate programs that
may or may not be successful in responding to the real d i fferences in scale
and culture presented by m i nority and l i m ited-resource customers.
M i nority and l imited-resource farmers and ranchers reported they are not
rece i vi ng the technical assistance they require. They said they are not receiv
i ng basic information about programs for which they might be e l igible. They
are not being helped to complete complicated application forms. They are not
being helped to understand and meet eligibil ity requ i rements for programs.
They are not receiv i ng i n formation about how their app lications are handled
and. i f they are denied participation, why they were den i ed and how they
m ight succeed in the future . When they do receive loans or other program
benefits, they are not being helped to use those benefits most effectively to
i mprove their operations.
Some outreach efforts. l i ke the consolidated Service Center approach to

providing comprehensive services to USDA customers. have created new bar

riers. Their locations have not considered the needs of m inority and l i mited
resource customers who may have d i fiiculty in reaching more d i stant centers
than customers with greater resources. Their services have not provided for
cultural and language differences that make USDA programs inaccessible or
less relevant to m inority customer needs. And their services have fai led to
recogni ze the different needs of smal l-scale enterpri ses. be they farms. busi
nesses, communities, or fami l ies.
Cultural Insensitivity Interferes with

Minority Participation
U S DA program outreach e fforts have not made sufficient use of partnersh ips
with comm u ni ty-based organizations. land-grant and other educational i nsti
tutions, and program d iversity i n i tiatives that understand the spec i fic needs of
m i nority and l im i ted-resource customers. These organi zations and institutions
can help U S DA agencies address d i scri m i natory program rules. develop
appropriate special programs. and target outreach in the most effective ways
to reach m inority communities and other groups with special needs.
Customers at the recent l i steni n g sessions reiterated the special needs of
d i fferent m i nority and social ly d isadvantaged communities. All communities
agreed that they are overlooked when i n formation is released about avai lable
U S DA programs. USDA agencies do not make use o f m inority community
organi zational and media outlets to be sure a l l e l igible participants know
about their programs. Cultural barriers prevent the communication necessary
for good service by U S DA programs.
All communities also agreed that m i nority youth are being discouraged
from becomi n g farmers. They witness the struggles of thei r parents to obtain
fai r treatment and the poor return for their efforts. Listening scssion partici
pants said young m inorities are not recrui ted for U S DA youth programs in
sufficient number. And those few who do choose to try to farm are turned
down for ownership and operati ng loans because they are too young or too
i nexperienced, even when they hold college degrees i n agricu lture.
Young men and women who want to fol low in the family footsteps. either by
tak i ng over the fami l y farm or by buying their own. oftentimes find it difficult to
obtain financing for their ventures. Accord i ng to several speakers at the listening
sessions. FSA ha<; denied loans to new or beginning farmers despite years of
working on their family farm or receiving advanced degrees in agriculture.
A farmer at the Hal i fax. NC session said that in 1 994. his son received a
letter from FmHA which said. "You lack sufficient training and experience
and education to be successful in farming to assure reasonable re-payment for
the loan requested:' H i s son. who grew up on a 300-acre fami ly farm, was a
graduate of A&T State U niversity with a major i n agricultural education.
S ince h i s son had i n herited land and equipment from his grandfather, all he
needed was operating money. This speaker mentioned an FmHA pamphlet
2 7 C I V I L RIGHTS AT T H E U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRI CULTURE

I I I . .. II ... II1II 1I1I1I--cc�l�vijliL�RRHIG�HH1T�S�P�ro�g�r;a/�n�D�e�/i�ve�n;.'�a�llddGO�LI;tr�ea�chh---
for young farmers which says "You ' re interested in being a young farmer,
then FmH A wants to help." As the speaker said, "Where is the help?"
A special case exists among American I ndians on Tribal lands. USDA pro
grams have not addressed their special status as sovereign nations and have
not accommodated the special needs of their ownership of land i n trust. The
county delivery system ignores the pol i tical boundaries of Tribal govern
ments. Lack of cooperation between the Department of the I n terior, with
responsibil ity for I ndian affairs, and the USDA, with its responsibi l i ties for
agricultural, rura l , and food and nutrition programs, i nterferes w ith del ivery
of needed services to American I ndians. Program rules specifying particular
forms of land ownership for eligibil ity prevent American I ndians from access
to assistance they need to develop their agriculture and conserve their land .
Hispanic and Asian-American farming communities expressed concern that
cultural differences in approaches to farming, in fami l y and community tradi
tions, in language, even in d iet, are not being considered in the ways USDA
delivers its programs. They express a perception that USDA has begun to rec
ognize the shortcomings in its outreach to A frican-American and American
Indian customers, but that it has yet to even identify that there is an unmet
need in the H ispanic and Asian-American communities.
One of the most neglected customer communities, w ith few representatives
at the l istening sessions, was the farmworker community. According to this
group, USDA has almost completely fai led to acknowledge its responsib i l i
ties for addressing t h e needs of t h i s commun ity of agricultural workers.
Research and Education Needs of Minority, Small-Scale,

and Limited-Resource Farmers and Ranchers Have
Been Neglected
Beyond direct assistance programs, USDA research and extension efforts are
not adequately addressing the unique needs of small , limited-resource, and
minority farmers and ranchers. These include the need for intensive enterprises,
appropriate technologies and practices, value-added products, management and
m arketing strategies, and the systematization of these into profitable operations.
Funding for the 1 890 and 1 994 land-grant institutions has not been ade
quate. Speakers at the Belzon i , M S , listening session said that the "disparate
funding" between the S tate's 1 890 and 1 862 i nstitutions by USDA has also
contributed to the problems faci ng minority farmers i n the State. Funds for
1 890 and 1 994 institutions shou ld be directly appropriated in proportion to
the number of minority farmers in the State. At the Washington, DC, session,
the Secretary was asked to act on a proposal submitted several weeks ago to
create partnerships w i th institutions serving Asian-Paci fic Americans.
A lso, the lack of representation of smal l , l i mited-resource, and mi nority
farmers and ranchers on many research and education advisory boards has
reduced the responsiveness of research and education programs to the specif
ic needs of these under-represented groups. M inority customers are also more
28 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••,-c lvillii
c� L�R"IG
Giii
Hi1TS
�P�;;;'g
ro;;,,;
am;;V
Decl
·l�
lVe;;'ry;and
;;;jC
o� �
utreac�h;---------
USDA Small and Disadvantaged Business

Procurement Accompl ishments FY96
( i n % of total $)
all or some proc u reme n t

g o a l s met 88%
no proc u rement
goals met
USDA 60% 60%

Goals
51%
U S DA
Totals
Agency/ FSIS RD REE FSA FCS N RCS FS APH I S AMS OIG 00

M ission
Area
Source: OSDBU
l ikely to participate in research and education programs if at least some of

those del i vering the programs and on the advi sory commi ttees are of the
same race. sex. and ethnicity.
Including Small Businesses in USDA Programs
Outreach efforts to expand contracting for goods and services to SUppOl1

USDA agencies have also been a source of complaints. M i norities. women.
and other under-represented groups say that U S DA agencies favor nonmi nori
ty contractors for general operati ng goods and services.
USDA set procurement goals in tiscal year 1 996 for all small businesses. and
within that category for smal l disadvantaged businesses participat ing in the
Small Business Admi nistration ( SBA ) 8( a ) program. for other minority-owned
smal l disadvantaged businesses. and for women-owned businesses. Although

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c
CI"
i VijIL
LFR"IG
G�HnTriS5FP;;:; ra;;;m;JD
ro�g� o;e�li� ��O);:u�
ve;;ry;and t1i� h; ---------
ea;;ch
the Department met its goal only for 8(a) participant businesses. i t came close
to the goals in several other categories. Accomplishment by m ission area and
agency, however, varied widely. from a high of exceeding all USDA small and
disadvantaged business procurement goals in the Natural Resources
Conservation Service and Forest Service to a low of meeting none of those
goals in the Farm Service Agency and the Agricultural M arketing Service.
A long the same l i nes. the Foreign Agricultural Service ( FA S ) operates an
Export Promotions Program t hat assists U . S . agriculture and food-related
busi nesses in reaching overseas markets. M i norities have not been well-repre
sented. e ither among employees or among cooperati ng businesses. FAS also
has not focused much attention on developing markets i n A frican nations.
countries in which many A frican-American busi nesses are i nterested.
Current Funding Priorities Are Inadeq uate To Address

the Needs of Minority and Limited-Resou rce Customers
A l l of t hese voids i n U S DA's program del ivery are exacerbated by the

i ncreasing shortage of funds avai lable for program del i very. Yet shortage of
funds is no excuse for i naction. U S DA has not dedicated enough of its avai l
able funding to servi ng the needs of m inority and l i m ited-resource customers.
Both increased funding and a retargeting of already avai lable funds are neces
sary to address the Department's fai lures in responding to the needs of these
underserved customers.
Conclusions
C
------ learly. USDA has not effectively protected. supported, or promoted
small and l i m ited-resource farmers and ranchers and other u nder
served customers. Not only have they often not been served at all,
but i n many cases the service has appeared to be detrimental to the survi val
or m inority and l i m ited-resource farmers. The recent C i v i l Rights l istening
sessions revealed a general perception of apathy, neglect. and a negative bias
towards all mi norities on the part of most local U S DA government officials
directly involved i n decision making for program del ivery. A reporter at the
recent l istening session i n Tulsa. OK. observed that mi nority farmers are not
sure which condition "was worse-being ignored by the USDA and missing
potential opportunities or getting i nvolved with i ts programs and faci ng a
l i tany of abuses."
M i nority farmers have lost sign i ticant amounts of land and potential farm
i ncome as a result of discri m i nation by FSA programs and the programs of
i t s predecessor agencies. ASCS and FmHA. Socially disadvantaged and
m i nority farmers said U S DA is part of a conspiracy to take their land and
look to U S DA for some kind of compe nsation for their losses.
Because of the traditional selection process for employees and management
within the FSA program del i very system, State and county com m i t tees and

I I I • • • • _ ••'-(c:ilv
vii
IL�RIc
IGiiH
��TSlP�ro�g;;ram
;;;;D
Ddelz�
·ve;;ry;and
;;;;d:Co�u;; ;;;h�--------
tre�ac
their staffs have not been held accountable for carryi ng out USDA nondis
crimi nation policies. The non-Federal status of county employees al lows for
less diversity and accountabi l ity to t he Departmental c i v i l rights pol icies.
Under-representation of socially disadvantaged groups on State and county
comm ittees and in the county office:-- contributes to mistrust of the
Department. The Rural Development m i ssion area faces simi lar charges of
discri m inatory del ivery of programs and lack of accountabi l ity of its State
directors.
The process for resolving program compla i nts has fai led. M i nority and l i m
i ted-resource customer!-> bel ieve U S DA has not acted in good faith on the
complaints. Appeal s are too o ften delayed and for too long. Favorable deci
sions are too often rever!->ed.
Some problems of i nequitable del i very of services stem from program rules
and legislation that-intention;.. d ly or not-have the effect of disqual i fy ing
l i m ited-resource customers from USDA programs. E l i g i b i l ity requ i rements
l i m i t the participation of l i mited-resource customers while complicated forms
and program regulations d iscourage participation.
Poor outreach effol1s are central to the USDA's fai lure to meet the program
needs of m i nority. smal l-scale. and l i m ited-resource farmers. USDA Service
Centers are not wel l located to serve socially disadvantaged customers and
arc not always accessible to the disabled. County offices and Service Center
staffs do not provide the necessary assi stance to social l y di sadvantaged cus
tomers in understanding regulations and completi ng compl icated appl ications.
U S DA agencies ha\'e also fai led to establish worki ng relationships with
community-based organizations and educational i nstitutions that cou ld help
communicate U S DA programs to underserved communities. As a conse
quence. cultural and language d i fferences that interfere with minority partici
pat ion in U S DA programs have not been addressed s u fficiently.
The special needs of small-scale and l i m ited-resource enterprises have also
not been addressed. ei ther in the area of technological improvements and
alternative enterprises. or in the area of marketing. U S DA has also fai l ed to
consistently meet i ts goals for i ncreasing procurement from small and di sad
vantaged busi nesses.
L i m i ted funding cannot be an excuse for i nadequate targeting of funds to
mi nority and l i m i ted-resource customers. However. i ncreased fundi ng. as well
as i mproved target ing. wou ld do much to i mprove m inority and l i mi ted
resource customer participation in U S DA programs and to demonstrate t he
Department's commitment to serving their needs.
3 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTME'JT OF AGRICULTURE

1 1 1 1 • • • _ ___ ------ -- - -- -
----
Workforce Diversity and

E m p l oyment Pract i ces
M
Background ------
any of the problems i n USDA's program del ivery system are related
to the level of divers i ty in the Department's workforce. U S DA cus
tomers at l i sten i ng sessions expressed their concern about diversity,
or rather the lack of i t , in USDA service centers. Mi nority fanners i n partiCLI
Iar �aid that because the workforces in many county offices are not diverse.
they arc often forced to deal with employees who not only did not understand
their needs and concerns. but who blatantly discrimi nate agai nst them.
Although women. m i norities. and persons with d i sabi l ities have made gai ns
over the past decade. the CRAT found that these groups continue to be under
represented in many U S DA agencies. Thi s i ncludes, s i g n i ficantly. the offices
of the Secretary and the Subcab i net, which according to many managers and
employees set examples for the rest of U S DA.
How the e RAT Defines Workforce Diversity
Workforce diversity is an i ntegral part of USDAs mission. The CRAT

bel ieves that, funLiamentally, workforce L1ivers i ty i s an effort to improve the
way all employees work together to accomplish U S DAs missions. It means
making every effort to tind and use the rich human talent and diversity of the
Nation. More than just an idea and a goal. it is a way of look ing at oursel ves
anLi each other: an openness to d i fference and innovation: a real i zation that.
as Secretary Gl ickman has said, America's strength is in our d i fferences.
Workforce diversity is also a commitment to prov ide training and career
1 1
development opportuni ties to all USDA employees. so that their potential is
ful ly used. It·s what the "People's Department" is. or should be, a l l about
fai r and equal treatment for a l l USDA employees and customers. Where
diversity is valued as a source of strength. employees of differing race, color,
age, sex, sexual orientation. national origin. rel igion, marital status and
people with disab i l i ties are allowed to contribute crfectively at all levels of
U S DA : employees are given an opportunity to develop, advance. anLi
contribute to the U S DA mission: managers at all level s understand, embrace.
and effectively Lise the diverse values, bel ie fs, and behavior of U S DA's
employees.
Workforce divers i ty i s not giving preferential treatment i n v iolation of
merit system pri nciples. I t i s not denyi ng opportunity to one group to h i re.
train. or promote another group: and i t is not a quota program. which is
neither legal nor advocated.

I I I • • • • _ ••.----;cm
C Vtiii
L�RRiC
lGiiH
�TS
TS�m�
o�
rkfi
fo
o;;;rc;eLD)i,iv�e;;
rs�
ity�and
�E �mp
;;Llo;;y;;;;
me ;t P;;';rac
�n-;t� � ti;
ce-;s-----
;
Minority and Women Under-Represented

in USDA's Workforce
Accord i ng to the U . S . Depart ment of Labor. between 1 990 and 2000. women.
m i norities. and i m m i grant� w i l l account for 80 percent of the U n i ted States
l abor force growt h . The "Framework for Change : Work Force Divers i ty and
Del i very of Programs:' a U S DA report released in 1 990. fou nd t hat U S DA
had a need to remedy under-representat ion in its workforce by prov iding
equal empl oyment and promotion opport u n i t ies for all employees. When this
statement was made, U S DA ranked 5 2 nd out of 56 Federal agencies i n the
employment of m i nori t ies. women. and i ndividuals w i th d i sab i l i t ies.
I n 1 990. U SDA estab l i shed a goal to build a d iverse workforce that approx
i mates the N at i on's labor force at entry. m id. sen i or. and executive level s and
to ens ure that the workforce wou ld de l i ver programs in an efficient. e ffect i ve.
and fai r manner by 2000. The 1 995 GAO report cited earl ier noted that w h i l e
women a n d m i nori ties at U S DA had m ade progress i n t h e i r relative leve l s of
While a fell ' USDA agencies
representation s i nce 1 984. compared w i t h white men. they were sti l l reprc
have made g reat strides ill sented i n lower re lat ive numbers in the agencies' key job categories. I n gener
divers!fyillg their l I 'orkforce a l , the re lative numbers of white women and m i nori ties in the SES ranks of
at al1 lel 'els, most COl 1 tillue U S DA has i ncreased s i nce 1 984. H owever. white men conti nued to dom i nate
the h igher ranks of US DA's top pos i t ions in 1 996.
to lag f([ r behind ill /JI()I'iding
These statist ics. however. do not tell the whole story. An analysis of U S DA's
the same le l 'els qf dil'ersi(r ill
work force by Professional , Adm i n i strative. Technical. Clerica l , Other. and
their professiol1([I, lI1id- , ([Ild B l u e Collar ( PATCOB ) selies shows that men continue to dom i nate the profes
senior- Iel 'el positiolls. sional ran ks in U S DA. accounting for over 77 percent of the 28. 1 0 I profes
sional pos i tions. White men i n pal1icular account for 1 8.678 or 66 percent of
all professional pos i t ions in U S DA . Women continue to hold the majority of
the 7 .057 c lerical pos i t i ons i n U S DA . f i l l i ng 92 percent of those pos i ti on�.
W h i l e a few U S DA agencies have madc g reat strides i n divers i fy i n g their
workforce at a l l levels. most conti nue to lag far behind i n provid i ng the samc
leve l s of di versity in their professional, m i li-, and seni or-I evcl positions. ( Sce
Members of the Civil R ights Action

Team at a liste n i n g sessi o n .

CIVIL RIGHTS Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices
USDA Work Force Compared to

Civilian Labor Force in 1 996
USDA Permanent
Work Force
(All Grades)
Civilian
Labor Force
White Men 49.3%

42.6%
- -
White Women •
35 . 3% 3 1 .8%
..!.
t
Black Men
4 . 9% 3 . 7%
'j t
Black Women 5 . 8%
5.4%
1"'1
Hispanic Men
4 . 8% 3. 1 %
n
Hispanic Women 3 . 3% • 1 . 7%
Asian-Pacific
American Men t 1 . 5% , . 8%
Asian - P acific
American Women • 1 . 3% t 1 . 5%
American I nd ian
Men .3% t 1 . 5%
American I ndian
Women .3% • 1 . 0%
Source: EEOMAS data for September 30, 1 996

1 11• • • • - CIVIL RIGHTS Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices
Senior Executive
USDA Permanent Level Work
Work Force Force**
(GS 1 3-1 5)
White Men
67.9% • 6 8 . 0%
]'
-
White Women
• 1 7 . 9% 1 9 .0%
Black Men
• 4 . 0% 7 . 8%
•
Black Women
3 . 9% 10, 2 . 6%
H i spanic Men •
2 . 0% 1 . 3%
H ispanic Women
• .6% . 3%
Asian-Pacific
American Men 2. 1 % .
.8%
Asian-Pacific
American Women • .6% 0%
American I n d ian
Men I .8% 0%
American Indian
Women .2% . 3%
" Presidential appointees, career and non-career SE S positions, senior level positions, scientific
and technical positions, and U S DA judges. Does not include senior foreign service positions.

the agency workforce pro fi les i n A ppend i x C for detai led i n formation on
U S DA employment statistics. )
Accord i ng to data from the Equal E mp loyment Opportu n i ty Monitoring
and Analysis System ( EEOMAS), re lative to t he C i v i l ian Labor Force,
H ispanics are the most u nder-represented m i nority group in U S DA, fol l owed
by As ian-Pac i fic A mericans . H ispanics. who are not wel l represented at any
grade leve l , are the fastest grow i ng m i nority group: many esti mate that t hey
w i l l be the l argest mi nority group by 20 1 2. A merican I ndians have been able
to achieve and exceed parity i n U S DA overal l , but arc under-represented i n
some regions and grade leve l s .
Employee Perceptions of Workforce Diversity at USDA
Statistics te l l only a smal l part of the story. Workforce d ivers i ty is about how
well U S DA treats. values, and taps the potential of everyone in its workforce.
By that measure. accord i ng to employees who spoke at CRAT l i !'lten i ng se!'l
sions. U S DA is not very d iverse at a l l .
Stati stics alone d o not explai n why USDA's workforce looks a s i t does. or
what has and has not been done by U S DA managers to he lp or hi nder di\·ersity.
At listening sessions at USDA's National Finance Center ( N FC ) in New Orleans.
at Woodland. CA. and at the Jefferson Audi tori um in Washi ngton, DC. m i nority.
female. and employees with disabi l i ties told the CRAT that they face a d i fferent
set of standards when try i ng to advance in their careers at SDA .
M any contend that personnel ru les, regu lations. and po l icies are app l i ed
36 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEt,T OF AGRICULTURE

1 11• • • • - CIVIL RIGHTS Workforr:e Diversity and Employment Practices
di fferently for women and mi nority cmployees . B l ack employees. many with
college degrees. said they were tu rned down for tech nician pos i t ions or even
m any entry-level pos itions. because they do not qual i fy. They spoke about the
i nabi lity of b lack employees. even thosc w i th prior government experience. to
be converted to permanent posi tions. One employee who appl ied for an
accounting technic i an job said he was told t hat his hands were too l arge to
use an add i ng machine.
M i nori ty and female employees told of being u n fairly denied promotions.
permanent posi t ions. developmental assignments. tra i n i ng. and awan.ls. and
they spoke of having their positions downgraded and e l i m i nated. They said
managers often detail "favored" employees into vacant positions prior to adver
tising those po�itions. This practice gives the detai led employees valuable
experience in the job. which strengthen!'> their resumes and often guarantees
their eventual selection. Such " pre-selection" tactics are problems at all grade
Female employees at some of levels. including SES posit ions. m i nority and female employees said.
the listening sessions said that There i s a perception that the Forest Serv i ce i s using its "surp l u s l i st" to
those who refused to engage retaliate agai nst employees who fi led complai nts. The surplus l i st. officially
cal led the Forest Serv ice \ , Employee Placement Serv i ce. is used to identi l'y
in sexual relationships with
pos i t ions that w i l l be reduced. e l i m i nated, or moved i n response to budget
their supervisors often were cutbacks.
denied promotions and/or B ecause they represent only a small port ion of USDAs workforce. Asian
transfers. In some instances, Pac i fi c A merican employees said they " reel i nv i s i ble." Despite their special
ized degrees or educat i onal achievements. many Asi an- Paci lic A meri can
careers were "destroyed and
employees at N FC said that they have a hard t i me gett i ng promoted . I n
the work situation turned add i t i on t o a " g lass cei l i ng:' they bel i eve there i s a "sticky 1100r" for them
violent. " because none can rise above the GS- 1 2 le\'eI . Others said that managers used
employees ' accents as excuses to hold them bac k .
As noted earl ier. many U S DA employees descri beu what they cal led
" hosti le work environments." Other employees. part i c u l arly at the N FC.
contended that nepot i sm and favori t i s m were widespread throughout their
agency. They said that promotions were g i ven to employees who were
friendly with or re lated to managers.
Female empl oyees at some or the l i steni ng sessions said that those who
refused to engage i n sexual re lationsh i ps w i th their supervi sors orten were
den ied promotions and/or transfers. I n some i nstances. careers were
"destroyed and the work situation turned violent."
A Forest Service employee at the New Orleans l i stening session compared
the s i tuation to someone who has cancer. add ing that i f the cancer is ignored.
it destroys e\'erything around i t . and "eventually destroys its host. the very
thing that is essent i a l to i t s l iveli hood." W h i le N FC and the Forest Service arc
ci ted i n t hese examples. these rec urring the mes can be applied to other U S DA
agencies as we l l .
The CRAT also heard from employees w i t h disabi l ities. Approxi mately
1 . 1 42 employees ( 1 .2 percent ) in U S DA have indicated that they have a target
ed disab i l i ty. Targeted disabi l i t ies are 29 spec i fied severe d i sabi l i t ies. At
empl oyee l i stening sessions. individuals with d i sabi l i t ies said that even though
37 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

cm
\ I I • • • • _ ••'-�c l viiIi
I L:lR
RiC
l GiiH
ifTs
TS�Wc�
o�
rkfi
fo
o;;;rc�eID>ii�
ve:;;rs�ity
� and
;;djE
�mp
-;;;lo;;
;i yme
�n;;t� �tic�e�s-----
; P;;;rac
they are competent i n the i r s k i l ls and abi l i t ies, they often cannot calTY out and
complete assignments because they l ack adaptable equipment for the heari ng
or v i sually-i mpaired. M any t i mes, U S DA agencies a l so t�\il to provide material
i n the necessary format, such as Brai l le or closed-captioning.
A t the Wash i ngton. DC, l i stening sess ion, a Forest Service employee
described the frustration of many disabled U S DA emp loyees regard i ng t he
l ac k of spec ial accommodations, wh ich they need to fu l l y part ic i pate i n meet
i ngs and l isten i n g sessions. She said that w h i le EEOC M anagement Direct ive
7 1 2 c learly provides aven ues to enable emp loyees with targeted disab i l i ties
to be promoted and to receive tra i n i n g . approx imate l y 70 percent of those
with disab i l i t ies in the Forest Service are in GS-7 or below positions. The
employee said, "Wh i le persons w i t h targeted disab i l i t ies represent 7 percent
of the C i v i l ian Labor Force [ C LF ] , they only repre:-.ent 1 . 28 percent [ 394
employees I of the workforce at the Forest Serv ice." The CRAT has not been
able to veri fy t he CLF nu mbers for persons with targeted d i sab i l i t ies. ( Table
I provides i n formation on the n u mber o f employees with targeted disabi l i t ies
in U S DA . )
The CRAT fou nd that U S DA has not taken advantage o f the exi:-.ting
Federal programs avai l able to help agencies i n recru i t i ng and h i ri ng employ
ees with di sabi l ities. The Workforce Recru i tment Program for Col lege
Students with D i sab i l i ties is one n::cru itment source; however. in 1 996 U S DA
h i red only three students under that progra m .
Employees at a l l o f t h e l istening sess ions t o l d of harassment or reprisab
a fter they had fi led compl aints or come to the defense of co-workers. They
complai ned that their supervi sors su ffered no consequences, even a fter having
Table 1 : USDA Employees been found gui lty o f comm i t t i n g various offenses. In some instances. t hese
with Targeted Disabilities supervisors were promoted and their careers advanced w i th no i l l e frech. One
employee told of a manager with four fi ndings of reprisal agai nst h i m who
Position recently rece ived a temporary assignment as acting head of a regional nflice.
Levels Number Percent Fear of reprisal or harassment has kept some employees with legiti mate com
SES 2 0.5 plai nts or concerns from speaking out. Several employees at the l i sten i n g ses
GS 1 3- 1 5 87 0.7 sions said that they hesitated to come forward for fear of reprisal and that thi:-.
G S 9- 1 2 369 0.9 fear kept other employees from speak i ng out.
Two speakers at the Wash i ngton, DC, employee l i sten ing se:-.sion identi lied
GS 1 -8 639 1 .9
themselves as members of the U S DA Gay, Lesbian, and B i sexual Employees
Wage G rade
Organ ization ( G LOB E ) and both spoke of t he host i l ity and ridicule they have
& Other 39 2.0
experienced from others when they disclosed their sexual orientation . An
employee at the Wood land. CA, session said that for 2 2 years, from the sign
i ng o f Executive Order 1 0450 by then-President Dwight E i senhower brand i ng
homosexuals as perverts and excl uding them from the Federal c i v i l service. to
a 1 975 C i v i l Service Com m i ss ion memorandum wh ich declared such d i s
cri m i nation a prohibited personnel practice, it was i mpossible to serve one 's
country as an open l y gay or lesbian Federal employee. Despite this pol i cy
change. many gay and lesbian Federal emp loyees remai ned i n the closet
because of t he d i scri mi nation experienced by others who were open about
their sexual orientat ion . As this employee said, '"it takes an enormous amount

I I I • • • • _ ••'-�C IVilliiL�ii
Cili RiCil GiiH
ifT
TS
S*
m�
o ��
kfi
fo
o;;;
rc;eLD)i;iv�e�
rs�
ity�and
;;d1E
�mp
;;Llo;
y;;;;
me ; P;;;rac
;;;n;;tf ;cti tic�e-;;s-----
of energy to mai ntain a cover 2.+ hours a day. Sad ly, for many empl oyees the
stress is too much and they spiral downwards i nto various form!'> of dysfunc
tional and se l f-destruct ive behavi or."
Past Recommendations on Workforce Diversity
These i ssues are not new. Several past reports and task forces have identi fied
problems in workforce diversity as wel l as proposed solutions, but l i l l i e has
been done to i mplement those recommendations.
The Secretary's 1 996 B l ue R i bbon Tas k Force on Equal Opportunity and
Divers i ty stressed the i mportance of hav i ng e ffect ive AEP's in place. Several
The opportunity to participate of the recom mendat i on s of the Ta�k Force which were adopted by Secretary
G l ickman concerned strengthen i ng agencies' AEP·s. The Secretary d i rected
in decision-making bodies
the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i strat ion to i ssue guidance on e x i st i n g
provides important career statutes a n d regu lations for exec u t i ng t h e AEP program: a n d each Subcabinet
developmental opportunities offi cial was d i rected to i ssue a statement to her or his agency heads re iterat i ng
for minorities and women, the need to comply with their submi tted plan. The Assi�tant Secretary for
Adm i n i strat ion also was d i rected to i ssue an official se m i -annual report on
whose perspectives also add
each agency ' s compl i ance w i th its AEP.
to the quality of decisions A n effective AEP w i l l ensure that U S DA is tak i ng the necessary act ions to
that are made. '
e l i m i nate the under-representation of women. m i nori ties. and persons with
d i sab i l ities. The B l ue R i bbon Task Force reiterated that the development and
execution of AEP's mu'>t be carried out in a fashion that is consi stent with the
pri nciples laid out by the Supreme Court in Adarand COlbtruction v Pena.
The goal s and object ives de�cri bed i n AEP's cannot be transformed uncon
sciously i n to quotas.
The Tas k Force also advocated d i versity on all U S DA task forces. com m i t
tees. and advi sory groups. U S DA is cont i nu a l l y establ ishing task forces.
com mittees. and advisory groups on a large variety of i ssues. These groups
cover a w i de range of act iv i ties. and provide i m port ant deve lopmental oppor
t u n i ties for employees to advance their careers.
U S DA has pub l i shed a regulation req u i ring that U S DA consider divers i ty
as part of its appoi ntments to external task forces. com m i ttees. or advi sory
groups. Secretary G l ickman has also i ssued a pol icy stalement regard i ng
d i versity on a l l i nternal ta�k forces, commi ttees. and adYisory groups. Even
so. several employees. i ncluding pol itical appoi ntees. told members or the
CRAT that d ivers i ty is rarely the case. especially 'Alhen dec i s ions are being
made about critical i ssues at the Depart mental and agency leve l . s Lich as the
Fund for R ural A merica.
The opport u n ity to part ic i pate i n deci sion-mak ing bodies provides i m por
tant career deve lopmental opportu n i t ies for m i norities and women. whose
perspectives also add to the q u a l i ty of dec i sion� that are made.
The Secretary has d i rected the Assi stant Secretary for Adm i n i stration I n
estab l i s h a database conta i n i ng i n format ion on the workforce makeup of each
agency. Accurate data is essen t i a l . especial l y when the percept i on is Ihat

m i norities and women are bei ng adversel y i mpacted by downsizing.

Average Processing Time
( U n fortunate l y, the Department now has two databases-the EEOMAS and
of Formal EEO Complaints
the DN7 1 ...J. databases-ne i ther of which contains accurate data. ) B ased on the
1 992-1 996
data avai lable to the C R AT. dow n s i z i ng has not had a negative i m pact on
_.- Adjudi cated Complaints women and m i norities. In fact, these groups have shown s l i gh t i ncreases
Settled Complaints
large ly because many white m ales accepted i ncent ives to ret i re.
All Com plaints
No. of
The Report of the U S DA Tas k Force on Sexual Orientat ion, dated January
Years ] I . I 99...J. , i ncl uded a l i s t of recommendat ions which addressed the i ssue of
3 sexual orientat ion. The U S DA G LO B E provided the CRAT with a rev i sed l i st
of recom mendat ions based on that report . These recommendations i ncl ude
provi d i ng tra i n i ng on the subjects of sex ual orientation, homophobia, and
non trad i t ional fam i l y structures: deli n i ng and pub l icizing the aven ues o f
2 redress avai lable to emp loyees a n d program rec i pients w h o have been sub
jected to d i scrimination based on sex ual orientation : and hav i ng the
Depart ment become an advocate for domest i c partner benefits, and re intro
duction of the Emp loyment Non-Discri m i n at i on Act.
1
Employee Complaints
Because of US DAs lack of l:ffective leadership in c i v i l rights. employees who

Source: U S DA annual reports filed with E EOC
ti le EEO complaint!-. have had to endure a tru l y dysfunctional system.
Under the EEO complaint process, employees who bel ieve they have been
d i scri m i nated aga i n s t i n the workpl ace must first con tact a U S DA EEO coun
selor. The counse l or s report to a central U S DA c i v i l rights office as a res u l t of
a 1 99...J. reorgan i l.ation. During the counse l i ng stage. counselors te l l emp loyees
about the ir EEO rights, and emp loyees are encouraged to · ' i n formally
resolve " the matter. If t he matter i s not reso l ved, t hen a "formal complai n t" i s
li led with o n e of U S DA's c i v i l rights o ffices. The case m u s t t hen b e i nvest i
gated before a deci sion i s reached . A l though there are lega l l y estab l ished t i me
l i m its. emp loyees often don ' t hear anything about the i r cases for years .
One part of the problem is strictly t he volume of complaints. U S DA has
ligures on EEO complai nts closed, opened, and pending during t he last 5
years ( see chart next page ) .
The n umbers clearly show that. w i th the exception of a decrease i n 1 996
due to the reconc i l i ation of data, complaints are being li led faster than the
C i v i l Rights o ftice can handle them . Between 1 992 and 1 996, U S DA reported
that complaints took anywhere from I to ] years to c l ose. e ither by sett lement
or dec i�ion. The l i sten i n g sessions suggest that resolut ion may be tak i ng
much longer.
Employees at the l i sten i ng sessions compla i ned about the process and t he
lack or respons i veness on the part of S DA's C i v i l Rights office. An FC
employee who ti led a compla i n t in 1 992 said t he o n ly contact he ever
received from U S DA was in J u ne 1 996. A lthough the letter apolog i zed for
the uelay and assured h i m he wou l d receive prompt serv ice, he said he has
hearu not h i ng further and his cal l s have gone u nreturned.

' 11 • • • • - CIVIL RIGHTS Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices
Backlog of Formal EEO Complaints

Filed Against USDA by Employees
1992-1 996
.=:
-
Filed or remanded in FY
:=:- R e m a i n i n g at end of FY
( i nc l u d i n g complai nts on h a n d -
.::==:
at end of previous FY) -
.::==:
-
EI
-
C l osed d u ri n g FY
2233
.::==:
772
I nformal Complai nts
2005 :=::::- =:::

- ::;. 2024
� -
�
- -
- -
.='
�
- .::==: ===
.=-
-
.=- 1 732 === -
.=-
1 62 8
-
.::==: � .::= =: ==
- -
.=-
- - === - 566
.=- .::==: �
- ===
- ::::
- := -
=== ===
-
- � � - - === - .::==: -
�
-
=== .::==: -
.='
-
.::==: -
-
.::==:
-
.='
-
-==- � � 666 � === - -=-
-
-
.=' � � -
� -
.=' 683 -
.=' - - ==
=== -
=== ===
.=' ==
-
===
- - - � -
.::==: == -
.::==:
-
.::==: .::==:
.='
-
.::=- -
-
.::==:
.::==:
=== :=::::- � - ===
- == ==
-
.::= =:
-
- -
.::==: .::==: � === === -====- - -====-
-
.::==:
- -
.=' .::==:
-
.='
- ===
-
- == 1 863
- -
.::==: ::::::;.
-
.::=- 462 ===
-
-- -
===
-
.=' -
-
.::==: � - -
� === � �
-
- -
===
- -
===
-
.=' == � :: 1 391 *
::::::::= === - -
- === -= -- - -
=== -
=== �
-
===
- - == - - - -
.::=-
- ===
- - ==
- 1 046 .=' ===
- === ===
-
.='
- ===
- - = 869 � ===
- � - === .=' - ==
.='
- ===
- .::=- === - � ===
- � === � ===
.:::==
- = 646 ===
- -
-=- ===
-
-=- ==
- ==
-
.:::== - .=
- - ===
- ===
- - ===
- ===
�
- ===
- ===
- .:::== ===
- ===
=== - ==
.::==:
-
.::==: === === � === � === - .::==:
.:::==
-=-. -
- -
.......-. - �. -- -::=.. -====- --=- -====-
...- ./" ...- ./"
II �59 501
383 t
� 604 .
1 992 1 993 1 994 1 995 1 996
"This figure is lower because 432 cases were closed due to a comprehensive audit ( reconciliation of data ) .
Source: U S DA annual reports f i led with E EOC; Office o f Operations

One woman said she had ti led a complaint because she feared for her l i fe,
and 6 weeks later. received a form letter aski ng her to contact an EEO coun
selor. A Forest Service employee i n Cal i fornia believes the EEO complaint
process and the people run n i ng it are "an adversary toward the employee
rather than what their job is supposed to be." Fee l i ng they have nowhere else
to turn. many employees have gone d i rectl y to the Secretary's office .
Another oft-expressed complaint about the EEO process is the fai l ure of the
civil rights staff to honor confidential ity. An employee in New Orleans charged
that "by the time you get back to your desk. your supervisor and those who you
are alleging these charges against know everyth i ng you have said."
Employees also echoed the theme that agencies, i n particular the Forest
Service. have not complied with the terms of settlement agreements or taken
the corrective actions mandated by EEOC or other adjudicative bodies i n
their decisions. One employee said when she reported the non-compliance to
U S DA's compliance division. she was s i mply told to go to court.
A sentiment frequently voiced by employees and managers alike is that the
EEO office and the Department are more concerned with settl ing complaints
than with solving the real workplace problems. During the New Orleans l i sten
i ng session. �everal employees complained that they were pressured by EEO
counselors not to go through with an EEO complaint. An employee relations
'
specialist i n Wash ington. DC, characterized the process as one of "giving out
money in exchange for withdrawi ng a complaint." S he added that while set
t l i ng all complaints may be fine if the only concern is settlement rates. "legiti
mate issues of discri m ination" become "lost in this process of settl i ng ." An
EEO specialist at the Woodland session said: "It i s more economical to resol ve
these issues. not to settle complaints, but to resolve the issues."
The focus on settlement i s evident i n the U S DA " resolution model ." The
underl y i ng premise of the model is that it is better for managers to resol ve
their own d isputes than to have a j udge do it for them. That model makes
sense as far as it goes. but it uses a settlement ·'formu la." Little attention i s
g iven t o the human aspects o f conflict, such a s relationships and communica
tion. As a result. U S DA has n ' t focused on uncovering and resolving the real
problems in the workplace. So, w h i le complaints may get "settled." i ssues are
never " resol ved" and new complaints are fi led.
The fixation on settlement is perpetuated by the h igh volume of EEO com
plaints fi led. A 1 99 1 law that al lows employees who prove discri mination to
receive up to $300.000 in compensatory damages prov ides additional i ncen
tive for ti l ing. An employee in New Orleans summed up the fear about those
cases already in the system: "If they can' t i nvestigate one that's 4 years old,
how long i s i t going to take one to surface that's fi led now')"
The EEO system has left the perception that management i s not held
accountable for wrong doing. Many employees contend that when settlements
are reached. managers who have d i scriminated go unpunished, S i nce most
settlements are " no fau lt." t here usually is no fi nding of discrimi nation. mak
i ng disc i p l i ne d i fficult. Between 1 992 and 1 996, there was an average of 22
tindings of discri m i nation per year by U S DA agencies in the EEO process.
42 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRI CULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'-�C
�I�VriILi
L RiiIG
G�HnTris�m
V;;
orlifto;;;rc;;e�D)tvi�e;;
rkfi rs� �flE�mp
ity;and ;klo;;
yme
;;;;n�P�
t� es-;-----
ractI�'c�
The Department has tried new ways to deal w i th EEO compl aints. I n
September 1 993, the Department estab l i shed the D i spute Resolution Boards
( DR B ) to require management to negot iate and settle comp laints. The boards
conduct m i n i-heari ngs at t he beg i n n i n g of the formal complaint phase. and
then assess the case and attempt to work out a settle ment.
A May 1 994 study revealed that both employees and managers thought the
boards were a step in the right d i rect ion. However. surveys and focus groups
revealed that the boards were seen as formal , too l ate in the process. and con
•
cerned only with settlement. They did not deal with i mprovi ng communica
tions or identify i ng and sol v i ng problems. An i nd ividual at the Wood land. CA.
l i sten i ng session said five or s i x management officials attend board sessions
whi le employees don ' t even know how the boards are supposed to work .
The boards have decreased their act i v i ties si nce FY 1 994. For example. i n
The EEO system has left the t h e l as t quarter of FY 1 996. four of the s i x service centers conducted only
perception that management t h ree DRB sessions combi ned. Even u s i ng the settlement standard by which
is not held accountable for effectiveness has been judged at U S DA . the boards in one of the most act ive
service centers sett l ed 1 2 1 complaints i n FY 1 994. whi le the boards in a l l six
wrong doing.
serv ice centers settled o n l y 88 cases i n FY 1 996.
In 1 994. U S DA moved the counselors from the agencies to the Department's
Civil R ights office to i mprove the effectiveness of the counselors. However.
employees feel the counselors have actually been less effective and responsive
s i nce the move.
The fact that agencies settle a high percentage of E EO cases may suggest
that many complaints do have meri t . On the other hand. managers frequently
maintain that the i r agencies settle regardless of merit and that they are " hung
out to dry." U nder the current system. where sett lement is the focus. the ques
tion of whether d i scrimi nation has occun'ed or not i s beside the point. In a
1 996 st udy. the EEOC observed that w h i le some EEO compl aints may not

i nvol ve d iscri m i nation, Federal employees may choose the E EO route

because they see "no other forum avai lable to a i r general workpl ace con
cerns ." Few U S DA employees have an acceptable a l ternative route to address
the i r workplace com plaints. '
M any recommendations have been made to i mprove the handl i n g of work
place disputes. The M ay 1 994 eval uation of the Dispute Resolution Boards rec
ommended the Department move its focus away from settlement and toward
resolv i ng the u nderlying problems, even before an employee goes to an EEO
counselor. On a s i mi lar note, t he EEOC's 1 996 report concluded that agencies
could benefit from the use of an "interest based" approach to reso l v i ng work
place disputes. where emphasi s is placed on ti nding areas of mutual agreemen t
that address people's needs and concerns. A U S DA employee focus group on
EEO and civil rights recommended in J u l y 1 993 that USDA allow employees
to prevail when an agency doesn ' t respond within the prescribed t i me frames.
And a 1 996 report commissioned by the Administrative Con ference of the
U n i ted States found that the creation of "ombudsman" oftices has taken pres
sure off of overloaded EEO systems and provided agencies with a veh icle for
ident i fying and sol v i ng systemic organizational workplace problems.
S lowly, U S DA i s movi n g in this d i rection. A few agencies-the
Agricultural Research Service. An imal and Plant Health I nspcction Service.
and the Eastern Region ( Region 9) of the Forest Serv ice-have estab l i shed
medi ation systems outside the E EO process. The Secretary. on M ay 1 5 . 1 996.
d i rected t he Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i stration to establish a model com
plaint prevention system. and d i rected every agency to create a complaint pre
vention program by November 30. 1 996. Thc idea is a good one ; however, i t
appears that i mp lementation h a s been s low. Agencies wou l d benefit greatly
from Departmental guidance and a coord i nated effort toward contl ict man
agement. Final ly, the number of EEO complaints could be greatly reduced i f
managers had the necessary con fl ict management and com mun ications s k i l l s .
44 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

Ci1
I I I • • • • _ ••'--c lv�liiL:lR
AHI GiiHHTTss�m�
o�
rkfi
fc
o;;;rc;eID)ii�
ve;;rs�ity
� and
-;;;jE
� j mp
-;;;lo;; me
;i y;;;';;t �
nt-;P;;;rac ti�
ce;s-----
U
Conclusions S DAs workforce doc,> not rellcct the di \l�rs ity of i t � customcr hasc.
The l ack of diversity in field oflices adversel y arrect� program dcl i,
ery to m i nority and � OJ11en customers of" U S DA . S i nce Fcderal Ef ( )
and A fti rmative E m pl oy ment l aws and pol icies do not gO\ ern thc llon-Fedcral
work forcc. it is even less re llective of customers than the Federal program
del i ve ry workforce. At t he hi ghe'>t kwh. agencies look to the oflice of the
Secretary and the Subcabinet to be model" for the k i nd of diversity L'S DA i�
expected to achieve .
S i nce 1 990. wilen U S DA i n i t i ated formal erforl'-. to divcrs i fy i l '-. \\ nrkrol"Cl'.
there has been l i m ited progress. Women. m i norit ies. and tho"c with d i �abi l i
t i e s continue t o be u nder-reprcsented i n "enior management a n d cxculti, e
pos i tions at U S DA .
M any m i nority. female. and employecs with di�abi l i ties bel icw that thcy arc
subjected to " hostile work env i ronment<' and that they face douhle "tandard�
when seeking to advance in their careers at U S DA . They ch"lrgc manager� \\ ith
u n fair e mployment practices i n personnel areas regm·ding preselection. ti lllc-in
grade. i nequities i n the distribution of high-visibi l i ty as"ignments. and \\ itll , iu
l at ion of merit promotion principlc�. They abo pcrcei\C that U S DA unfairly
distri butes trai n ing. award,>. promot ions. and dC\"l�lopmcntal oppm1unitics.
M anagers do not always aim for workforce di\"ers i l) \\'hen forming ta"!...
forces. com m i llee'>. and ad\" i sory groups. or in the cOlllpo"ition of staff�
res ponsible for program del ive ry. A bo. recr u i t ment erfort� i n l ' S DA agcnCll's
are not coord i nated to ensure workforce d i \"cr�it) i n the h i ring o f \\ omcn.
m i nori t i es. and those with di sabi l i ties.
As U S DA strives for a diverse workforce. worh.!'orcc planning and rctent i( ln
.
programs must be developed and i mplemented as part of cach agcncy ...
strateg i c plan.
A l so. recom mendations in the " 1 994 Report ()f the L J S DA Task Vorcc on
Sexual Orientation" have not been i m plemcnted to make ccrt a i n that d i �eril11-
i nation and/or harassment based on �exual orientation w i l l not he tolerated.
The E EO com plaint system i � not t i mel). i s unrcsponsi\c. and i " gC l1era l l �
dysfunctional. Too Illuch foc us is pl aced on sculcmcnt for sell lel1lcnt'� "<Ike.
and not enough rocu� i s pl aced on rcsnh· i ng the underl y i n g proble!ll�.
45 CIVIL R I GHTS AT THE u s OEPARTMEt,T OF AGRICUlTLiRF

1 11 1 • • • _ _.- ------- - - -- ---- -
The Or g a n i zat i ona l Structu re

of C i v i l R i g hts
M
Background ------
ajor "people" problems. many of them noted already. exist with
US DA's civil rights program. However. w h i le preparing t h i s report,
the CRAT also i dent i fied s i gn i ficant organizational and structura l
problems that i mpact US DA's abi l i ty to ensure c i v i l rights enforcement for i t s
customers a n d employees.
They i ncl ude: the absence of one highly placed ofticial w i t h fu l l authority
over US DA's c i v i l rights program; i nadequate oversight and gu i dance to
U S DA agenc ies from the Department's C i v i l R i ghts office; U SDA's fai l u re to
emphasize e l i m i nating d i scri m i nation i n program de l i very ; and. as noted
earlier. the w idespread d i ssati s fact ion with the role of the Office of the
General Counse l .
Lack of Strong Civil Rights Leadership a t USDA
The Assi stant Secretary for Ad m i n i strat ion i s U S DA's senior offi c i a l responsi
ble for c i v i l ri ghts. Although that pos i t ion has the respons i bi l i ty for c i v i l
righb pol icy and com p l i ance. it does not have the authority o r resources nec
essary to ensure that programs arc del i vered and employees are treated fairly
and equ i tably.
On the con trary. the resources and authori ty for adm i n i stering programs as
we l l as for h i ri ng and employ ment practices are vested w i th agency heads.
And. agency heads' performance i s rated by their subcabi net members. not
the senior c i v i l rights offic i a l . As mentioned earlier i n this report. i t i s rare
• that agency heads are rated as "does not meet" i n t he i r c i v i l rights perfor
mance element. even though many U S DA agencies have obv ious c iv i l rights
problems.
Thi s scenario is repeated with the agency and m ission area civil righh direc
tors. Regard less of to whom the c i v i l ri ghts d i rectors report at the agency or
mission area level , they do not have the authority to rate program d i rectors
within their agency or m ission area on their c i v i l rights accompl i shments. Thi s
lack of close oversight and accountab i l i ty at the agency level has led t o the
widespread percept ion by both customers and employees that the fox is guard
ing the henhouse when i t comes to enforc i ng c i v i l rights pol icies at U S DA .

I I I • • • • - ••'-4c
Ci"
I VijIL
L'RUIG
G�HnTr!S�O;;;rg�an
;;; tlfu
iza� ·o;;;
na;ilS
St�
ruc;
tu�re��
oif�C�
iv�
il�R� ts-------
ig?izh;
Lack of Administrative Management Coordination
Too many admi n i strative i ssues are elevated to the Orticc of the Secretary
without coordination among U S DA management functions. There is also a
lac k of cooperation between functions that report to the Ortice of the
Secretary and those that report to the Assistant Secretary for Administration
( AS A ) . For example. the Chief Financial Officer ( CFO ) and the Chief
I n formation Officer ( C I O ) report directly to the Secretary. Some argue that
Congress mandated that the CFO report to the Secretary. However. Treasury
and I nterior are examples of Departments which have successfully managed
this issue by having their ASA also serve as the C FO.
Several other offices that i n fl uence civil rights operate without coordination
According to a June 1 996 by the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i stration. The USDA Service Center
report by the U.S. I mplementation Team. which assists the USDA Service Centers with such
things as automation and outreach. reports indirectly to the Deputy Secretary
Commission on Civil Rights,
through the Food and Agricul ture Counc i l . The O ftice or Small and
during the early and mid- Disadvantaged B usi ness U t i liLation. which plays a key role in promoting
1980 's USDA leaders had equal opportun ity ror small and m i nori ty busi nesses. reports to the Deputy
effectively «dismantled" Secretary. I mprovement in U S DA's civil righh performance w i l l requi re a
concerted outreach efTort . For that eft'ort to succeed. close coordination with
USDA 's civil rights
USPA's civil rights functions w i l l be needed . However. there is l i ll ie coordi
apparatus. nation because there is no one i ndividual ulti mately i n charge.
If At First You Don't Succeed . . . Reorganize,

Reorganize, Reorganize
The CRAT\ study of past reports indicates that civil rights at USDA has been
i n a persistent state of chaos because of numerous reorgan izations si nce the
I 9H(rs. According to a J une 1 996 report by the U . S . Com mission on C i v i l
R ights. during the early and m id- I 98(rs USDA leaders had effect ively "dis
mantled " U S DA's c i v i l righh apparatus.
Until 1 993. U S DA's Office or Personnel handled adj udication of EEO
complainh within the Employee Appeals Staff. which was then renamed
EEO Complai nts Management. The Ortice or Advocacy and Enterpri se
( OA E l was responsible for adjudicating. program discrimination complaints.
and handled other civ i l rights functions, such a� outreach and cnforccment.
I n 1 993. the E EO complaints function was briclly transferred to OAE. and
redesignated the Disputes Resolution Staff. the li rst step towards consolidat
ing all civil rights compl iance functions relating to program delivery and
employment under the Assistant Secretary for Admini stration .
I n a major reorganization of c i v i l rights in 1 994. USDA created the Onice
of C i v i l Rights Enforcement ( OC R E ). which assumed civil rights responsibil
ity for both EEO ( pri mari ly Title V I I 1 and program del ivery ( such as Title V I
and the Equal Credi t Opportunity Act ) activit ies. The reorgani7ation also
estab l i"hed six regional service center" in Atlanta. Sacramento. Kansas Ci ty,
47 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEI�T OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4C
:iINVriILi
L R"IG
� HnT�S�Ol;;rg�an
�/k:
·za;tlt·o-;
;;na;ZIS
St�
ruc�
tu;;;re;-;o-:;j
if�C:h il�R�ig�h;;
iv� ts-------
Denver, New Orleans, and Wash i ngton, DC. whose pri mary functions are to
provide counse l i ng and conduct dispute resolution boards for employment
complaints.
I n October 1 995, OCRE's short l i fe came to an end: U S DA div ided civil
rights responsib i l ities among two new offices-the Pol icy Analysis and
Coordi nation Center ( PACC-CR ), and the O ffice of Operations ( 00 ) .
PACC-CR was delegated a l l c i v i l rights responsibil ity for U S DA, excert for
employment and program del ivery complaints, which wa� delegated to 00.
In addition to c i v i l rights. 00's Director is responsible for many other
functions at USDA, ranging from procurement to securi ty. OO's Associate
D i rector for Complaints Adj udication is respon�ible for hearing civil rights
complaints. The Emp loyment Complaints and Adj udication Division, the
Program Complaints and Adj udication Division, and six regional service cen
ters also report to the Associate Director.
The 1 995 reorgani zation thus moved responsibil i ty for civi l right!-l COI11-
plai nts to a lower level than c i v i l rights pol icy, and has left employees and
customers confused about which office they shou ld go to for help.
In J une 1 996, the U .S . Commission on Civil R ights found that "the impact
of the numerous reorganiLations on Title V i ol' other c i v i l rights enforcement
at U S DA remains u nclear." The one clear i mpact the Commission did ti nd
was negative : " these reorgani z ations have created considerable upheavals
among the c i v i l rights staff . . . .
"
Civil Rights Leadership Changes Frequently
Over the years. USDA has had almost as many Departmental Civil Rights
Directors as it ha� had reorganizations. The Civil Rights Leadersh i p Counc i l
cited t h i s a s another factor contributing t o the disaJTay in civil rights a t USDA.
They stated that not only has there been a lack of continuity and longevity in
directors. but that the i ndividuals who have held the position have not had a
strong background in civil rights, and attributed this to the fact that the position
has been designated as a "general" senior executive position which can be fil led
by pol itical appointees. The civil rights community advocates designating the
director position as "career reserved" to ensure that i ndividuals w i th the appro
priate quali fications and background are appointed to this po�ition.
The Commission on Civil Rights also c i ted the "revolving door" of Civil
R ights Directors i n the mid- 1 980's. "many of whom had no c i v i l rights
experience." The current Director of C i v i l Rights is a career employee, but
did not come from a civil rights background, and has been "acting" in that
position for more than a year. This has given the perception that c i v i l rights is
not a high priority i n U S DA .
The C i v i l Rights Leadership Counci l recommended that US DA's C i v i l
R ights D i rector should report direct l y t o the Secretary, and that agency C i v i l
Rights Directors shou ld report t o t h e i r agency heads. I n 1 996, the
Commission observed that OCRE's director reported to the Assistant

I I I • • • • _ ••'-(C�lv
ViIL::IR
i FUc
IGiiH
i'T
riS (OJ,rg
;;an
� iza;'tzo
fu
· ;;;
na1
;JSStruc
;;;;;tu�
re�oif
ifC
Cl; l'l R
'vil RIi;
·ghhtts-;-------
Members of the Civil R i ghts Act ion

Team at a listening session .
Secretary for Administration. "several layers removed from the Secretary:'

While some contend that
and cal led this "a placement which suggests that civil rights enforcement is
elevating the civil rights role
not a high priority at U S DA ."
directly to the Secretary would I n the Federal Government. executive Departments are almost evenly spl it
increase both accoun tability on where their civil rights office repOI1S. some reporti ng direct l y to the
and visibili(\'. oth e rs felt a Secretary, and others reporti ng to a Subcabinet official. Some within USDA's
civil rights community expressed concern about the increased span of control
more effe ctive program could
in the Office of the Secretary i f the civil rights function were to be elevated .
be obtained by building Both sides of the issue agree that there i s a greater need for accountab i l ity
accountability into agency and comm itment at a high leve l .
heads ' peiformance standards While some contend that elevati ng the c i v i l rights role directly t o the
Secretary would i ncrease both accountabil ity and visibi l i ty. others relt a more
and giving jull authori(r jo r
effective program cou ld be obtained by bu i lding accountab i li ty into agency
civil rights program o l 'ersight, heads" performance standards and giving fu l l authority for c i v i l rights pro
compliance. and e/�fo rcemel1t gram oversight. compliance. and enforcement to the Assistant Secretary for
to the A ssistant Secretary for Administration.
Administration.
Lack of Emphasis on Eliminating

Program Discrimination
I n part because U S DA has dedicated most of its civil rights efforts and
resources to processing employment discri mi nation complaints. c i v i l rights
has not been i n tegrated into program delivery. The Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution and certain Federal statutes mandate that Federal agencies del iv
er their programs to the public without discrimination. Title VI of the Civil
R ights Act of 1 9M requires that programs and activities receiving Federal

CIVIL RIGHTS Organizational Structure of Civil Rights
fund� be del ivered free of discri mi nation. Othcr statutc�. �uch as the Equal
Crcdi t Opportuni ty Act. make discrimi nation in USDA� knding programs
i l legal as wel l .
I n the mid- 1 970's, the U . S . Com mission o n Civil Rights found that
Federal agencies. including USDA. wcre not enforcing Title VI effectively.
Approx imately 20 years later. the Commission round that the dcfi ciencie�
from the 1 970's sti l l existed. and that Title VI enforcement " remai ned dor
mant." Other than the Department of Education. the Commi��ion round that
"none or the Federal agencie� has a comprehensive and proactive Title V I
enforccment program to e l i m i nate and prevent discrimination i n each of the
federal ly assisted programs i t adm i n i sters." Commi�sion lindings also i ndicat
ed that agency resources for Title VI enforcement are i nadequate.
The absence of adequate enforcement of Title VI and other �tatute� govern
ing program del i very explains why farmers. other customers. and even USDA
employees at l istening sessions asserted consistently that c i v i l rights are being
violated without e ffective oversight by USDA . For example. an EEO coun
selor for Rural Development in Cal i fornia pointed out that even when she
completed her i nvestigation of one housing discri mination complaint within
-1-5 days. " after a year and a half there was sti l l no decision I rrom
Washington ] i n the ca�e."
The Commission poi nted out that at U S DA "one of OCRE's I the former
Office of C i v i l Rights Enforcemen t ] chief responsi b i l it ies" is to "oversee.
coordi nate, and moni tor the USDA agency heads' Title V I implementation
and enforcement programs." However. "OCR E has not rul li l led this responsi
b i l i ty adequate l y." the Comm i ssion found. Thi s inadequacy was attri buted. in
part. to the e l i mination of the desk oflicer posi tion. a stafr member i n the
central C i v i l R ights Office assigned to oversee speci tic USDA agencies.
5 0 CIVIL RI GHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

The Commission poi nted out that USDA did not havc units "devoted
cxclu�ively to pol icy and plan n i ng rel ated to Ti tle VI and other civil rights
enforcement activitie�."· Ensuring that Federal programs amI federally funded
programs are delivered in an equal and fair manner requ i res that USDA's top
civil rights officials take the lead in establish i ng. disseminating. and enforc i ng
USDA's c i v i l rights policies. The Commission found that USDA docs have a
Departmental Regu lation. 4330- 1 . establishing pol icy and providing gu idance
on compliance rev iews. which "Iay� a strong foundation for US DA's Title V I
i mplementation and enforcement program."'
However. the Commission reported that " w i th the exception of a change
with respect to fi l ing complai nts. the USDA regulations have not been revised
si nce 1 97 3 . In particular. they have not been updated to reflect the Civi l
R ights Restorat ion Act o f 1 987. which clarifies t hat an entire institution is
covered by anti-discri mi nation laws even if only one part of that institution
received Federal funds. The absence of clear legal guidance to agencies and
civil rights ofticials hi nders enforcemcnt. and makes it d i fficult to hold man
agemcnt accountable."
Final ly. as noted earl ier. is the question of resources. The Commission
The U.S. Commission on Civil expressed concern about the lack of U S DA resources dcdicated to civil rights
Rights expressed concern in program delivery. For example. in 1 982 there were 63 ful l-ti me employees
about the lack of USDA ( FTE's) carryi ng out compliance and special emphasis programs. As of
'
resources dedicated to civil De ccmber 1 993. that number had decreased to 20. A 1 994 proposal wou ld
have increa�ed the nu mber of FTE\ to 56. A� of this report. however. the
rights in program delivery. stafT dedicated to program del ivery i s we l l below thc proposed i ncrease.
A i'o rmer Director of aCRE also reported that no USDA money was speci fi
cally earnlarked for Title VI i mplementation because " external civil rights is
pri mari ly the function of the program agencie�. with aCRE maintaining only
an oversight role."' The Comllli�sion found that "the ab�ence of speci lic funding
for Title VI al lows re�ources to be lransferred from one civil rights enforcement
activit) 10 another without adequate management planning by aCRE."
Civil Rights Responsibilities Divided Between the

Department and the Agencies
Another prohlem with enforc i ng civil rights in program de livery i s fragmenta

tion. Agency civil right� d i rectors hm'e a number of responsibi lities. For
example. U S DA agencies each perform �ome complaint processing functions.
However, the COll1lll i�sion noted that the re�pecti\'C role� of aCRE and the
agencies were not clearly defi ned . The COlllmission also found that aCR E
wa� providing technical assi�tance t o agencie� on c i v i l rights statutes. not
proact ively. but only when requested.
Before the 1 994 lJS DA reorgani/ation. most agencie� had their own civil
right� offices . U S DA� pol icy required these ortices to report directly to the
agency head. in order 10 prov ide the agency ' � director of ci\ i l right� direct
5 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPA.WtvlEr�T OF AGRICULTURf

I I I • • • • - ••'--�c
� lvilIiL:lRH
I GiiK
HTs
TS�O�
rg;;an;;;
za
;i ;tti0
·ona
;;;dlS
St, ,(! 0
tru�c;;tu�1i; ofr(C:1i� l RRzi;
viZ: ght
/;;S-;------- i
-i
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Headquarters Civil Rights Structure
Current
Secretary
of Agriculture
Chief Chief
General Inspector Executive Office of
Information Financial
Counsel General Operations ommunications
Officer Officer
General Law
Division advises
and provides National Office of Small
representation Appeals & Disadvantaged
in civil rights Division Business Utilization
matters.
Responsible Responsible
for program appeals. for mino rity business
participation.
Subcabi net

I I • • • • - ••'-4C L R"IG
�INVijILi Gi i T�S�O;;;rg�an
Hn ��l·za;;tl�
·o;;;;[
naIS
St�ruc�
tu�re;-;o-;j
if:CC�
iv-:U
il�R�
ig0
htt;
s-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Headquarters Civil Rights Structure
Proposed
Secretary
of Agriculture
General OffIce of
Counsel ommunlcatlons
Civil R ights
Division w i l l
advise .
Subcabinet
. .. .
Consol idated,
Vis ible,
Responsible.

access to the agency head w i thout i n terven i n g layers o f superv ision that
mi ght i m pede access. H owever, this was not i m plemented consistently
throughout the Department. The 1 094 reorgan i lation req u i red each
S ubcabi net o fficer to conso l i date a l l m i ssion area ad m i n i strat ive fu nctions
using e i ther a " lead agency" or " center o f excel lence" approach.
Th is fol lowed a November 1 993 d i rective by then-Secretary Espy to each
Under and Assistant Secretary to establ ish a "Board of Directors." wh ich was
to inc lude a senior c i v i l rights otli c i a l .
Thus. t h e channels o f commun ication a n d accountab i l i ty i n t h e c iv i l rights
area at the m i ssion level are i nconsi stent. In add ition. some agency tield
o ffices have c i v i l rights personnel who report to the i r program managers i n
t h e tield. a n d n o t t o the agency's central c i v i l ri ghts oftice. The C R AT con
Of the current staff in the d uded that agency heads, because they have authori ty and resources to man
Department 's two civil rights age people and programs. must be held accou ntable for c i v i l rights. Ensuri ng
offices, two-thirds work on oversight and compl i ancc should be the role of the Assistant Secretary for
EEO complaints. That means Adm i n i stration, at least u nt i l such t i me as the agency heads can be trusted to
hold themsel ves accountable.
only a small percentage of
USDA 's civil rights staff
works on civil rights issues Lack of Civil Rights Expertise
relating to program delivery.
The C i v i l Rights Commission's report on the l ack of Ti tle V I e n forcement
also pointed to US DA's lack o f c i v i l rights special i sts in program-related c i v i l
rights issues. M any o f the Department's c i v i I rights resources are devoted to
processi ng of employment d iscri m i nation complaints. Of the current staff i n
the Depart ment \ ; two c i v i I rights o ffices. two-th i rds work o n EEO com
plai nts. That means only a small percentage of U S DA's c i v i l rights staff
works on c i v i l rights issues re lating to program del ivery.
Accord i ng to the Com m i ssion. the 1 994 c i v i l rights reorganization was
detic ient because OC R E did not separate i nternal and external c i v i l rights
issues i nto separate offices. The Com m i ssion predicted that "a probable con
sequence is that U S DA's Title V I e n forcement program may s u tler as OCRE
responds to pressures to i m prove S DA's i n ternal c i v i l rights program." I t
recom mended that U S DA establ ish "two separate u n i ts. with d i fferent super
v i sory stafr," one for i nternal and one for external c i v i l rights i ssues.
COlll ments at l istening sessions indicate that employees bel i eve US DA's civil
rights offices are dysfunctional . The widespread perception i s that the
Department 's civi l rights offices are "dumping grounds." where many employ
ees end LIp as a re�L1 l t of settlements of their own EEO complaints. S i nce 1 989,
at least I I employees have been assigned to USDA's c i v i l rights o ftice� by way
of EEO settlements. lllOSt at the GS- 1 3 or GS- I -J. leve l . On top of a l l t h i s. there
is general d issatisfaction within the Civil R ights oflice. As of January 1 997.
there were 3 1 EEO complaints against the Dcpal1mental c i v i l rights offices.
54 C'VIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I • • • • _ ••'-4C
r:i�
I VijIL
LFRiiIG
G�HnTS
rscOh;rg�an
� iza�tw
�·�
nal truc
-:;JS
S; � tu;re��
oif:CC�iv-;U
il�R�ig�h�
ts-------
Members of the Civil R i ghts Act ion

Team at a listening session.
The Role of the Office of the General Counsel

Is Unclear
The perception that the Office of the General Counsel i s host i le to civil rights
has been discussed earl ier in this report . OGe's legal positions on civil rights
i ssues are perceived as insensitive at the leas\. and racist at wors\. Correcting
this problem i s critical to the success of USDA's civil rights program .
The CRAT found at least four Federal Depal1ments-Health and H uman
Services, Housing and Urban Development. Labor. and J ustice-that have
leg�l divisions devoted excl usively to civil rights.
The General Law Division i n OGC is USDA's principal legal advisor on
civil rights matters. It provides legal advice to the Department on civi I rights
i ssues; reviews draft regulations, reorganizations. and policies for U S DA's civi l
rights office; and represents USDA agencies in hearings before the EEOC on
employee discrim i nation complaints. When an employee or customer sues
USDA in court for discli m ination in employ ment or program del ivery. various
OGC divisions assist the Depru1ment of J ustice in defending USDA .
H owever. the CRAT has found that attorneys who practice civil rights law
at OGC are not requ i red to have specialized experience or education i n civil
rights when they are h i red. They acquire their civi l rights experience on the
job. I n addition. most of OGC's lawyers worki ng on civil rights i ssues work
on non-civi l-rights issues as wel l .
Agency c i v i l rights directors told the CRAT that they do not seek assistance
from OGC because OGC is perceived as unresponsive. They stated that OGC
attorneys need a better understanding of the m i ssion areas that they service. A
number of the directors expressed the need for OGC to assign a civil rights
attomey to each m i ssion area. Others told the CRAT that they do not under
stand the role of OGC regardi ng c i v i l rights.
A nother reason for the perception that OGC is i nsensitive when it comes to
civil rights i s the lack of diversity among OGC's attorneys. According to
recent USDA figures. women make up 34.2 percent of the lawyers; however.
only 5 .4 percent of the lawyers arc m i norities. A USDA report on diversity
and u nder-representat ion for USDA agencies found that OGC has "a man i fest
i mbalance in the representation of black men"· There is one black male
attorney in OGe.

I I I • • • • - ••'-4C
:iI�VriIL
LiR"IG
� HnTris�O;-;;rg�an
;;;,�
·za;tl�
·o�
na-:;iIS
St;;
ruc;
;tu�re�":;j
oif�C:h
iv� ts------r
il�R�ig�h; i
There are no m i nority senior execut ive� at aGe. Nor are there m i nority
attorneys work i ng on c i v i l rights. At the GS- I S leve l . m i norities ( one black
male. one black female ) represent 6.9 percent. Most i m portant. unti l aGC
leads by example and divers i fi e s i ts professional staff start i ng at the h ighe�t
levels. it may always be viewed with suspicion regardi ng c i v i l right�.
Conclusions ------
U
S DA does not have the slructure in p l ace to support an effective civil
rights program. The Assistant Secretary for Ad m i n i strat ion lacks
authority and resources essential to ensure accou ntabi l ity among
senior management ranks.
There has been instab i l i t y and lack of s k i l led leadership at the pos i t ion of
U S DA D i rector of C i v i l Rights. Dividing up the Department's Civil R ights
o ftice between pol icy and complaints has further exacerbated the problem.
The d i v i s ion of responsi b i l ity for civil rights among d i fferent U S DA offices
and agencies has l e ft confusion over e n forcement respon s i b i l ities. Final ly.
aGC is perceived as unsupportivc of c i v i l rights.

I I I • • • _ ___
----------- -- --
-
Summa ry
T
o realize the Secretary's goal that every USDA customer and employ
ee be treated fai rly and to final ly solve the persistent problems dis
cussed i n this report, USDA must make decisi ve breaks with the past.
Among other things. fai l ure to change will mean t hat m inority farmers
continue towards exti nction: U S DA w i l l continue to underuti l i 7e a significant
number of its employees: t he Department's l iabi lity for discrim ination com
plaints of all k inds w i l l conti nue to i ncrease: and. perhaps most importantly.
U S DA w i l l not accomplish its mission.
Fundamental change will not be easy. USDA has allowed too many past
reports to gather dust and too many recommendations to go uni mplemented.
The fol lowi n g recommendations i nc lude action steps along with those who
should be accountable for those actions. These recommendations are not
i n tended to address every problem that has been identi fied. I ndeed, the
Department is too massive, and its programs too numerous, for any one
report to do that.
However. the recommendations in this report. when completed, w i l l al low
the Department to make fundamental changes which w i l l dramatically
i mprove USDA's abi l ity to serve all customers and to ful ly use the potential of
every USDA employee .
The hundreds of customers and employees who came forward to share their
stories with t he CRAT, and all Americans, deserve no less.

111 1 • • • _ ------11
Civ i l R i g hts Act i on Tea m

Recommendat ions
Lack of Management
Commitment to Civil Rights
Delegate to the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Full Civil Rights Authority
I. To ensure civil rights accou ntabi lity at USDA, delegate to the Assi"tant
Secretary for Admi n i stration ( AS A ) fu l l authori ty-in practice as wel l as
on paper---ov er all c i v i l rights issues at USDA . The ASA may further
delegate c i v i l rights authority through the M ission Area Assistant and
U nder Secretaries to Agency Heads to adm i n i ster civil rights programs.
Delegate t o the ASA the authority t o rate Agency Heads o n their c i v i l

rights performance elements. The A S A w i l l prov ide feedback t o the
Secretary on the civil rights performance of the Subcabinet.
3. Revise the present Performance Review Board ( PR B ) process for mea

sur i n g performance of senior executives in civil rights, and implement an
objective process designed to measure accomplishments based on spec i f
ic goals and objectives. Hold Subcabinet members. Agency Heads, and
sen ior officials accoun table for i mplement i ng results-oriented affi rmative
employment and civil ri ghts implementation plans.
Action Plall
A Ensure that the ASA has the ful l backing of the Secretary and the
leadership and management s k i l l s and abi l i t ies necessary to support
1
an effective U S DA c i v i l rights program. The ASA must have direct
access and serve as the policy adv i sor to the Secretary on all civil
rights issues.
Who: The SecretarY Whe1l: IlI1l11ediately
B Send a clear and concise message to the Subcabi net that the ASA has
fu l l authority for c i v i l rights but that t he Subcabi net, Agency H eads,
and agency c i v i l rights d i rectors are fu l ly accountable for an effective
civil rights program i n their respect ive areas of responsibi l i ty.
Who: The Secrerw)" Whe1l: 1IIlIIlcdiately
C Delegate authority to the ASA to rate Agency Head� on their c i v i l

rights programs and t o prov ide feedback t o t h e Secretary on the
Subcabinet's c i v i l rights performance. Delegation should have proyi
sion to reassess t he need to continue close agency monitori ng after
l
three rati ng cycles.
Who: The Secrct({lT Whe1l: 30 doys

I I • • • • _ ••r.C
CiliV
v1i
IL�Ri
RKI GiiHnTrsS�R�ec;;o;;;;
mme
;;;nda
�ti-; ;; -----------
ons
;-
D Assess the funding needs for conducti ng an effective USDA civil

rights program.
Who: A ssist(/Ilt Secretary Whell: 60 doys
for A dministratioll;
Ci" il Rights DireclOr
E A l locate adequate funding to the ASA to implelllent an e lTectivc civil

rights program.
Who: The Secretary Whell: IlIIlI Iediotely lll HiIl
receipt (d" osseSSlllellt
Ensure the Department Has Measurable Goals for

Treating Customers and Employees Fairly and Equitably
4. The Secretary should revise and reissue USDA\, civil rights policy to
include speci fic. measurable goals and objecti ves i n program del ivery and
employment that w i l l provide guidance for �enior ollicials on what they
are expected to accompl ish . The Secretary w i l l hold the Subcabinet and
, Agency Heads accountable for adherence to the civi I rights pol icy.
Action Plan
A Revi se civi l rights pol icy.
WIlo: The Secre/(ll"\' WIlell: IIII/lledil ltell"
B Publicize goals and object ives wioely throughout USDA .

Who: SlIhcahillet Whell: Il11l11edi([lely

CIVIL RIGHTS Recommendations
Adopt a USDA Policy on Reprisals
5. To assure accountabi l ity, adopt and enforce a pol icy that t h e Department
w i l l take the appropriate adverse or discipli nary action against any man
ager found g u i l ty of reprisal against any USDA employee or customer.
I nvestigate all al legations of reprisal, and abu�es of power, and, where the
al legations appear meritorious. i mmedi ately remove t he official from
managerial duties pend i ng fu l l i nvestigation.
Action Plan
A I ssue policy.
Who: A ssiSlall1 SecrelW"\' When: !lIIlIIediale/"
for A dill ill iSlrolioll
B Determi ne and implement process for i nvestigat i n g reprisal allega

tions.
Who: AssiSI{(1I1 Secrerory When: !lIlIlIediate/"
for Adll1illistration
Remove USDA Employees Who Do Not

Perform Adeq uately on Civil Rights or Who
Abuse Their Authority
6. Streaml i ne procedures to al low agencies to quickly take the appropriate

adverse and discip l inary actions against employees who fai l to provide
programs and services in compliance with all appl icable civil rights laws
and regu lations. or who discri m i nate agai nst or harass U S DA customers
or employees.
Action Plan
A I ssue new policy and procedures on adverse and disc i p l i nary actions.
Who: A s-sistalll Secretary When: 60 days
for A dll1inistration

cn
I I • • • • _ ••r-c lviiIL
LiRliiIG
iiK
iHTi
TSR
S R�
ec;
omme
;;;;;
nda
� ; ------------
tio;;ns;-
The Secretary, the Subcabinet, and Agency Heads

Must Set Examples of Diversity
7. The Secretary. US DA's Subcabi net. and Agency Heads must set a n exam
ple of accountab i l i ty and commitment lor the Department by ensuring
that their immediate stafrs reflect the desired diversity that thc Secretary
i s establishing for the Department a� a whole.
Action Plall
A Ensure diversity among senior staff.
Who: The Secrelan or When: JllllnediaTe/r
SlIhcohinet: A gel1cy
Heat!.1
Include Goals in USDA's StrategiC Plan
8. Include i n tlle Department's Strategic Plans required under the Govemment

Pelt"ormance and Results Act (GPRA) as wel l as in agency plans. goals as
,outlined in the Secretary's policy statement to improve workforce diversity
and civ i l rights. Afli rmative Employment Plans and Civil Rights
I mplementation Plans must also rellect the Secretary's goals. Set speci lic
goals for minority and women-owned business p<u1icipation in all program
del ivery. procurement. export. and business development activities.
9. Plans should establ ish reporti ng requirements to period ical ly col lect data
from U S DA lield offices to measure program del ivery to minority.
women. and small and l i m ited-resource farmers.
1 0. Plans should i nclude wel l-delincd areas of responsib i l i ty and accountabil

ity. Performance standards and e lements for Agency Heads and all seni or
officials should reflect the speci fic goals and objectives as identified i n
the Department's and agencies' strategic plans.
Action Plan
A Plan Department-wide strategic planning session.
Who: A ssistant SecrelUry When: J/II//lediate/y
for A dministration
B Conduct session! develop plan.

Who: A ssistant Secretary When: Comp lete Il'ithin 90 doys
for A dmil1istmtion
61 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE LJ S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • - ••r4ClIN ILC-R
V1i IGaHnTrss�R�e�
RK co;;;;
mme
�nda
-:;t;;titi�
ons -;;------------
C Plans should i nc l ude measures such as contracts, loan appl ications,

acceptance and rejection rates, status of forec losure actions, process
i n g t i mes, and other data cri tical to determ i n i ng the qual i ty of service
prov i ded.
Who: Agency Heads When: Complete within 90 days
D Plans should i dentify the i nstitutional balTiers to i mprov i ng c i v i l

rights and e nd i ng u nder-represe ntation a t U S DA and i nc l ude a com
prehens i ve comp l iance review schedule to provide effective oversight
to agency operations.
Who: Agency Heads When: COlllplete \\ "ithin 90 days
Identify the Core Competencies and Skills Required to

Effectively Manage People and Serve Customers
I I . Iden t i fy the core competenci es and s k i l ls req u i red to e ffectively manage

people and serve customers, i nc l u d i ng recru i tment and management of a
d i verse workforce and serv i ng d iverse customers. Req u i re al l promotions
and selectees i nto manageri al posi tions to demonstrate those competen
cies. U se employee and peer review surveys to assess managerial compe
tence, prov ide feedback, and devel op performance i mprovement plans for
managers where needed .
1 2 . Require and provi de ongo i ng tra i n i ng for a l l managers to enhance their

people s k i l ls, i nc l u d i ng manag i ng a diverse workforce. Develop cri teria to
measure effectiveness, provide speci fic t i meframes for managers to
i mprove, and requ i re Agency Heads to remove from managerial posi tions
those whose performance fai l s to meet the cri teria.
Action Plan
A I den t i fy core competencies.
Who: Assistant SecretaI"\' When: COlllplete within 1 80 day
for Adlllinistration
B I ssue pol icy on promotions.

Who: Assistallf SecretarY When: Complete within ../5 days
Jor Admin istration
C Determ i ne process for employee and peer rev iews.

Who: A ssistant Secretary When: COlllplete within 45 days
Jor Administration
D Develop tra i n i ng module.

Who: Assistant SecretaI"\' When: COlllplete within ';5 days
Jor A dlllinistration
62 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • - ••r�C
�I;;
V;;;
IL�;
RU;
IG;;HnTr;;S�R�e-;;
co: mme
=nda
;;:;;ti:::------------
ons
E Develop criteria for measuring effect i veness.

Who: A ssista n l SecrelOl)" Whell: COlllplele \\'ilhil1 45 da."s
for Adlllinislration
Investigate Alleged Abuses of Authority by Office of

Inspector General (OIG) and Forest Service, and Advise
on Role of Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
1 3 . The DepaJ1ment of J ustice ( DOJ ) should i nvestigate allegations of abuses

of authority by the Office of I nspector General and Forest Service Law
Enforcement .
1 4. The Secretary should direct the Forest Service to discontinue the pract ice
of using its Law Enforcement staff to investigate Forest Service employees.
1 5 . The DO] should advi se the Secretary on the rol e and functions of the
OGC at U S DA as it relates to civil rights. The Secretary should take
appropriate action to ensure that OGe has the capacity to provide the
Depm1ment with the qual i ty of legal assistance required for Civi l R ights.
A ction Plan
A Request DO] review of OIG. OGe. and Forest Service Law
Enforcement.
Who: The SecrelOlT Whell: IIIIII/{!di(ltelr
B I ssue d i rective to Forest Service.

Who: The SecretarY Whell : 1IIIIIIedialel\'
63 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMFNT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C
�liV
vii
IL�iiil GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;;;;
RiCi nune
;;;;';ruJa
-;J;;titi:;
ons ;; -----------
;:;-
Program Delivery and Outreach
Manage USDA Programs in Accordance with

USDA Civil Rights Policy
1 6. To assure that local del i very of U S DA credit programs is fai r and equi
table, work with the President and Congress to obtain the authority to
make personnel selections and manage t he Farm and Foreign Agricultural
Serv ice ( FFAS ) and Rural Development ( RD ) mission areas to ensure
accountab i l ity down the l i ne from the Secretary to the S tate and county
levels.
Action Plan
A The Secretary should work w ith the White H ouse and Congress to
c hange the personnel selection process and system i n FFAS and
Rural Development.
Who: The Se -retary When: Within 90 days of th is report
1 7 . Modernize the FSA State and county committee system by converti ng all
county non-Federal FSA positions, i ncluding county executive directors,
to Federal status; changing t he comm ittee selection process; and remov
i ng county committees from any farm loan determi nations.
Action Plan
A I nc lude in the legislative package to Congress amendments to the
1 935 Soil Conservation and Domestic A llotment Act to make all
FSA county pos itions Federal and to remove county committees
from any loan determi nations.
Who: Vnder Secretary FFAS When: III conjunction with
p reparation of the
legislative package
B Appoint voti ng members of under-represented groups to State com

m ittees w here such representation is not currently present.
Who: The Secretary When: Within 60 days of this
report
64 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

�lv
I I I • • • • _ ••r.c vii RiliG
IL:lR c� si}R�
HnT� ec�o;
mme
�nda
d;;i
tio;i ns;------------
C I nc l ude i n the legislative package to Congress amendments to the

1 935 Soi l Conservation and Domestic A l lotment Act to add two vot
i n g members to county committees that are appoi nted to represent
members of groups who are otherwi se u nder-represented on the
elected county commi ttee. Selection of the two members should be
based upon recommendat ions from u nder-represented groups in the
county to the State executive d i rector and the State committee.
Who: Under Secretary FFA S When: In conjunction with
preparation of the
legislative package
1 8. Conduct a complete review of county committees and county office staffs

to determi ne whether nepotism. confl ict of i nterest. and/or d i scrimi nation
in program del i very exists.
Action Plall
A Appo i nt an independent revi ew body in each State to conduct
rcv l ews.
Who: FSA Agency Head When: Within 30 dm's of this report,
lI'ith rel'iell 's to be completed
\\'ithin 1 20 da\'s
8 Where v iolations are found. requ i re i m medi ate cOITect ive action.
Who: FSA Agency Head When: Within 30 days of completed
rel'ie\\'
1 9. Estab l i sh a system to assure t i mely and equ i table hand l i ng of loan appli
cations by county offices. i ncluding review and concurrence by FSA and
Rural Development State directors w i t h i n 30 days o f any adverse deci
sion that affects a member o f a defined socially di sadvantaged group.
Action Plan
A I nstruct FSA and R ural Development Agency Heads to noti fy State
d i rectors of current d i spari t i es in l oan processi n g ti mes and requi re
i mmedi ate corrective action.
Who: FSA a n d RlIral When: Within 30 days of this report
Development
Agency Heads

B I nstruct FSA and Rural Developmcnt Agency Heads to establ ish an

ongoing monitoring system for loan application processing. i ncluding
provisions for concurrence of State d i rectors i n any adverse deci:-.ions
i nvol v i ng socially disadvantaged customers.
Who: FSA ({lid Rura/ Whe,,: Withill 30 days (l this report
Del 'e/0PIIIell t
AKellcy Heads
20. Require i ndependent rev iew of all pendi ng foreclosures to determi ne

whether discrim ination in U S DA programs contributed to foreclosure
action.
Action Plan
A Reissue pol icy suspending all foreclosures.
Who: T h e Secrewry Whell: 1lIlIllediateh'
B Appoint diverse, i ndependent teams i n each S tate to review whether

U S DA uiscri m ination contributed to pend i ng foreclosure, I f evidence
of discri m ination is found. recommend appropriate action to reverse
the forec losure and provide compensation for any addi tional los:-.es.
WIlo: The SecrelCiJ"\' Whell : 1IIIIIIediate/Y, lritll rel 'iell's 10
he cOlllp/eted withill 60 doys
2 1 . Require that all pendi ng foreclosures or actions leading to foreclosure be

halted until all appeals of any formal c i v i l rights complai nts have been
completed.
Actioll Plan
A Issue pol i cy halting foreclosure proceedings until customer has
exhausted all other rights.
WIlo: The Secreta n Whell: 1IIIIIIediate/\'
}'")
Act on all existing program uiscri m ination complaints w i t h i n thc next
1 20 days. Resolve those that can be resolved and bring all others to the
poi nt of adj udication within those 1 20 days.
Action Plan
A Delegate authority to the Subcabinet to implement the recommenda
tion in m ission areas.
WIlo: Assiswllt Secref{/f"\' Wile,,: IlIIlIIediate/\'
for A dll1illistratioll

I I I • • • • _ ••r4c
CiliV IL:lR
v1i l G"HnTrssilR?;e;;
RiiCi co;;;;
mme
;;;;nda
� ;;------------
tio�ns
23 . Requi re that an agency's civil rights office elevate a program discrimination

complaint to the next higher level when no action has been taken within the
t i me l i m i t . When a delay occurs at the next h igher levcl . the agency's civil
rights office should apply the adverse inference rule and direct the agency
to i mmediately act on the complaint in favor of the customer.
Action Plan
A Delegate authority to the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i stration. who
may redelegate that authority to S ubcabi net or Agency Heads, to
i m plement the recommcndation .
Who: The Secretary When: ImlJlediotely
24. Establ ish one program appeals system for all M ission Areas at USDA .
H o l d all l i tigation until the appeals process i s complete.
Action Plan
A Delegate authority to the Assistant Secret<u'y for Adm i n i stration to
establ ish a u n i form program appeal s system .
Who: The SecrewIJ When: Immediately
B I ssue a policy to hold a l l litigation until appeals are completed.

Who: The Secretarr -
When: Immediatel\' .
25. The National Appeals Division Director shall consider the impact of the
NAD appeals process on the civil rights of farmers and coordi nate the
program appeals process with the Department"s program discri mi nation
complaints process.
Action Plan
A Meet with farmer groups. USDA civil rights commun ity. and USDA
D i rector o/" C i v i l Rights.
Who: NA D Director When: IIIlIlIedi({tel\'

I I I • • • • _ ••'-IClIN
V;U
IL�R
RK
I GatHnTrss�R�e�
co;;;;
mme
�nda
�ti��-----------
ons
'26. Requ i re that the N at ional Appeals Div ision and i n formal agency program
appeals processes comply w i th estab l i s hed legal t i me l i nes and establ i s h
t i me l i nes i n cases where t hey are not requ i red by l aw. W h e n NAD does
not comply with these t i me l i nes and t he Hearing Officer has ru led i n
favor of the customer. t h e Heari ng Officer's ru l i n g shal l stand.
Action Plan
A Delegate authority to the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n istration to
establ ish a t i me l i ne of 90 days for process i ng appeals where they are
not already estab l ished by law.
Who: The Secretor\' When: III/mediately
B Hold NAD and a l l agencies responsible for handl i ng program

appeals to meet establ i shed t i m e l i nes.
Who: Subcabinet When: Within 2 weeks of the
Secretar\, 's app/Vval
27. Hold all managers accou ntable for carry ing out the fi nal decis ions of the
N at ional Appeals D i v ision arld w i t h i n 1 0 work i ng days of their issuance.
,
Action Plan
A I ssue pol icy to a l l M ission Areas estab l is h i ng the 1 0-day dead l i ne .
Who: Subcabillet When: Within 2 Iveeks of the
Secretary 's approval
2 8 . To estab l i s h a base l i ne for the number of m inority farms, U S DA shou l d

support a voluntary registry of m i nority farms. Thi s would hel p U S DA
set goals to halt land loss and to monitor the loss of mi nority-owned
farms.
Action Plan
A Fol l ow up on recomme ndations from A l bany, GA. and Was h i ngton.
DC, liste n i ng sessions.
Who: Cil'il Rights Director When: FY 1 99 7
B Assure that the Census of Agric u l ture acc u rately counts m i nority
farms. pay ing particular attention to Tri bal lands.
Who: USDA When: FY 1 998

29. Ful l y i mplement a " Debt for Nature" program as authorized i n the 1 996
Farm B i l l and prior legislation.
Action Plan
A I mp lement a "Debt for Nature" program.
Who: Under Secretaries for When: F Y 1 998
FFA S and NRE
Take Action to Remedy Past Discrimination
30. Estab l i sh and empower a Special Task Force to determi ne a process for
providing remediation to farmers who have been discri minated agai nst by
U SDA . Priority should go to farmers who have lost or are about to lose
their land because of discrimination.
Action Plan
A Appoint Task Force and delegate appropriate authority.
Who: A ssiSlalll Secrelary When: Wilhin 15 dars of lhis report
for A dm il l islralion
B Establi s h parameters i ncluding criteria and timeframes under which

prior cases w i l l be reviewed . Establ ish process to exami ne fi les.
gather additional guidance. and determ i ne where discrimi nation
occurred .
Who: A ssisl(llll SecretCll)' Whe1l: Wilhin 30 days of colII'ening
for Adll1inistrarioll Task Force
C Make a fair and equ itable offer of settl ement to farmers who have
already recei ved findings of discrim i nation.
Who: Assislanl Secretw)' When: Wilhill 1 20 doys 0/
for A dmin islration cOlll'enil1R Task force
69 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DFPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

- - CIVIL RIGHTS Recommendations
3 1 . A l low farmers who have recei ved debt wri te-down or whose farms are
pending l iq uidation to continue eligibil ity for operating loans.
32. Al low completion. of lease back/buy back agreements extended for lack
of funds during the 3 years previous to e l i m i nation of the program on
April .t . 1 996, where the farm and home plan did show that t he operation
would cash-now.
J J . A l l ow i ncorporation of antic ipated tax l iabil i ty in the terms of debt wri te
downs.
J .t. Allow eligibil ity for 502 single-family housing program direct loans
without a credit history if appl icants can demonstrate they have been able
to l ive independently and pay rent and u t i l i ty bi l l s in a t i mely manner.
3 5 . A l low EQI P cost-share payments in the same year conservation practices

arc completed.
Action Plall
A Include i n the legislative p ackage to Congress amendments to the
1 990 Consol idated Farm and Rural Development Act to rev i se pro
gram ru les for operating loans and the lease back/buy back program.
Who: Une/er Snretary FFAS When: I I I conjunctioll Il'ith
preparatioll oj' the
/egis/mil'e package
B I nclude in the legislative package to Congress language for EQI P

payments as recommended.
Who: Under Secre(OI), NRE When: III cOl/jul/ctiol/ Il'ith
de\'(!/ojJlllel/t of' l/e\l' EQI P
re!{lI/a(iol/.\'
C I ssue policy revi s ions to change program rules on tax l iabi l ity for
debt write-downs.
Who: FSA Agency Head When: Within 30 da\'.\' of ' (his report
D l ssue pol icy revi sion to change policy on eligibil ity for 502 housing
program direct loans.
Who: RHS Agenc\' Head When: Within 30 days of this rejw/'l

I I I • • • • _ ••r4c
CiliV
v1i l GaHnTrss�R�e�
IL�iij
RiCi co;;;;
mme
;;';rula
�ti; ;:;------------
ons
Strengthen USDA Outreach Efforts to

Under-Represented Customers
36. Appoi nt a diverse commission to develop a national pol icy on small

farms .
Action Plan
A Appoi nt diverse commission.
Who: The Secretar\' When: 60 c!m's
37. Establish an Office of Outreach in a program mission area to coordinate

program delivery outreach efforts throughout USDA. As�ign responsibil
ity for the Outreach and Technical Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged
Fanners ( 250 I ) program to this new office to assure Department-w ide
i mplemen tat ion.
3 8 . Develop a strategic outreach plan, a� part of U S DA's strategic plan, for

which Agency Heads w i l l be held accountable through the C i v i l Right"
performance standard.
39. Estab l i sh i n each agency an outreach l i ai son position to coordi nate and
direct outreach programs in conjunction with the new USDA Office of
Outreach. The agency coordi nator mu"t be responsible for mon itori ng
outreach goals and accomplishments to under-served customers.
40. Establi sh State and ational Outreach Counc i l s . comparable to the

U S DA Food and Agriculture Counci l ( FAC ), to coordi nate olltreach
efforts of all USDA agencies with State and l ocal-level program del ivery.
Require that Outreach Councils establish partnerships with community
based organizations and 1 890, 1 994, and 1 862 land-grant i nstitutions,
H AC U . and Research Employment Access Programs I n i tiative to enhance
program and service delivery to under-served communities.
4 1 . Establ ish a pm1nership between U S DA and the Department of I nterior [ 0

develop a strategic outreach plan to address the needs of American I ndian
agriculture and land conservation.
7 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT T H E u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c
CiliV
v1i
IL�ii
RKiI GaHnTrss�R�e�
co;;
mme
;;;;nda
�ti:; ;; -----------
ons
�
Action Plan
A Establish an Office of Outreach i n a program mission area to coordi
nate program del i very outreach efforts throughout U S DA .
Who: The SecreTary Whell : WiThin 30 dan (�( This reporT
B Assign responsibi l ity for the Outreach and Technical Assistance to

Socially Disadvantaged Farmers ( 250 I ) program to the new Office of
Outreach.
Who: The Secreran' When: WiThin 30 days (�/ This reporT
C Develop a strategic outreach plan as part of the U S DA strategic plan

for which Agency Heads w i l l be held accountable through the C i v i l
Rights performance standard.
Who: The Secrewry When: WiThin 30 doys (�/ This reporT
o Establish in each agency an outreach l i aison position to coordinate

and d i rect outreach programs in conj u nction w ith the new USDA
Office of Outreach.
Who: Agency Heads When: WiThin 45 days q/ This reporT
'
E The agency coordinator must be responsible for monitoring outreach
goals and accomplishments to under-served customers.
Who: Agency Heads When: WiThin 45 days q/This reporr
F Establish a State and ational Outreach Counc i l , comparable to the

state FAC, to coordinate outreach efforts of all USDA agencies with
State and local level program del ivery.
Who: The Secretory When: WiThin 30 days of This report
G Work with the Secretary of the I nterior to better coordinate USDA

assistance on I ndian lands.
Who: The SecreTCity When: WiThin 60 days of this reporT
72 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Strengthen USDA's Research and Educational

Assistance to the Socially Disadvantaged
42. Require l and-grant i nstitutions and major CSREES. ARS. ERS. FS. and
N RCS programs to identify and give priority to the research and educa
tional needs of t he social ly disadvantaged.
Action Plan
A Name an i ndividual i n each land-grant i nstitution and major
CSREES, ARS. ERS. FS. and N RCS program whose primary
responsibil ity is to assure the research, management, and educational
needs of the socially disadvantaged are identi fied and g iven priority.
Who: Land-gmnT p residenTs; When: Within 30 dm's of this report
CSREES, A RS, ERS, FS,
and NRCS Agency Heads
B Develop a plan to expand use of cooperati ve research agreements

with t he H istorically B l ack Colleges and Univers ities, the H ispanic
Association of Col leges and Universities. Research Employment
Access Programs. the American I ndian I n itiative. and communi ty
based organ izations.
Who: Agency He({ds Whe1l: WiThin 90 (/0 .\'.1' o( This reporT
C Develop a plan to i ncrease i nvolvement of small and l im i ted-resource

farmers/ranchers in demonstration farms, forests, and watershed
projects.
Who: NRCS, FS, CSREES When: WiThin 90 doys of' This reporT
Members of the C ivil R i ghts Action

Team at a listening session.
73 CIVIL R IGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C v1i
t:iliV RiCi
IL:.IRil Gn;HnTrs
S�R�ec;;o;;;;
mme
;;ruJa
d;;titi;
ons ;:;----------- -
-+3 . USDA should thoroughly exami ne fundi ng of i nstitutions of higher edu

cation to determ ine if 1 890 and 1 994 land-grant i nstitutions are recei v i ng
equitable support to assist USDA i n carryi ng out its mission. The
Department should adjust its budget recommendations and consider other
statutory or regulatory changes required to e l i m i nate any disparate fund
i ng of l and-grant i nstitutions.
Action Plan
A Establish mechan ism to exami ne land-grant fundi ng.
Who: A ssis((/nt Secretary Whell : Within 60 days of this report
for Admin istmtion:
UI/der Secre((/n' REE
B Adjust budget. develop leg i slative package to e l i m i nate any

disparities.
Who: Assis((/nt Secre((/ry Whell: Withil/ 60 da \'s of' this repOrl
for A dl1linistration :
Under Secre((/r\' REE
44. Ful l y fund the Outreach and Techn ical Assistance to Socially
Disadvantaged Farmers ( 250 I ) program at $ 1 0 m i l l ion annual ly.
45 . Extend and ful ly fund the Extension I ndian Reservation program at S8

m i l l ion annual ly.
46. I ncrease EQI P fundi n g from 200 m i l l ion to $300 m i l l ion and target the
i ncrease for assistance to minority and l i m i ted-resource farmers, ranchers.
and Indian nations.
47. Ful l y fund the farm ownership and farm operating direct loan programs
at $85 m i l l ion and 5500 m i l l ion, respectively.
48. Require that a h igher percentage of farm ownership and farm operating
direct loan funding be targeted to mi norities and socially disadvantaged
groups.

Action Plan
A I nc lude
,
in the legis lative package to Congress amendments necessary

to support these recommendation�.
Who: The Secrelw\, When: 111 COlljll/lclio/l I l 'ilh
prejJumlio/l oI lhe
legislalil'l' package
49. Dedicate one-third of the Fund for Rural America to scrving the needs of
SOCially disadvantaged customers .
50. Target $ 1 00 m i l l ion annual ly from Rural U t i l ities Service Water and
Waste Disposal Grant Program to Federally Recognii'ed Indian Tribes.
5 1 . Target $50 m i l l ion of R H S funds annual l y for the Farlllworker Housing

Program.
Action Plan
A I nstruct Subcabi net heads to adj ust funding targeh to reneet recom
mendations.
Who: The Secrelon' When: 1/llIlIedioleh'

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C
�liV IL:lR
v1i iiiCi
il GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;;;;;;';nda
mme -;J;ti; ;:;------------
o;ti ns
Remove Barriers to Serving Under- Represented

Customers at USDA Service Centers.
52. Require consideration of under-served communities in U S DA Service

Center location decisions.
53. Establish sate l l i te oftices w here necessary to reach under-served cus

tomers.
Action Plan
A I nstruct S tate FAC 's to work with representat i ves of under-served
customers to identify locations w ith concentrations of socially disad
vantaged customers and determi ne whether ful l Service Centers or
sate l l i te offices are most appropriate to meet those customers' needs.
Who: State FA C 's When: Immediate'"
54. Establish fu l l - t i me U S DA Service Centers on I ndian Tri bal lands.
Action Plan
A Work with I ndian tribes to set guidelines and locations of the U S DA
Service Centers.
Who : State FA C 's When: Imlllediately
5 5 . Ensure that all USDA Service Centers are accessible to t he disabled.
Action Plan
A I nstruct USDA Service Centers to review their fac i li ties and make
necessary changes to assure accessibil ity to the disabled .
Who: State FA C 's When: Immediately
B Make adequate funding avai lable to Service Centers to make these

necessary changes.
Who: Swte FA C 's When: III/Illediatel\"
56. Strea m l i ne program regulations and application forms to make U S DA

programs more eas i ly accessible to all customers. Require U S DA county
offices to assist socially disadvantaged customers in understanding
req u i rements and completing forms.
57. Strengthen t he train i ng program for FSA county committees and county
office staff on all programs, with special emphasis on c i v i l rights i ssues
and outreach responsi b i li t ies.
76 C I V I L RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

�liV
I I I • • • • _ ••'-4C IL:lR
v1i iI Gn;HnT�S�R�ec;;o;
iiIci mme
;;;;nda
d;;ti ;:;------------
; tio;ns
5 8 . Provide and document Title V I training for a l l volunteers and new field,
State. and Serv i ce Center employees on an annual basis.
Action Plan
A I nstruct agencies to exami ne rules and application forms and make
changes necessary to fac i l i tate participation by socially disadvan
taged customers.
Who: Agency Heads When: Within 90 days (�r This reporT
B Collaborate with Nat i onal Center for Diversity at Kentucky State

U n i versity and others as appropriate for providing diversity train i ng.
Who : Agency Heads When: Within 6 months uf
this report
59. Make al l U S DA educational and technical assistance services and publi

cations available to customers i n languages appropriate to the commun i ty
bei n g served. U se appropriate media outlets to d i stribute i n formation to
under-served communities.
Action Plan
A Make resources avai lable for translation serv ices.
Who : A gency Heads When: WiThin 6 monTh., of
this reporT
Address Needs of Farmworkers
60. Establish an i n i tiative to address the need� of farmworkers that could be

addressed through U S DA programs.
6 1 . E n force the requirement that those who usc "restrictive-use pesticides"

keep records of the appl ication of their products.
77 CIVIL R IGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C
�liV
v1iIL:lRi
RiCi
l G�HnTrs
s�R�ec�o;
mme
;;;;nda
�ti; -;;------------
ons
62. I m mediately prov ide pesticide i n formation to health care prov ider'> treat
ing pe�ticide-related i l l nesses.
63. Require SDA to use this i n formation to prepare comprehensi\'e annllal

pesticide usc reports. as mandated in t he 1 990 and 1 996 farm legislation.
6-J.. Enforce the Env i ronmental J ustice Executive Order at U S DA .
Action Plan
A Appoint a panel to review u n met needs of farmworkers that (oulJ be
addressed t hrough USDA programs.
Who: Under SecretarY REE Whell: FY 1 997
B S upport the farmworker-related recommendations of USDA

Env i ronmental J us tice I n itiative.
WilD: Under Sl'('rl'((/I'\' REE Wilen: F Y 1 99 7
7 8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

C Extend research to i nvestigate the impact of pest icides on farlllwork

ers' health.
Who: Ullder Secre(ur\" REE Wilen: FY 1 99 7
o Develop an enhanced train ing program i n farm safety and pesticide

safety t hat addresses the special needs and concerns of farmworkers.
Who : Ullder Secrelorr REE Wilen: FY 1 997
E Fund pesticide training programs for farmworkers. particu larly pro

grams del ivered by cOlllmunity-based organi/at ions with demonstrat
ed experience with farlllworkers.
Who: Ullder Secretary REE Wilen: FY 1 997
F Train community health care providers i n the diagnosis. treatment.

and proper reporti ng of pesticide and other work-related i l l nesses.
WIlo: Ullder Secre{([i\ REE Wilen: FY 1 9CJ 7
Increase Involvement of Small and Disadvantaged

Business in USDA Programs
65 . Reassert the commitment of USDA to the goal of i ncreasi ng involvement

of small and disadvantaged busi nesses in USDA programs.
Action Plan
A Prepare a plan and establ ish goab for expand ing Market Access
Program outreach to minori ty and women-owned busi nesses.
Who: FAS When: Withill 30 duys or (his r<'1}()rl
B Develop Departmental as wel l as agency-speci fic goals for i ncreasing

purchasing and contracting of goods and services from mi nority and
l i mited-resource businesses.
WIlo: OSDBU When: With ill 30 doys (�r this report
C Develop a technical assistance program for small and socially disad

vantaged busi nesses to enable them to slicceSSfull y compete for con
tracts with USDA programs.
Who: OSDBU, ill COlljllllClioll When: Withill C)O duys o( (his report
\\ "ith the 11(,\\' Office
or Ollt reoch
79 CIVIL R I GHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEt�T OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c
CiliV
viiIL:lA
AiliCi
GaHnTrss�R�ec�o;
mme
;;;;';nda
�ti; ;;------------
ons
Workforce Diversity
and Employment Practices
Review All USDA Senior Executive Service (SES)

Designations
66. Review al l S ES designations, begi nn i ng with FSA, to determine i f posi

tions are appropriately designated as career-reserved or general.
Action Plan
A Review S ES positions.
Who: A S.l istunt Snreturr When: Within C)() do \".\·
for A dlllinisimiion
Hold All Managers Accountable for a Diverse

Pool of Applicants
67. Hold all managers accountable for a diverse pool of appl icants tor all
vacancy announcements and target outreach and recrui tmenr of u nder
represented groups as identi fied in the agency A ffirmative Employment
Plans ( AEP's ) .
Action Plan
A Requ i re and approve outreach plans for ti l l i ng vacancies. Outreach
plans must target u nder-represented groups and organizations.
Who: Agency Heads When: III/II/edi({teh'
B Req u i re that recruiters have interpersonal s k i l ls, be trained i n recruit

i ng, and be sens i tive to cultural di fferences of potential recruits.
Who: Agency Heads When: Ongoing
C Advert i se, where appropriate, positions as multi-graded posi t ions

( c.g., GS-7/9/ 1 1 . GS- l l / l 2/ 1 3 ) .
Who: Agency He(/ds When: Ongoing

I I I • • • • _ ••'--4C
�lijIL:lR
vii RiliCi
G�Hn
T�si}R�
ec�o;
mme
;;;;nda
d;;ti �-----------
; tio;ns
Require All USDA Employees to Have

Civil Rights Training
68. Require all U S DA employees to have c i v i l rights training annual ly.
Action Plan
A Develop standardized training modules for USDA .
Who : A ssista/lt SecretarY When: Within 120 c/ars of
for A dlllinisfrofioll this report
B Train all employees and cert i fy to the Secretary that train i ng is com
p leted on an annual basis.
Who: A/Zency Heads When: FY 1 998
C Make a civil rights module a part of al l lllanagelllent/supervisory

train i ng and orientation programs.
Who: A gency Heads When: Ongoing
Hold All Managers Accountable for a

Diverse Workforce
69. Publicize and recogn ize those managers and agencies that have made sig
n i ficant accolllplishll1ent� in workforce diversi ty.
Action Plan
A Reco[!nize managers and employees through awards and commenda
t i ons, as appropriate.
Who: The SecretarY: When: An/l llall\': ongoing
A gency Heads
70. Direct the Forest Service to end the use of surplus li sts.
Action Plan
A I ssue a directi ve to the Forest Service to end use of surplus l ists.
Who : The SecretarY
. When: III/II/ediately
.

I I I • • • • _ ••r�C
CiliV ILCiii
v1i il GU;HnTrss�R�e�
RiCi co;;
mme
;;';nda
�ti� ;:;------------
ons
7 1 . Evaluate the role and function of the Special Emphasis Program

Managers ( SEPM ) in accompl ishing U S DA's civil rights goals and objec
t i ve s . The valuable resources dedicated to support S EPM cou ld be used
mon� effectively. Presently they are l i m i ted to the annual Spec ial
Emphasis activities as their pri mary function.
Action Plall
A Conduct a rev iew and reassessment of the roles and responsib i l i ties
of the Special Emphasis Program Managers USDA-wide.
Who: Assista//t Se('J'e{(/ry Whe,,: 90 c/ar.\'
Pi/' A dl1linistJ'(ltio//
B A l locate appropriate resources to support and adm i nister program

and employment functions of the S EPM 's.
Who: Assista//t Secre{([1'\' When: 90 da\'s
jCi/' A dill in istrotioll:
Agt'nc\' Ht'wfs
72. Develop and implement retention programs to ensure a diverse work

force.
Actioll Plall
A Req u i re the use of an "Exit I nterview Feedback" system to assist
agencies in determi n i ng why employees leave the
Agency/Department. S hare this i n formation with agency manager�
and develop a system for trend-analysis and evaluat ion. Use the
analyses to develop action i tems for i nclusion i n agency plans
designed to e l i m inate barriers to recrui tment and retention. i mprove
the work env i ronment. and retain a diverse workforce.
Who: Agellcr Heads Wlze,,: f 20 days: o//goi//R
B Req u i re t hat each agency initiate surveys such as the Food and
Consumer Service's "Employee Work L i fe Surveys" and the Forest
Service's "Continuous I mprovement Process" to asse�s employee sat
isfaction about issues affecting their work l i ves. Use the results to
develop action i tems in agency plans that w i l l assist in i mproving the
work env i ronment and help employees in balancing their career and
personal needs,
Who: Agency Heads Whe,,: 120 days: o//goi//g

CiliV
I I I • • • • _ ••r�C vii
IL�Ril GaHnTrs
RiCi mme
;;;nda
s�R�ec�o;;;; -;J;;titi;;
ons ; -----------
;;-
Employee Complaints
73. To substantially reduce the backlog of EEO complaints. offer mediation.

arbitration. or simi lar alternative dispute resolution ( ADR ) processes to
employees who fi l ed a formal EEO complaint before January I . 1 997.
The use of ADR sha l l be the employee's choice : however. binding
arbitration w i l l be used only i f agreed to by both the employee and
management.
Action Plan
A Determi ne whether a l l . or select categories of complaints ( e.g . . by
location. type of complaint. age of complain t ) w i l l be offered ADR.
Who: DireClOl: Whell: hlll1lediate!\'
Offic e (�l Ci" i! Rights
B Identify and obtain necessary resources.

Who: A ssistollt SecretorY .
When: 1II III7edi({te!Y.
for Adll7inislrotioll
C Write to employees and management explaining the ADR option.

Who: DirectOl: When: /5 dan
Office (�l Ci" i! Rights
o Obtain necessary DOJ authority to use binding arbitration.

Who: Gmend COl/lise! When: IlI1l11edi({le!y ((fier decision
to l/7ake binding ({rhilmtioll
({II optioll
E Select or contract with competent . neutral mediators and/or

arbitrators.
Who: DireclOl: When: 45 doys
Office or Ci" i! Rig/Ils
F Begin ADR sessions.

Who: Di rectO/: When: 60 dms
Office or Ci" i! Rig/lls
G Complete ADR sessions.

Who: DireclOl: When: MO,l' l \, 'ilhill 1 20 lim.\':
O.fjlce oj' Ci" i! Righ!.\· ongoillg
83 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEI�T OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r-c
cnlviiIL
LiRIiiIGi
Gii
HTSR
TS R�
ec�
omme
;;;;;;;:
; nda tio;';ns;-------------
d;;ti.
7-1-. A l l EEO resolution agreements shal l have terms that ( I ) relate to the
nature of t he complaint; ( 2 ) address causal factors: ( 3 ) are conducive to
t i mcly implementation: and ( 4 ) contain i mplementation timeframcs. To
ensure accountabi l i ty. "no fau l t" settlements shall be used only i n cases
where all the parties to the dispute agree that it is appropriate.
Action PlalZ
A Establish a USDA policy on the use of "no fault" agreements.
Who : The Secretan' When: 60 £la rs
75. To ensure an e ffective and timely EEO cOIl1plaint� proces� on a perma

nent basis. conduct an i ndependent review of US DA's existing EEO sys
tem, assess the areas of deficiency. and redesign or repair the system.
Actioll Plan
A Select an i ndependen t entity/indiv idual( s ) with necessary expert i "e
and neutra l i ty to rev iew the system and recommend changes.
Who: Assis{(lnt Secref({n .
When: IlIIlIIediatefy .
for Adlllinistration
B Complete t he report and recommendations.

Who: Sefected rel 'iell'er When: Within 45 dars oj" sefection
C I mplement the recommended changes.

Who: A:)sisrwll Secretarr When: Begill illllliediat(!fy upon
for A dlllin istration; receipt of U!collllllel/(f(!d
DirectOl; c/wllges. COlllpfere lIIajor
OJfice (�l Cil 'if Rights chonges II'ithin 90 days
D Identi fy and obtain resources necessary to implement thi� recommen

dation.
Who: A ssistant Secretan' When: 1lIlIlIediateh'
j(Jr Adlllinistration
84 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRI CULTURE

76. I nitiate a continuing and coordi natl!d U S DA-wide workforce planni ng

and recruitmcnt process.
Action Plan
A Require the Department and each agency to develop a workforce
plan n i ng proccss. l i nked to its strategic plan and arli nnative employ
ment program plan. t hat addresses under-representation and i ncludes
recruitment. tra i n i ng. and retention efforts .
Who: The SecreullT When: Withill 60 da n of "
this report, thclI alllll/olly
B Coordinate recrui tment erforts Department-wide and coordinate out
reach and recruitment plam with institutions with which the
Department has ongoing relat ionsh i ps such as the 1 890 Land-Grant
Col leges. H BCU. H ACU as well as special recru itment initiat ives
such as R EAP and the Workforce Recruitment Program for Col lege
Studcnts with D i sabil ities.
Who: A ssis/(/Ilt Secrctar\' When: Imllledi(/tehl Ongoillg
'/1 1/' Admill istmtioll
C Sign R EAP MOU and fund appropriately.

Who : The Secref{1r\'
. When: Imllledi(/te/\" .
D Establ i sh a pcrsonnel management evaluation/assistance program at

the Department \eve I to coordi nate pcriodic reviews of agency work
force plans and human resource management programs.
Who: A .Isisf{1l1t Sca('tor\' When: IlI1l11ediatehl ollgoing
for A dmillistration
77. The Secretary shou ld be more involved in the management and selection
of the SES cadre within U S DA .
Action Plan
A Issue a letter to Agcncy Heads regardi ng change:-. in the SES program.
The letter requires Agency Heads to assure that training. details. reas
signments. and other work-related activities that <.u·c assigned to prepare
individuals for the SES level m'e donc in a I�lir and equitable manner.
Who: Th e Se("l"etorY
.
Whe,, : IlIlIncdia/eI\" .
B U sc i mpartial third parties to cval uate applicants for SES positions.

espccially for their demonstrated commitment to civil rights.
Who : The 5ec/"('/(I/".'· Whe,,: IlIIlIIedi(//e!\ "
C Reopen U S DA-\>,,' ide Scnior Executive Sen icc Candidate

Development Program and cnsure a diverse pool o j" candidates.
Who: The 5(' ( "}"eton' When: IlIIlIIedi(//eI\"
85 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEI'JT OF .AGRIC ULTU8E

I I I • • • • _ ••r.CliiV
v1i
IL�Ri
RilCjGaiHnTrsS�R�e;:
co;;
mme
�nda
�ti:;
ons
;:;-
;; ---------- -
Organizational Structure
of Civil Rights
Consolidate USDA's Civil Rights Functions

Into One Office
78. Consol idate the Department"s c i v i l rights functions under one Onice o f
Civil Rights that reports directly t o t h e ASA. I mmed iately ti l l t h e top
position in that onice with a career SES indiv idual with demonstrated
s k i l l s in c i v i l rights management, communications and outreach. partner
"hip bu i ld i ng with other U S DA agencies. and leadership.
79. Organil.e the new U S DA civil rights oftice with separate employment
and program civil rights components that report under separate l ines of
supervIsion.
80. The U S DA Civil Rights On�ce will proactively promote civil rights at
U S DA. provide guidance and overs ight to agencies, establish and dissem
i nate c i v i l rights policy, update regulations. and conduct compliance
reviews and audits to ensure enforcement of al l appl icable c i v i l rights
laws. rules. and regulations.
8 1 . USDA's Director of C i v i l Rights i s ulti mately accountable lor i nvestiga

tions of program discrim ination complaints. The D i rector may delegate to
agency civil rights directors the authority to conduct prel i m inary i nvesti
gations of program discri m i nation complaints, but must document any
such delegation in writing. and may withdraw such authority from the
agencies.
8�. The Director o f C iv i l R ights w i l l focus on i mproving the Department's

enforcement of civil rights laws in program del i very. and ensure that ade
quate funds are al located to enforc i ng c i v i l rights in program del ivery.
The D i rector should consider reestablishing the position of desk ofticer or
s i m ilar posi t ion that would provide specialized service to indiv idual agen
cies.
83. Give the Department"s new D i rector of C i v i l R ights the authority to cre
ate a quality. competent staff capable of i mplementing an effective civil
rights program at USDA . This authority i nc l udes the tlex i b i l ity to reas
sign and h i re starr.

CiIN
I I I • • • • _ ••'-jC Vijj
ILLRI
RKGnHi1TrsS�R�e�
co;;;;
mme
;;;;nda
�ti:; ;------------
ons
Action Plan
A Identify the ski l l m i x a Civil R ights Director needs to adm i nister an
e ffective c i v i l rights program ( e.g .. enforcement. policy development.
evaluation, advisory services. confl ict resol ution. etc . ) .
Who : A ssistant Secretar\'. When: Imll1ediatel\'
.
for A dlllinistration
B Conduct a search for quali fied applicants: ensure that a competent

panel is responsible for recommendi ng to the Secretary the new
Director: establ ish criteria and goals by which the Director w i l l be
evaluated.
Who: A ssistant Secretor\' When: IlI1mediotely
for A dll1inistratioll
C Appoint a C i v i l R i ghts Director with a proven track record i n civil

rights who is committed to call'ying out the recommendat ions in this
report .
Who: The Secreta ry When: 30 days alier receil'illg the
n(l111e of the recolllll1ended
illdil'idllal colldidate
,
D Enter i nto a memorandum of understanding with OGC to establish.
clarify. and i mprove relationship and communications between
offices.
Who : Assistant SecretarY When: 60 days after nel\' Direct(lr
for Adlllinistration: is appointed
Genere" COllnsel
E Prohibit transfer of employees to the c i v i l rights staff as a resolution

of a complaint un less j ustified by merits of complai nt.
Who : A ssistant Secretory When: Immediately
for Administration
F Develop a reorganilation and implementat ion plan and identi fy

strategies for placement and out-placement of individuals who do not
match ski lis in the new structure.
Who : A ssis/{Int Secre/(lr\' When: 60 days
. for Administ ratio/l

I I I • • • • _ ••r4c
CiliV IL�R
v1i RiCi
l GaHnTrss�R�e�
co;;;;
mme
;;;;nda
� ;;------------
;' ti:;'
ons
S ES Status of Civil Rights Director
8-1-, Change the designation of the Director L)f Civil Rights from S ES general
to SES career reserved. but do not al low that process to hold up t he
immediate appointment of a permanent D i rector of' Civil Rights,
Action PlalZ
A Prepare justi fication for change and transmit to O tlice of Person nel
Management.
Who: EXeClIfi\'e Re,\'()lIrces Whell: 90 do\'.\'
olld Sen'ices Dil 'isioll
Make the Office of the General Counsel

Accountable for Civil Rights
�5, To e nsure civi l rights accountab i l i ty, OGC must demonstrate its commit
ment to c i v i l rights by establ ishing a division dedicated to providing legal
counsel to the Department and agency officials on c i v i l rights issues and
divers i fying its staff of attorneys start i ng at the h ighest levels,
Action Plan
A Develop an organizational structure that w i l l ensure e ffective del i very
of civil rights legal services, such as add i ng an Assistant General
Counsel ror Civi l R i ghts and having that Assistant report to the
General Counse l .
Who: Gel/em! COl/lise! Whell: 30 da"s
B Starr the C iv i l Rights Division with lawyers who are committed to

civ i l rights i n U S DA and who specialiLe i n civil rights law and have
been, or w i l l be, thoroughly trained in c iv i l rights law,
Who : GClleml COl/llsel When: 90 da \'.\'
C Ensure that top OGC management supports these changes or ensure

that OGC has leadership that w i l l support it.
Who: The Secretary Wlzell: III/lllediate/y
D Make resources avai lable within existing budget.

Who: Gellem/ COL/llsel Wlzell: Imlllcdiotel\'

I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c
CiliV
ivii
IL�i
RiCi
l G�HnTrs
s�R�ec�o;;;;
mme
�nda
�ti;;;------------
ons
Establish Civil Rights Offices in Each Agency
86. To ensure that each USDA agency has civil rights accountab i l ity. each
agency must have a civil rights director who reports to the agency head.
Any exception to the reporting l ine must be approved by the Secretary.
The director w i l l have primary responsibil ity for ensuring that the agency
enforces a l l civi l rights laws and that the agency complies with all com
plaints processing t i me frames. DepaI1mental Staffs ( OGe. OIG. O B PA.
etc. ) must have effective civil rights programs with a measurable mecha
nism for feedback to the Secretary on their civi l rights peliormance.
87. Agency civil rights programs must incl ude program planning/analysis.
compl iance. and complaints management. In addition. agencies must
have documented. measurable goals and ti metables to address civ i l rights
in program del ivery and employment. under-representation. work force
diversity. and procurement.
88. The EEO counselor positions. i nc l uding resources. must be returned to

the agencies from the Department's Civil Rights Orlice. All E EO
counselors must be i n a ful l-time civil rights position.
Action Plan
A Revi se the pol icy to adm i nister missionarea civil rights programs
through Agency H eads and agency civi l rights d i rectors. unless the
Secretary grants an exception.
Who: The Secretwy When: 30 days
B Require a l l staff office� reporting to the Secretary to have an A EP.

Who : A ssistont SecretorY .
When: 60 days
.
for A dlllinistration:
A gencr Heads
C I f agencies change or establish organ izational structure associated

with this recommendation. submit to the USDA Director of Civi l
Rights any required documentation to e ffect this change .
Who: A gency Heads When: ..f.5 dor.\'
D Exped i te approval o f changes i n organizational structure.

Who: Assistont Secretory When: IlIImediately. IIpon receipt
for A dministration of' doclI me 111(1/ ion
E Execute necessary directives to return counselors to agencies.

Who : A.I'sistol/t Secretary When: Imlllediately
. fei/· A dministratioll

CiIN
I I I • • • • _ ••rlc Vru Ri(j
IL�il GaHnTriSi1R�e;:
co;;;;
mme
�nda
�ti�-;;------------
ons
F Hold Agency Heads and eivil rights directors accountable for mcet
i ng mandated processing dead l i nes and for adequately train i ng their
stafr� i n all aspects of civil rights. i ncluding con fl ict management.
Who: Assistal/t Sccrewry Wlze,, : IJIlllledi(lte/v: (ll/goil/g.
for A dm illist/'{{tioll;
Di re( '(()J;
OJjicc (If Cil'i/ Rights
Adopt a New Conflict Management Policy at USDA
89. Adopt and announce as U SDA's official pol icy that management i s
responsible for preventing con tl ict and reso l v i ng disputes a t t h e l owest
possi b le level by resolving the underlying i ssues and preventing recur
rence of contl icts. Resolve conll icts using an " interest based" approach
whenever possible,
Action Plan
A Issue a statement that forcefu l l y states pol icy for resolv ing disputes
on an interest-based approach and that USDA's past phi losophy of
"settle at all costs" is not acceptabl e ,
Who: Thc Secre((l/,\'
. When: 30 (/( [ \ .1
.
B Direct that EEO counselors and other U S DA personnel with dispute

resolution responsibi l ities are not to bc rated exclusively or even
primari ly on the i r settlement/resolution rates, I nstead. rati ng� shou ld
be based pri mari ly on the qual ity of the dispute resolution serv ice�
these employees provide.
Who: The Se(Te(({ry When: 30 dm's
90. Convene a team. with representatives from all mission area�/agencies. to

develop a USDA program implementing the Department's new contl ict
management pol icy.
Action Plan
A D i rect each agency/mission area to designate one or two representa
tives for membership on the Department' s Contl ict Management
Team ( C MT ) .
Who: The SeCl'e{(/1'\' Whe,, : IIIIII/ediate/\ '
B Se lect team leader having the necessary confl ict resolution knowl
edge and s k i l ls.
Who: The Secreta!'\' Whe,,: 1IIIIIIct/iatc/\'
90 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C
c:iliV
vii l GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;;;;
IL:lRiiCi mme
;;;nda
� ti;;------------
ons
C Devel op recommendations on i mplementing complaint

prevention/resol ution programs.
Who: Conflict Munagement Whell : ../ 5 c/ays
Teo l /1
o Determi ne how responsibi lity for connict resolution programs shall

be divided between agencies and the Department.
Who : Conflict Mwwgement Whell : ../ 5 c/o."s
Teom
E Reassess the role of the EEO counselors and determi ne whether

counselors should serve as mediators.
Who: Conflict Monogement Whell: ../5 dun
Teom
Eliminate Dispute Resolution Boards,

Regional Service Centers
9 1 . E l i m i nate the D i spute Resolution Boards and close the Department's

. Civi l R ights Regional Service Centers.
Action Plan
A Communicate closure of c i v i l rights service centers direct ly to the
affected employees before making t he publ ic announcement.
Who: A ssistunt Secretor\'
.
Whell: Immediote!r
.
for Admin istration
B Announce to the U S DA community the discontinuation or hoards

and closLlre�.
Who: A ssistant Secretory Whe,,: Octo/n'r / . N97
for Admin istration
C Provide a career transition and placement program for employees

affected by servi ce center closing.s.
Who: HI//J/on Resollrces Whe,,: ../5 dun

I I I • • • • _ ••r4C
�liV RiiCi
IL:lR
vii l G�HnT�
S�R?;e�
c o;
mme
;;;';nda
d;;titi;-;;------------
ons
Consolidate Offices Under the Assistant Secretary

of Administration
92. Consolidate all adm i n istration and management functions under the ASA
with ful l delegation o r authority. This consol idation w i l l bring the Chief
Financial Officer, the Chief I n formation Officer, the Otlice of S mal l and
D isadvantaged B usi ness U t i l i zation, and the Serv ice Center
Imple mentation Team under the ASA.
Action Plan
A Prepcu'e the necessary draft legislation to move the CFO. C IO, and
OSDBU reporti ng from the Secretary to the ASA.
Who: Genem/ COl/lIS e / Whe1l: 3 0 days
B Ensure that t he ASA has demonstrated leadership ski l l s i n managing

adm i n i stration functions in a l arge and complex organization. Such
leadership should have a track record with results.
Who : The Secretar\'
,
When: Imll/ediate/\' ,
C Ensure that A S A i s able to i mplement the new organizational struc

ture with the ful l support and resources from the Secretary. This
i ncludes ful l authority to adjust leadership to make this happen,
i ncluding removal of those who do not SUppOlt the new structure.
Who: The Secretary Whe1l: Imll/ediate/y

1111 • • • _ _.- -------- --- ---- -
Fol low-u p/L i sten i n g

Sessi ons
I
n addition to using the i n formation gai ned a t the l i steni ng sessions to
help develop this repon and make recommendati ons. USDA w i l l provide
fol l ow-up to those who voiced concerns about civi l rights at USDA.
During each session. Secretary G l i ckman or Deputy Secretary Rom inger
requested staff to fol low up by i nvesti gating some individual cases of speak
ers . That is currently being done and the process w i l l continue.
However. the recom mendations contai ned in this report are i n tended to
solve the u nderlying civ i l rights problems at U S DA to make the system work
for both customers and employees. The recommendations are also intended
to provide a framework for civi l rights at U S DA into the next century.
Listening Sessions
The CRAT sponsored 1 2 l i sten i ng sessions. which were held in I I l ocations

across the country. in January of 1 997. The sessions were t.!esigned to hear
"first hand"' from both customers--especially socially disadvantaged and
mi nority farmers-and USDA employees about what wa:- wrong with civil
rights at the Department. The CRAT held 9 l i steni ng sessions with customers
and 3 with employees. Each customer l i steni ng session was tailored to
addI:ess the concerns of speci fi c gender. racial ant.! cultural groups, i ncluding
American I ndians. H ispanics. and Asians. Each session followed the same
basic format. which was designed to hear from the maximum number of peo
ple in a 3-hour period. When needed. language translators were prov ided .
Customers and employees who did not speak at the l i stening sessions or
did not w i sh to speak openly were able to submit recorded or written state
ments to the CRAT. U S DA also establ ished an e-mail address, a fax number,
and a Hot Line for civil rights comments.
Over 2 .000 customers and 900 employees attended the sessions. Those
who spoke voiced concerns about program del i very and civil rights issues at
U S DA . Some spoke as i ndividuals. others represented groups.
Customers ' Major Issues
Maj or farmer concerns focused on program t.!elivery. Speakers told of abuse

and discrimination in loan processing. delays in delivery of approvet.! loans. and
lack or timely irrfornlation and help needed to participate in USDA programs.
Some speakers voiced concern over the decline of mi nority farmers and
farms in the South and Southwest. Some farmers and farm advocates spoke
of a perception that SDA is involvcd in a conspiracy to take land from
m inority farmers and let wealthy land-owners buy i t . often at a fraction of the
land's worth.
All customcr sessions raised the issue of the l ack or a USDA workforce
that reflects the t.!iversity of the customers in U S DA's field o flices.

-
I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c
� lvilliiL:lR il GiiH
ii" tT
iTs-
SRFi.o-;llr;;
iow
��- up
;; /L ·st;'
Ll� en;;ii;
ng��
Se;;ss;i;io;;n;;-
s ---------
Employees ' Major Issues
U S DA employees tended to focus on unfair management pract ices, insensi

tive managers, hosti le work environments, and lack of protection from
reprisals. Many employees felt they were discri m inated against because of
race, national origin, rel igion, sexual orientation. disabi lity, gender, or age.
Employees said U S DA management is neither accountable for nor
commi tted to c i v i l rights. Many complained about the complaint process.
Some pointed out it had been years s i nce they'd fi led a complaint and they
had heard noth i ng back about the status of the complaint.
Listening Sessions:
January 6, 1 997 Customer Listening Session, A lbany, GA

January 7. 1 997 Employee Liste n i ng Session, New Orleans, LA
January 7. 1 997 Customer Listening Session, Memph is, TN
January 8, 1 997 Customer Listening Session, H a l i fax, NC
January 1 0. 1 997 Customer Listening Session, Tu lsa, OK
January I 1 . 1 997 Customer L istening Session, Brownsv i l le, TX
January 1 3 . 1 997 Customer Listening Session, Wi ndow Rock, AZ
January 1 6, 1 997 Custo mer Listen i ng Session. Sal i nas, CA
J anuary 1 7. 1 997 Employee Listening Session, Woodland, CA
J anuary 22, 1 997 Employee L istening Session, Washi ngton. DC
January �2, 1 997 Customer Listening Session. Washi ngton, DC
January 24, 1 997 Customer Listening Session, Belzo n i , M S

11 1 1 • • • _ ___
--------------- -
Ac know l edgements
A
great many people. too numerous t o l i st. both within and outside of
U S DA. helped the Civil R i ghts Action Team by providing i n fonna
tion and other support. often on short notice. The team thanks all of
those who provided help. w i th a special thanks to the fol lowing U S DA staffs:
State Food and Agriculture Committees at l i stening session locations

Natural Resources Conservation Sen'ice
Office of the Chief
Quality Management and Program Evaluation Division
Office o f Public A ffai rs
Adm i n istrative Service�
Pol icy Analysis and Coordination Center-C i v i l Rights
Pol i cy Analysis and Coordination Center-Hu man Resources
Office o/" Operations
Office of Management Services
Modernization of Adm inistrati ve Processes
Economic Research Service
Office of the Chief Financial O fticer
Oftice o /" Congressional Relation�
Orfice o/" the General Counsel
Oflice of I nspector General
Otlice of Communications
Office of Budget and Program Analysis
Office of t he Executive Secretariat
National Appeals Division
Farm Service Agency
Farm and Foreign Agricu ltural Services M i ssion Area
Food and Consumer Service
Rural Development
C i v i l Rights Act ion Team Hotl ine Staff
Office of Chief l n forillation O fficer
Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
The team also thanks those Congressional representatives and members of
their staffs who attended l isteni ng sessions.
9 5 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

Civil Rights at USDA (1997 Report)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Civil Rights at USDA (1997 Report)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

1111 • • • ____ ---- - - -- -- -- --- -

Civil Rights at the

To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Lack of Management Commitment to Civil Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Program Del ivery and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practi ces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Organ izational Structure of C i v i l Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 46

Fol low-up/ Listening Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

A . C i v i l Rights Action Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

B. Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00

C . Agency -by-Agency Workforce Di versity Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 09

D. List of Agency Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 19

2 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Members of the C ivil R i ghts Action

3 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Some of the most poignant

4 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UN ITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

5 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGR ICULTURE

Farmers Say That USDA's Managers Are Not

During the CRAT l isteni ng sessions, hundreds of m inority farmers voiced

6 C IVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

7 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

USDA Employees Tell Similar Stories

U S DA employees at the l i sten i ng sessi ons-several of them at the emotional

8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

GAO Finds Agency Heads Not Accountable for

Managerial commitment to civil rights i s fundamentally an issue of account­

9 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Accord i ng to GAO. accountab i l i ty "suggests that goals w i l l be establ ished,

Previous Reports Find Lack of Commitment

U S DA employees appear to agr�ee with GAO's findings. A 1 993 U S DA

10 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Assistant Secretary for Administration Lacks Authority

Some Managers Lack Skills To Manage Diversity

M anagerial competence is another concern . The abi l ity to manage people,

11 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Management's Qual i ty Review Boards. which cert i fy candidates for the

Level of Resources for Civil Rights

Final ly, commitment i s also a question of resources devoted to civil rights. A

12 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

13 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF "-GRICULTURE

Prog ram Del ivery

1 4 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Socially Disadvantaged Customers Perceive

15 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

been put out of business

1 6 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

USDA Reporting Lines and Personnel-from

• Non-Federal Em ployees (paid with Federal dollars)

1 7 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Lack of Diversity Among County Committees and

1 8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FSA County Committee Members

Male 4 Male 1 Puerto Rico

American Indian! Male \ 27 American Indian! Male 4 .

Southwest Distribution of Minority-Operated Farms, 1 992

Male tttttt tt tttt; 1 ,441

American Indian! Male ', 29 ".<'

Alaskan Native Hawaii

Source: Farm Service Agency

19 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Southeast and Southwest, but it is a problem throughout the ation.

20 C I V I L RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Disparities in the Treatment of Minorities

M i nority and l i mited-resource customers stated repeatedl y in the recent lis­

21 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Managerial commitment to civil rights i s fundamentally an issue of account

M i nority and l i mited-resource customers stated repeatedl y in the recent lis

providing comprehensive services to USDA customers. have created new bar