Issuu on Google+

--

1111 • • • ____

--- - -

-

--

--

---

Civil Rights at the United States Department of Agriculture A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team Washi ngton, DC February 1997

1 I

I

t

j

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 is an equal employment opportunity employer.

(TOO).

US D A


-

-

1111 • • • ____

--------

-----

Contents

I ntroduction

Lack of Management Commitment to Civil Rights Program Del ivery and Outreach

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organ izational Structure of C i v i l Rights

6 14

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practi ces

Summary

2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .

46

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

Secretary of Agriculture Daniel R . G l ickman.

Recommendat ions

58

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Fol low-up/ Listening Sessions Acknowledgements

93

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Appendixes

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 00

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 09

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 19

C . Agency -by-Agency Workforce Di versity Data D. List of Agency Abbreviations

98


-

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

1

t

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 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


--- ----------I I I • • • • _ ••I( GHiiT TiS Slln;;ttro�dduucct·n;;;; o ;;n C:rIVViiliL�R"IG

Members of the C ivil R i ghts Action Team at a liste n i n g sess i o n .

SECRETARY'S CHARGE TO CRAT-

The Civil Rights Action Team was charged with developing a set of recommendations to address institutional and underlying problems and ways to implement actions to ensure accountability and follow-through at USDA.

On December 12. 1996. a group of black farmers demonstrated outside the 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 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 an end to farm foreclosures and restitution for fi nancial rui n they claimed was brought on by discri m i nation. The farmers' actions buttressed those by many U S DA employees who have relentlessly pursued c hange by writing letters. 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 problems. Secretary Gl ickman responded by appointing a team of USDA leaders to 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 RiiCi S�In;tro;dd;;ucti� ;' l Ga:HnT� on;-------------

listening Forum Some of the most poignant comments, however, came from minority farmers across the country, who noted that the Federal Government writes off millions of dollars in loans to foreign countries that cannot pay, yet forecloses on u.s. farmers when they cannot pay.

women fanners charged that USDA has participated in a conspiracy to acquire land belonging to them and transfer it to wealthy l andowners. M i norities. women, and disabled employees charged that discrimination, scxual harass­ ment, favoritism. and reprisals are common at USDA. M any customers and employees who cou ld not attend the sessions, or who did not want to comment publicly. faxed and mai led comments to the CRAT. 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


n -----------I I I • • • • _ ••r(c:rlVi ntro;';; dduuccttw"j;, · ;;GH HTi vlii L�R"IG Tsill ;;

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

Background

------

F

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

1

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 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

i -;hh�ts:----�l..ac[;*k�o ffjM�ana�;ge�me ;;;jitme t;;;;;nt�to;CChiviilI.R�g ;;;'; nt;-;� C o;mm

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 I • • • • _ ••'--Ci1C

Field employees ' peiformance ratings are often based on measurement systems that favor large, wealthy landowners who can afford to repay loans or adopt innovative farm management practices.

V�ii l L:lRH Lac ;;;: k�offjMWa;n a;;;;;g;;'em-;;;'; e n;-;t CC;o;m;;; m ; itme �ntttto; CC�i v�il�RU;ig�h�ts:----IGliHHTTsS �

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 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 the way it ought to be: then that's the way it is. I t doesn't matter about your rights . So the system i s very badl y broken, as I see it." One example of a "broken" system is that field-level employees, those clos­ 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 loans are processed too late. i f a t al l, and that often, "the money i s gone" b y t h e t i me they are approved. F i e l d employees' performance rat ings are often 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


I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c�lv�liiL:lRiUcIGiiH"TTss-LaL;c*k�offjM \4;;;; ana;ge�me ;;;; ntr;C�o;;; mm ;;;titme ;;;;;ntttto;c C�iviilIiR�g i �hsJts-----

Pearlie Reed, Team Leader, Civil R ights Action Team.

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 from the Forest Service. U S DA's largest agency. s i m i lar problems were 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.

9 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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

10 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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

Despite the problems documented throughout this report, no senior executive was rated "does not meet fully successful " in civil rights at USDA.

The Assistant Secretary for Admi nistration ( A S A ) has overall responsibility 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 for the agency heads and senior executives ( other than those in Departmental Admi nistration) whose actions-at least on c i v i l rights-the office ostensibly oversees. The ASA has the responsibil i t y for ensuring comp l iance: i n real ity. 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 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

11 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


cm I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c TsS L;;;* Lac k� of(j� lvilliiL:lR RiC lGiiH iiT M� anag ; e;;me ;;;; ; nt��Co ;;;mm ;;;iitme ;;;;;;; nt�o� t C� ivii illiR� g i thh�ts-----

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.

Conclusions

------

I

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.

12 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


iiiC il GiiH cm lvilliiL:lR iiTS S-L; Lac *k� of(ji1, M� aTUlge ;;;;me �n; I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c

Management commitment and accountability are key to the civil rights issues at the U. S. Department ofAgriculture, both from a customer and program delivery standpoint as well as from the standpoint of employment practices and workforce diversity.

� t C�o;;;mm ;;;jitme ;;;;; n; t�ot;c C� ivii ilR R� 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 out sufficient checks and balances. Agency heads have delegated responsibi l i ­ 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 lations. Contrary to EEOC regulations. agency heads and senior officials are not held accountable for results-oriented AEP's to end under-representation. or for Civil Rights I mplementation Plans. which address program delivery. I n most cases. agencies have not established measurable goab. i n empl oyment. program del ivery. or procurement. for which managers are to be held accountable. 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

Background

1

------

M

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. 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 • • • • _ ••'-C Pro ;;;g;;1; wn i ;;n D;Z el� ive;;ry;and ;;;jGO� utre �acdh;--------c;ji lv �liL G� HnT� L�RiiIG S�

Socially Disadvantaged Customers Perceive USDA Is a Partner in Taking Their Land

A Common Theme:

By the time processing is completed, even when the loan is approved, planting season has already passed and the farmer has not been able to plant. ..profit is then reduced.

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 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: The m inority or l i m i ted-resource farmer tries to apply for a farm operati ng loan through the FSA county office well i n advance of planting season . The 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 application without any assistance in completing it. then be asked repeated­ ly to correct mistakes or complete oversights in the l oan application. Often 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.

15 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

" . . . Somewhere there should be reparations. It 's good to know that you 're saying we 're not going to have foreclosures, but what are you going to do about those hundreds of thousands of acres of land that have been lost, hundreds of thousands of black farmers who have been put out of business because of the policies that were adverse to them ? "

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 minority fanner. Often it is al leged that the person was a friend or relative of one of the FSA county officials. The consequences of this scenario, repeated i n all its varieties, and the hopes of those who have lost land through this process, were summarized by a participant at the l i sten i ng session in Memphis, TN : . . . . . Somewhere there should be reparations. I t's good to know that you' re saying we're not going to have foreclosures. but what are you going to do about those hundreds of thousands of acres of land that have been lost, hundreds of thousands of black farmers who have been put out of business because of the pol icies that were adverse to them?" Lack of Accountability Within the FFAS and 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.

1 6 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••'-( Vi IL:lR i RiC IGiiHi'T iis SlP;';ro�g;;;ram ;;:D o;e�li� ve;ry�;;d andGo� utre r;;;acdh;--------CiIV

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

County Committee Employees farmers in county elect County Committee

Non-Federal Em ployees (paid with Federal dollars)

1 7 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

tlJ tA > Vl > - Q) C Q) � ­ '!::: O ·

() E <t E

Vl

O

LL. ()


CIVIL RIGHTS

Prog ram Delivery and Outreach

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

1 8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Program Delivery and Outreach

FSA County Committee Members by Race, Sex, and Ethnicity, 1 996 Northeast

Midwest White

Male Female

Black

ttttttttttttttt tttt ' 119

Asian American! Pacific Islander American Indian! Alaskan Native

Male 0

Female

Female 0

.

,

Male 1

I

Hispanic

Male 0

"

Female 0

White

Male Female

Black

tttttt t 1 07

Male 0

Pacific Islander

Female 0

American Indian! Alaskan Native

Male 0

Asian American! Pacific Islander American Indian! Alaskan Native

1 ,026

Female 0

Female

Male 0

I

,

Male 0

Male 4

Male \ 27

American Indian! Alaskan Native

Alaska

Female 1

Female Black

Female 1

Asian American! Pacific Islander

Female 2

ttttttt tttt 2,287 +, 1 2 1

Male 1

Asian American! Pacific Islander American Indian! Alaskan Native

Female 0 Male 4

1 ,441

Female 2 Male ' 1 0 Female 4

Female 4

.

Female 0

,

"

Male ', 29

Puerto Rico

Distribution of Minority-Operated Farms, 1 992

tttttt tt tttt; ďż˝ 1 52

; 33

I

\. ,

Female 7

Male 5

Male

,ďż˝

Male \ 2 1

Female 0 Hispanic

\

Male ' 27

Black

Hispanic

Female 1

Male

Male

White

Southwest

White

Virgin Islands

Southeast

Female 0 Hispanic

!

Female 0

Asian American!

Female 0

708

I

J

Northwest ,

ttttttt . 73

Male 4

Black

Female 0

Male 3

Male

White

Male 0 Female 0

Hispanic

1 ,923

".<'

Hawaii

Source: Farm Service Agency

19 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT

OF

AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Prog ram Delivery and Outreach

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� RH IG iH vg�I� 'a; 'l1LD �e�f1� 'l'e�,\� . ·�a� lId dG O�U; f,.� ea;c� h--------------------L�R � T�S�P�r�

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 PROCESSING In several Southeastern

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 nority loans in the direct loan program were disapproved. 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

African-American loan applications as it did nonminority applications.

wi de ranges, however. For example, only 67 percent of African-American

loans were approved in Lou isi ana, compared to 83 percent of nonmi nority loans. A l abama showed a similru' di sparity--only 7 8 percent of African­ 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.

21 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Prog ram Delivery and Outreach

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足 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足 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足 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足 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,

22 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


c�lv Vi IL:lR i RK I GUHi'TS rsJP;;;ro�g;ram ;;jD o;e;Z;li; ;;;;jCO� I I I • • • • _ ••'-c utre �acdh;--------ve;':ry�and

The D. 1. Miller report of 1996 found anecdotal evidence suggesting that minorities and females use the appeals process less. This is primarily due to discomfort with and lack of confidence in the decision makers; slowness of the appeals process; lack of knowledge of appeals rules and regulations; and the time-consuming bureaucracy of the appeals process.

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 appeal their cases to FSA charge that even when decisions are ovelturned, 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 and l ength of t i me needed to appeal. and the l ack of t i mely communication to i n form them of the status of their cases. The D. J . M i l ler report of 1 996 noted that this system was not beneficial 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 sh a re of producers" and that "anecdotal evidence suggests that mi norities and females uti l i ze the appeals process less primaril y due to discomfort with and l ack of confidence in the decision makers; slowness of the appeals process: 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 did use this system. the M i l ler report did not find a stat i stical ly significant difference between the outcomes of appeals between white male and female and minority farmers. 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

23 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••'-( C�lv Vi IL:lR i ii IGii iC H �T riSlP�ro�g;;;ram ;;;:D o;e�li� 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 ilP;;ro� ; g�ram ;;;:D �;i el� c·ve;;ry�;;;jG and O�u; tre�ac dh�-------Vi IL� i iUc RIGiiH �ri Ts

Richard E . Rominger, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture , at a listening session .

Number of Pending Program Discri mination Complai nts at USDA Other Agencies 63 Food & Consumer Service 62 Rural Housing Service 1 65

Source: USDA Office of Operations

three agencies at USDA. There were 205 cases pendi ng. representing 42 percent of the total. agai nst the FSA : 1 65. or 33.3 percent against the Rural Housing Service ( R H S ): and 62. or 1 2.5 percent, against the Food and 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 program discri m i nation complaints. Approxi mately one-half of the pendi ng cases are 2 years old or older. verify i ng farmers' contention that complaints are being processed slowly. if at a l l . According to t h e Complaints Processing Division at t h e Office of Operations ( 00 ) . which processes complaints that make it to the Department 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 closed per month. or 1 08 during the year-increa. i ng a backlog of program complaints. Program Rules Reduce Minority and 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

25 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c SiIN VriiIL Gi i T�S� LiR"IG Hn p� ro;; g� ra; m�D�eilili� ve;ry�;;;J"( and O);u; tr� ea� chh---------

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

26 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Prog ram Delivery and Outreach

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


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

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

60% 60%

USDA Goals 51% U S DA Totals

Agency/ FSIS M ission Area

RD

REE

FSA

FCS N RCS

FS

APH I S AMS

OIG

00

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

29 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


t1i� ea;;ch h; --------I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c CI" i VijIL G�HnTriS5FP;;:; o;e�li� ve;;ry;and ��O);:u� LFR"IG ro�g� ra;;;m;JD

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

30 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


;;;;D Dd elz� ·ve;;ry;and ;;;;d:Co�u;; tre�ac ;;;h�-------I I I • • • • _ ••'-( c:ilv vii IL� RIc IGiiH �� TSlP�ro�g;;ram

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

Background

------

M

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

1

1

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 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.

32 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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

Minority and Women Under-Represented in USDA's Workforce

While a fell ' USDA agencies have made g reat strides ill divers!fyillg their l I 'orkforce at al1 lel 'els, most COl 1 tillue to lag f([ r behind ill /JI()I'iding the same le l 'els qf dil'ersi(r ill their professiol1([I, lI1id- , ([Ild senior- Iel 'el positiolls.

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 representation s i nce 1 984. compared w i t h white men. they were sti l l reprc­ sented i n lower re lat ive numbers in the agencies' key job categories. I n gener­ a l , the re lative numbers of white women and m i nori ties in the SES ranks of 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. These statist ics. however. do not tell the whole story. An analysis of U S DA's work force by Professional , Adm i n i strative. Technical. Clerica l , Other. and B l u e Collar ( PATCOB ) selies shows that men continue to dom i nate the profes­ 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 .

33 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

CIVIL RIGHTS

USDA Work Force Compared to Civilian Labor Force in 1 996

USDA Permanent Work Force (All Grades) Civilian Labor Force

White Men White Women Black Men Black Women

Asian-Pacific American Men Asian - P acific American Women

35 . 3%

t

5.4%

49.3%

-

..!.

3 1 .8% 3 . 7%

4 . 9%

'j

t

5 . 8%

1"'1

Hispanic Men Hispanic Women

42.6%

-

n

3. 1 %

4 . 8% 3 . 3%

1 . 7%

t

1 . 5%

,

. 8%

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

34 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


1 11• • • • -

CIVIL RIGHTS

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

-

Senior Executive Level Work Force**

USDA Permanent Work Force (GS 1 3-1 5)

White Men

67.9%

-

White Women Black Men Black Women

H i spanic Men H ispanic Women

Asian-Pacific American Men

1 7 . 9%

]'

6 8 . 0% 1 9 .0%

4 . 0%

7 . 8%

3 . 9%

10, 2 . 6%

2 . 0%

. 3%

.6% 2. 1 %

1 . 3%

.

.8%

Asian-Pacific American Women

.6%

0%

American I n d ian Men

I

.8%

0%

.2%

. 3%

American Indian Women

" 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.

35 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

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颅 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\路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• • • • -

Female employees at some of the listening sessions said that those who refused to engage in sexual relationships with their supervisors often were denied promotions and/or transfers. In some instances, careers were "destroyed and the work situation turned violent. "

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 levels. including SES posit ions. m i nority and female employees said. There i s a perception that the Forest Serv i ce i s using its "surp l u s l i st" to 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 pos i t ions that w i l l be reduced. e l i m i nated, or moved i n response to budget cutbacks. B ecause they represent only a small port ion of USDAs workforce. Asian­ 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 employees at N FC said that they have a hard t i me gett i ng promoted . I n 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 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 l viiIi I L:lR RiC l GiiH TS� Wc� o� rkfi fo o;;;rc�eID>ii� ifTs ve:;;rs�ity � and ;;djE �mp -;;;lo;; ;i yme �n;;t� ; P;;;rac �tic�e�s----\ I I • • • • _ ••'-�c

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 . )

Table 1 : USDA Employees with Targeted Disabilities Position Levels

Number Percent 2

0.5

87

0.7

G S 9- 1 2

369

0.9

GS 1 -8

639

1 .9

39

2.0

SES GS 1 3- 1 5

Wage G rade

& Other

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 been found gui lty o f comm i t t i n g various offenses. In some instances. t hese 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 recently rece ived a temporary assignment as acting head of a regional nflice. Fear of reprisal or harassment has kept some employees with legiti mate com­ plai nts or concerns from speaking out. Several employees at the l i sten i n g ses­ sions said that they hesitated to come forward for fear of reprisal and that thi:-. 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 themselves as members of the U S DA Gay, Lesbian, and B i sexual Employees Organ ization ( G LOB E ) and both spoke of t he host i l ity and ridicule they have 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

38 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


IVilliiL�ii RiCil GiiH ifT TS S* Cili ;cti tic�e-;;s----I I I • • • • _ ••'-�C m� o �� kfi fo o;;; rc;eLD)i;iv�e� rs� ity� and ;;d1E �mp ;;Llo; y;;;; me ;;;n;;tf ; P;;;rac

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

The opportunity to participate in decision-making bodies provides important career developmental opportunities for minorities and women, whose perspectives also add to the quality of decisions that are made.

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 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 the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i strat ion to i ssue guidance on e x i st i n g statutes a n d regu lations for exec u t i ng t h e AEP program: a n d each Subcabinet offi cial was d i rected to i ssue a statement to her or his agency heads re iterat i ng 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 each agency ' s compl i ance w i th its AEP. A n effective AEP w i l l ensure that U S DA is tak i ng the necessary act ions to ' 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

39 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Average Processing Time of Formal EEO Complaints 1 992-1 996 _.-

Adjudi cated Complaints Settled Complaints All Com plaints

No. of Years

3

2

1

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

m i norities and women are bei ng adversel y i mpacted by downsizing. ( U n fortunate l y, the Department now has two databases-the EEOMAS and the DN7 1 ...J. databases-ne i ther of which contains accurate data. ) B ased on the data avai lable to the C R AT. dow n s i z i ng has not had a negative i m pact on women and m i norities. In fact, these groups have shown s l i gh t i ncreases large ly because many white m ales accepted i ncent ives to ret i re. The Report of the U S DA Tas k Force on Sexual Orientat ion, dated January ] I . I 99...J. , i ncl uded a l i s t of recommendat ions which addressed the i ssue of 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 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.

Employee Complaints

Source: U S DA annual reports filed with E EOC

Because of US DAs lack of l:ffective leadership in c i v i l rights. employees who 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.

40 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


' 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

EI -

.::==: .::==: .::==:

( i nc l u d i n g complai nts on h a n d at end of previous FY) C l osed d u ri n g FY

2233

I nformal Complai nts

:=::::� � -

2005 � -

.=.::==: .=- .::==:

1 62 8

� -==.=' � .::==: .::==: .::= =: .::==: .::=.::==: ::::::::= .::=.=' .=' .:::== .:::== � .::==: -=-.

� � === .::==: � � -

.::==: -

462 === === === === -

= 646

=== === -

II 1 992

772

683 .=' .=' .::==: .::=- .::==: .::==: .=' .::==: ===

� === - === == = 869 .::=- === === .= === - === === .......-. ...-

.::==: .=-

1 732

- .='

=== :::: := === === .::==: � ===

=: � .::= === � � � -

.=' .::==:

666

-

� === :=::::� === -

.='

-= -

� � -=-

.:::==

�.

�59

1 993

=::: - ::;.

=== === == 1 046 === === === === === === ./"

501

1 994

===

== -

=== - ==

=== === .::==: == � === === -====-

- == 1 863 === � === .=' == === === .=' === � === � === -=-

== === === === � ===

-::=.. -====-

...-

2024

=== .=.==== .::==: .::==: -

.='

.=' 566

.=' -=== ===

- == == -====.::==: ::::::;. .=' � � 1 391 * � :: � === === === .=' == � === == -

===

== .::==: --=- -====./"

.::==: .:::==

383 t � 604 .

1 995

"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

4 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1 996


CIVIL RIGHTS

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

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


P� I I I • • • • _ ••'-�C �I�VriILi L RiiIG G� HnTris�m V;; orl rkfi ifto;;;rc;;e�D)tvi�e;; rs� ity;and �flE�mp ;k lo;; yme ;;;;n� t� ractI�'c� es-;-----

The EEO system has left the perception that management is not held accountable for wrong doing.

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 t h e l as t quarter of FY 1 996. four of the s i x service centers conducted only t h ree DRB sessions combi ned. Even u s i ng the settlement standard by which 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 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

43 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Workforce Diversity and Employment Practices

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


� ti� ce;s----me ;;';;t nt-;P;;;rac Ci1 lv�liiL:lR I I I • • • • _ ••'--c AH I GiiHHTTss� m� o� rkfi fc o;;;rc;eID)ii� ve;;rs�ity � and -;;;jE � j mp -;;;lo;; ;i y;

Conclusions

U

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 �eril11i 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

Background

------

M

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 .

46 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • - ••'-4c I VijIL Ci" L'RUIG tlfu ·o;;; na;ilS St� ruc; tu�re�� oif�C� iv� il�R� ig?izh; ts------G� HnTr!S�O;;;rg�an ;;; iza�

Lack of Administrative Management Coordination

According to a June 1 996 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, during the early and mid1980 's USDA leaders had effectively «dismantled" USDA 's civil rights apparatus.

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 by the Assistant Secretary for Adm i n i stration. The USDA Service Center I mplementation Team. which assists the USDA Service Centers with such things as automation and outreach. reports indirectly to the Deputy Secretary through the Food and Agricul ture Counc i l . The O ftice or Small and Disadvantaged B usi ness U t i liLation. which plays a key role in promoting equal opportun ity ror small and m i nori ty busi nesses. reports to the Deputy 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 USPA's civil rights functions w i l l be needed . However. there is l i ll ie coordi­ 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


:iINVriILi L R"IG � HnT�S�Ol;;rg�an �/k: ·za;tlt·o-; ;;na;ZIS St� ruc� tu;;;re;-;o-:;j if�C:h iv� il�R�ig�h;; ts------I I I • • • • _ ••'-4C

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 COI11plai 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

48 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••'-(C�lv IL::IR IGiiH riS (OJ,rg ;;an � iza;'tzo fu · ;;; na1 ;JS Struc ;;;;; tu� ifC Cl; 'vil l'l R RIi; ·ghhtts-;------Vi i FUc i'T re�oif

Members of the Civil R i ghts Act ion Team at a listening session .

While some contend that elevating the civil rights role directly to the Secretary would increase both accoun tability and visibili(\'. oth e rs felt a more effe ctive program could be obtained by building accountability into agency heads ' peiformance standards and giving jull authori(r jo r civil rights program o l 'ersight, compliance. and e/�fo rcemel1t to the A ssistant Secretary for

Secretary for Administration. "several layers removed from the Secretary:' and cal led this "a placement which suggests that civil rights enforcement is not a high priority at U S DA ." I n the Federal Government. executive Departments are almost evenly spl it on where their civil rights office repOI1S. some reporti ng direct l y to the Secretary, and others reporti ng to a Subcabinet official. Some within USDA's civil rights community expressed concern about the increased span of control in the Office of the Secretary i f the civil rights function were to be elevated . Both sides of the issue agree that there i s a greater need for accountab i l ity and comm itment at a high leve l . 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 effective program cou ld be obtained by bu i lding accountab i li ty into agency heads" performance standards and giving fu l l authority for c i v i l rights pro­ gram oversight. compliance. and enforcement to the Assistant 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

49 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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


CIVIL RIGHTS

The U.S. Commission on Civil

Rights expressed concern about the lack of USDA resources dedicated to civil rights in program delivery.

Organizational Structure of Civil Rights

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 expressed concern about the lack of U S DA resources dcdicated to civil rights in program delivery. For example. in 1 982 there were 63 ful l-ti me employees ( FTE's) carryi ng out compliance and special emphasis programs. As of ' 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 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

ght /;;S-;------ofr(C:1i� viZ: l RRzi; I I I • • • • - ••'--�c I GiiK HTs TS� O� rg;;an;;; za ;i ;tti0 ·ona ;;;dlS St, tru�c;;tu�1i; ,(! 0 � lvilIiL:lRH

U. S. Department of Agriculture Headquarters Civil Rights Structure Current Secretary of Agriculture

Chief Information Officer

Chief Financial Officer

General Counsel General Law Division advises and provides representation in civil rights matters.

Inspector General

Executive Operations

National Appeals Division Responsible for program appeals.

Subcabi net

52 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of ommunications

Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization Responsible for mino rity business participation.


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

S. Department of Agriculture Headquarters Civil Rights Structure

U.

Proposed Secretary of Agriculture

General Counsel

OffIce of ommunlcatlons

Civil R ights Division w i l l advise .

Subcabinet

. .. . Consol idated, Vis ible, Responsible.

53 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Of the current staff in the Department 's two civil rights offices, two-thirds work on EEO complaints. That means only a small percentage of USDA 's civil rights staff works on civil rights issues relating to program delivery.

Organizational Structure of Civil Rights

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 d uded that agency heads, because they have authori ty and resources to man­ age people and programs. must be held accou ntable for c i v i l rights. Ensuri ng oversight and compl i ancc should be the role of the Assistant Secretary for 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.

Lack of Civil Rights Expertise 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


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

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.

55 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • - ••'-4C ts------r :iI�VriIL LiR"IG � ·za;tl� ·o� na-:;iIS St;; ruc; ;tu�re�":;j oif�C:h iv� il�R�ig�h; HnTris�O;-;;rg�an ;;;,�

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.

56 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

i


--

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.

57 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE


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

1

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 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:

B

The SecretarY

l

IlI1l11ediately

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)"

C

Whe1l:

Whe1l:

1IIlIIlcdiately

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 three rati ng cycles. Who:

The Secrct({lT

Whe1l:

58 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

30 doys


CiliV v1i IL�Ri RK I GiiHnTrsS�R�ec;;o;;;; I I • • • • _ ••r.C mme ;;;nda �ti-; ons ;;; -----------

D

Assess the funding needs for conducti ng an effective USDA civil rights program. Who:

E

A ssist(/Ilt Secretary for A dministratioll; Ci" il Rights DireclOr

Whell:

60 doys

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:

B

The Secre/(ll"\'

WIlell:

IIII/lledil ltell"

Publicize goals and object ives wioely throughout USDA . Who:

SlIhcahillet

Whell:

59 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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:

B

A ssiSlall1 SecrelW"\' for A dill ill iSlrolioll

When:

!lIIlIIediale/"

Determi ne and implement process for i nvestigat i n g reprisal allega­ tions. Who:

AssiSI{(1I1 Secrerory for Adll1illistration

When:

!lIlIlIediate/"

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 for A dll1inistration

When:

60 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

60 days


cn lviiIL Li RliiIG iiK iHTi TSR S R� ec; omme ;;;;; nda � tio;;ns;; -----------I I • • • • _ ••r-c

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 SlIhcohinet: A gel1cy Heat!.1

When:

JllllnediaTe/r

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:

B

When:

J/II//lediate/y

When:

Comp lete Il'ithin 90 doys

Conduct session! develop plan. Who:

61

A ssistant SecrelUry for A dministration

A ssistant Secretary for A dmil1istmtion

CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE

LJ S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


ILC-R RK V1i IGaHnTrss�R�e� I I I • • • • - ••r4ClIN 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

D

When: Complete within 90 days

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

Jor A dlllinistration

62 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

';5 days


I I I • • • • - ••r�C �I;; IG;;HnTr;;S�R�e-;; IL�; co: V;;; mme RU; =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

B

Whell: IIIIII/{!di(ltelr

I ssue d i rective to Forest Service. Who: The SecretarY

Whell : 1IIIIIIedialel\'

63 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMFNT OF AGRICULTURE


nune ;;;;';ruJa -;J;;titi:; ons ;:;;; ----------I I I • • • • _ ••r4C �liV vii IL�ii RiCi il GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;;;; 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


I I I • • • • _ ••r.c c� HnT� si}R� vii IL:lR RiliG ec�o; mme �nda d;;i tio; i ns;-----------�lv

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

65 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

B

Recommendations

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 Who: T h e Secrewry

B

foreclosures. Whell: 1lIlIllediateh'

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足 tion in m ission areas. WIlo: Assiswllt Secref{/f"\'

Wile,,: IlIIlIIediate/\'

for A dll1illistratioll

66 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••r4c l G"HnTrssilR?;e;; co;;;; mme ;;;;nda � tio�ns ;;-----------CiliV v1i IL:lR RiiCi

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

B

When: Immediately

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\'

67 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


V;U RK I GatHnTrss�R�e� IL�R co;;;; mme �nda �ti� ons �----------I I I • • • • _ ••'-IClIN

'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\'

B

When: III/mediately

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. When: FY 1 998 Who: USDA

68 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Recommendations

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

C

Task Force

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

69 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DFPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

cOlll'enil1R Task force


- -

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足 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足 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

D

When: Within 30 da\'.\' of ' (his report

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

70 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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

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 RK iI 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 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'

C

45 days q/ This reporT

When: WiThin

45 days q/This reporr

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

G

When: WiThin

' The agency coordinator must be responsible for monitoring outreach goals and accomplishments to under-served customers. Who: Agency Heads

F

When: WiThin 30 doys (�/ This reporT

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

E

When: WiThin 30 days (�/ This reporT

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

o

Whell : WiThin 30 dan (�( This reporT

When: WiThin 30 days of This report

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


CIVIL RIGHTS

Recommendations

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足 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足 based organ izations. Who: Agency He({ds

C

Whe1l: WiThin

90 (/0 .\'.1' o( This reporT

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

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

90 doys of' This reporT


-

v1i RiCi IL:.IRi t:iliV l Gn;HnTrs S�R�ec;;o;;;; mme ;;ruJa d;;titi; ons ;:;----------I I I • • • • _ ••r4C

-+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.

74 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Recommendations

Action Plan A I nc lude ,

in the legis lative package to Congress amendments necessary to support these recommendationďż˝. 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:

75 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1/llIlIedioleh'


I I I • • • • _ ••r4C �liV v1i IL:lR iiiCi il GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;; mme ;;;;';nda -;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

B

When: Immediately

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


I I I • • • • _ ••'-4C �liV iiIci iI Gn;HnT�S�R�ec;;o; mme ;;;;nda d;;ti ; tio;ns ;:;-----------v1i IL:lR

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

B

When: Within 90 days (�r This reporT

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


IL:lRi �liV v1i RiCi l G�HnTrs s�R�ec�o; I I I • • • • _ ••r4C 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:

B

Under SecretarY REE

Whell:

FY 1 997

S upport the farmworker-related recommendations of USDA Env i ronmental J us tice I n itiative. WilD:

Under Sl'('rl'((/I'\' REE

Wilen:

7 8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

F Y 1 99 7


CIVIL RIGHTS

C

Extend research to i nvestigate the impact of pest icides on farlllwork­ ers' health. Who:

o

Wilen:

FY 1 99 7

Ullder Secrelorr REE

Wilen:

FY 1 997

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:

F

Ullder Secre(ur\" REE

Develop an enhanced train ing program i n farm safety and pesticide safety t hat addresses the special needs and concerns of farmworkers. Who :

E

Recommendations

Ullder Secretary REE

Wilen:

FY 1 997

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:

B

When:

Withill 30 duys or (his r<'1}()rl

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:

C

FAS

OSDBU

When:

With ill 30 doys (�r this report

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 \\ "ith the 11(,\\' Office or Ollt reoch

When:

79 CIVIL R I GHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEt�T OF AGRICULTURE

Withill

C)O

duys o( (his report


CiliV vii IL:lA AiliCi GaHnTrss�R�ec�o; mme ;;;;';nda �ti; ons ;;-----------I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c 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 for A dlllinisimiion

When:

Within

C)()

do \".\·

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:

B

When:

III/II/edi({teh'

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:

C

Agency Heads

Agency Heads

When:

Ongoing

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:

80 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Ongoing


I I I • • • • _ ••'--4C �lij IL:lR RiliCi G�Hn vii 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 :

B

When:

Within 120 c/ars of this report

Train all employees and cert i fy to the Secretary that train i ng is com­ p leted on an annual basis. Who:

C

A ssista/lt SecretarY for A dlllinisfrofioll

A/Zency Heads

When: FY 1 998

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: A gency Heads

When:

An/l llall\': ongoing

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:

81 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

III/II/ediately .


ILCiii CiliV v1i RiCi il GU;HnTrss�R�e� co;; mme ;;';nda �ti� ons ;:;-----------I I I • • • • _ ••r�C

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

B

Wlze,,: f 20 days: o//goi//R

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

82 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


vii I I I • • • • _ ••r�C mme ;;;nda -;J;;titi;; ons ;;; ----------IL�Ri RiCi l GaHnTrs s�R�ec�o;;;; CiliV

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. Whell: hlll1lediate!\'

Who: DireClOl: 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:

Office (�l Ci" i! Rights

o

When: /5 dan

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:

Office or Ci" i!

F

When: 45 doys Rig/Ils

Begin ADR sessions. Who: Di rectO/:

Office

G

When: 60 dms

or Ci" i! Rig/lls

Complete ADR sessions. Who: DireclOl:

O.fjlce

When: MO,l' l \, 'ilhill

oj' Ci" i! Righ!.\·

83 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMEI�T OF AGRICULTURE

ongoillg

1 20 lim.\':


cn lviiIL Li RIiiIGi Gii HTSR TS R� ec� omme ;;;;;;;: ; nda d;;ti. tio;';ns;------------I I I • • • • _ ••r-c

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. When: 60 £la rs

Who : The Secretan'

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

C

I mplement the recommended changes. Who: A:)sisrwll Secretarr

D

When: Within 45 dars oj" sefection

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

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


CIVIL RIGHTS

Recommendations

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\' .

D

When: Imllledi(/te/\" .

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:

B

Th e

Se("l"etorY .

.

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/".'·

C

Whe,, : IlIlIncdia/eI\"

Whe,,: IlIIlIIedi(//e!\ "

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.

86 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CiIN Vijj ILLRI RKGnHi1TrsS�R�e� I I I • • • • _ ••'-jC 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 :

B

A ssistant Secretar\' . for A dlllinistration

A ssistant Secretor\' for A dll1inistratioll

D

The Secreta ry

When: 30

days alier receil'illg the n(l111e of the recolllll1ended illdil'idllal colldidate

Assistant SecretarY for Adlllinistration: Genere" COllnsel

When: 60

days after nel\' Direct(lr is appointed

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 :

F

IlI1mediotely

Enter i nto a memorandum of understanding with OGC to establish. clarify. and i mprove relationship and communications between offices. Who :

E

When:

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:

,

Imll1ediatel\' .

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:

C

When:

A ssistant Secretory for Administration

When:

Immediately

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\' . for Administ ratio/l

When: 60

87 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

days


CiliV I I I • • • • _ ••r4c IL�R RiCi l GaHnTrss�R�e� v1i 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 olld Sen'ices Dil 'isioll

Whell: 90

do\'.\'

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:

B

da"s

GClleml COl/llsel

When: 90

da \'.\'

Ensure that top OGC management supports these changes or ensure that OGC has leadership that w i l l support it. Who:

D

Whell: 30

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 :

C

Gel/em! COl/lise!

The Secretary

Wlzell:

III/lllediate/y

Make resources avai lable within existing budget. Who:

Gellem/ COL/llsel

Wlzell:

88 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Imlllcdiotel\'


I I I • • • • _ ••'-4c CiliV ivii RiCi IL�i 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 mission

area civil rights programs through Agency H eads and agency civi l rights d i rectors. unless the Secretary grants an exception. Who: The

B

.

When: 60

days .

A gency Heads

When: ..f.5

dor.\'

Exped i te approval o f changes i n organizational structure. Who:

E

A ssistont SecretorY for A dlllinistration: A gencr Heads

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:

D

days

Require a l l staff office� reporting to the Secretary to have an A EP. Who :

C

When: 30

Secretwy

Assistont Secretory for A dministration

When:

IlIImediately. IIpon receipt of' doclI me 111(1/ ion

Execute necessary directives to return counselors to agencies. Who :

A.I'sistol/t Secretary . fei/· A dministratioll

When:

89 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Imlllediately


I I I • • • • _ ••rlc co;;;; mme �nda �ti� ons -;;-----------CiIN Vru IL�i Ri(j l GaHnTriSi1R�e;:

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 for A dm illist/'{{tioll; Di re( '(()J; OJjicc (If Cil'i/ Rights

Wlze,, :

IJIlllledi(lte/v: (ll/goil/g.

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:

B

Thc Secre((l/,\' .

When:

30 (/( [ \ .1 .

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:

B

The SeCl'e{(/1'\'

Whe,, :

IIIIII/ediate/\ '

Se lect team leader having the necessary confl ict resolution knowl­ edge and s k i l ls. Who:

The Secreta!'\'

Whe,,:

90 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

1IIIIIIct/iatc/\'


l GaHnTrssilR�ec;;o;;;; c:iliV vii IL:lRiiCi mme ;;;nda � ti; ons ;-----------I I I • • • • _ ••r4C

C

Devel op recommendations on i mplementing complaint prevention/resol ution programs. Who:

o

Whell : ../ 5

c/ays

Determi ne how responsibi lity for connict resolution programs shall be divided between agencies and the Department. Who :

E

Conflict Munagement Teo l /1

Conflict Mwwgement Teom

Whell : ../ 5

c/o."s

Reassess the role of the EEO counselors and determi ne whether counselors should serve as mediators. Who:

Conflict Monogement Teom

Whell: ../5

dun

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:

B

.

Whell:

Immediote!r .

Announce to the U S DA community the discontinuation or hoards and closLlre�. Who:

C

A ssistunt Secretor\' for Admin istration

A ssistant Secretory for Admin istration

Whe,,:

Octo/n'r / . N97

Provide a career transition and placement program for employees affected by servi ce center closing.s. Who:

HI//J/on Resollrces

Whe,,: ../5

91 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

dun


I I I • • • • _ ••r4C RiiCi �liV vii IL:lR l G�HnT� S�R?;e� mme ;;;';nda c o; 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:

B

Whe1l:

3 0 days

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 :

C

Genem/ COl/lIS e /

The Secretar\' ,

When: Imll/ediate/\' ,

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:

92 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

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.

93 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE u s DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


-

I I I • • • • _ ••'-�c en;;ii; ng�� Se;;ss;i;io;;n;;s --------� lvilliiL:lR �� - up ;; /L Ll� ii" il GiiH tT iTsSR Fi.o-;llr;; iow ·st;'

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 January 7. 1 997 January 7. 1 997 January 8, 1 997 January 1 0. 1 997 January I 1 . 1 997 January 1 3 . 1 997 January 1 6, 1 997 J anuary 1 7. 1 997 J anuary 22, 1 997 January �2, 1 997 January 24, 1 997

Customer Listening Session, A lbany, GA Employee Liste n i ng Session, New Orleans, LA Customer Listening Session, Memph is, TN Customer Listening Session, H a l i fax, NC Customer Listening Session, Tu lsa, OK Customer L istening Session, Brownsv i l le, TX Customer Listening Session, Wi ndow Rock, AZ Custo mer Listen i ng Session. Sal i nas, CA Employee Listening Session, Woodland, CA Employee L istening Session, Washi ngton. DC Customer Listening Session. Washi ngton, DC Customer Listening Session, Belzo n i , M S

94 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


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


-

1 1 1 1 • • • _ _.-

-

Append i xes

A

Civil Rights Action Team

B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

1 00

Agency-by-Agency Workforce Diversity Data

1 09

................................. ...................

..................................... ......................

C

. . ........................ ....................... ...................

D

List of Agency Abbreviations

1

..........................................

97 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMHlT OF AGRICULTURE

98

119


I I I • • • • _ ••'-( C�IV Viii l L�RU;IGi GK HTi A; TSSA pp; end ;;fu ixA A-------------

Civil Rights Action Team

Sponsors: Daniel R. Glickman,

Secretary oC Agriculture

Richard E. Rominger,

Deputy Secretary of Agriculture

Team Leader: Pearlie S. Reed,

Associate Chid, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Members: Steve Anaya,

State Director, New Mexico, Rural Development

Director, Executive Serv ices StaCr. Office or the C hief Financial Officer

Gary Barber,

Associate Deputy Admi n i strator, Cooperative State Research. Education, and Extension Service

John Bottum,

U S DA Labor/Management Partnership Counc i l , American Federation of Government Employees, Farm Service Agency

Sharon Cooney-Smith,

Deputy Admi n istrator for Operations and Management, Rural Development

Leonard Hardy,

Karen Messmore.

Branch Chief. Personnel Division. Food Safety and

I nspection Service Associate Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service. Rural Development Wilbur T. Peer.

Jerry Sesco.

Deputy Chief for Research, Forest Serv ice

Samuel Thornton, Randy Weber,

Sen ior Adv i sor to the Secretary, Oftice or the Secretary

Associate Adm i n istrator, Farm Service Agency

Floyd Wheeler,

Director, H u man Resources Division, Food and Consumer

Service Robel·t Whiting, Chief. I n formation Management Division, Oftice or the Chief I n formation Ofticer

Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Joyce Willis.

Mon Vee,

Assistant State Conservationist. Natural Resources Conservation

Service

98 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


-- ------

s�Ap 4;; 'Pe;; nd-;£ ;: ix�Al--I I I • • • • _ •••c c:n lviiIL Li Rj( IGUHnTrs

Civil Rights Action Team

Executive Support

Katherine C. Gugulis, Natural Resources Conservation Service, C i v i l R i ghts Action Team Chief-of-Staff

Executive Assi stant to Civi l R ights Action Team Leader

Joan AlbertelIa,

M ichael Alexander. Robert Cole.

Pol icy Analysis and Coordi nation Center-Civil R ights

Private Consultant

Rebecca de la Torre.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Anne B. W. EfTIand,

Economic Research Service

Gerry Gonzalez.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Kim berly G rimes, A nthony Haynes.

Farm Service Agency

Oflice of Congressional Relations

Marcella ( Marci ) M . Hilt. Jeff Knishkowy, SOflya M . Neal.

Office of the General Counsel

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Murray Pennel',

Food Safety and Inspection Service

Edwardene Pitcock. Vanessa Ross,

Office of Communications

Office of Operations

Forest Service

Serina Vandegrift.

Natural Resources Conservation Servicc

Dennis P. Workeman,

Rural Development

Tammera ( Tammy ) D. Wright. Tijuana ( Ti a ) G. Young.

Agricultural Research Service

Office of the Secretary

99 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


-

I I I • • • • _ ••IC IGiiH;nTrsS�A IV illi LA AiiC C� AJp; 'Pe;;nd di. ; ix�B�-----------

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

Agricul tural Research Service. Sectioll ARS. 1 996.

504

Self Evaluatioll. Washi ngton. DC:

ARS. Civil Rights IlIIplelllelltatioll Plwi. Washington, DC: ARS. 1 995. ARS. Total Elllployee Workforce ( PFT) 211d quarter F Y95. Washington, DC: ARS. 1 995. ARS. Challge ill /:':lIlploymellt Pmfiles by PA TCOB DC: A R S .-E.E.O. Staff 1 993. ARS. Challge in Workforce Profile by PA TCOB DC: ARS. 1 996

F Y84 - F Y92.

F Y95 & F Y96.

Washi ngton,

Washington,

A R S . Aijimwlil'e EmploYlIlent Program FY FY 1 994 Update. Washington, DC: ARS.

1 993

Accomplishment Repurt &

ARS. Affirmative EmploYl7lellt Pmgral7l F Y FY 1 995 Update. Wash ington, D C : ARS.

1 994

ACCOlllplishlllellt Report &

ARS. Ajji rl7latil'e EmploYlllell t Progralll FY FY 1 996 Update. Washington, DC: A R S .

1 995 A CCOlllplishlllellt

Report &

A S A . Hispallic Issues Task Force, Washing ton, D C : t o Depart mental Admi n istration Employees, August 1 9. 1 996 Economic Research Service, Cil'il Rights ImjJLlct Allalysis (Jf ERS Use of Buyout Allthority, Washington, DC: Letter Patricia C. Browne to Susan Offutt, August 20, 1 996. Economic Research Service, Civil Rights llilpact A nalysis of the Reorgall i�atioll of the ERS, Wash ington, DC: Memo Patricia C. Browne to W. Townsend through K. Col l ins, October 8, 1 994. Farm Service Agency, Background Inforll1ation 011 the LeasebaclJBlIyback and HOl7lestead Protection Programs, Washi ngton, DC: Memo Carolyn B . Cooksie t o L . Hardy, January 24, 1 997. Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. Civil Rights COlilpliance Review RejJort of the Unil'ersiry ofA rkallsas Dil'isiOIl of Agricllltl/re Ertellsiol1 and Research, Was h i ngton, DC: CSREES. December

1 6, 1 994.

1 00 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Appendix B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service. Cil'il Rights Reviell' Report of Agricultural Research Program PlIrdue Ullil'eJ'sity,

Washington. DC: CSREES. December 1 5. 1 995, Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service, Civil Rights Compliance Review Report of Cooperative Extension Service. Ulliversill' of Maryland at Co!!ege Park {{nd Ulliversity (�f Mar\'Iolld E{{stem Shore,

Washington. DC: CSREES. March 1 4. 1 996, Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service, Civil Rights Compliance Rel'iell' Report oj' Nell' Jersey Agricultllral Experiment Statiol1 RlItgers Ullil'ersilllCook Co!!ege, Washington. DC: CSREES. Apri l 26, 1 995 .

Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service. Cil'il Rights Compliance Rel'iell' Report of Cooperotil'e Extellsiol1 Sen'ice, West Virginia University. Wash ington. DC: CSREES. July 26. 1 995. Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service. Cooperatil'e Stille Research, Education, and Extension Sen'ice FY 1 99 7 Cil'il Rights Implemelltation Plall Update, Washi ngton. DC: CSREES. November 5 .

1 996. Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service. Cooperatil'e State Research, Edllcatioll, olld Extellsioll Sen'ice Wor�/orce Prqtile as (�j' Septell1ber 1 995, Washi ngton. DC: CSREES-Equal 0pPol1unity Staff. January 3 1 . 1 996. Cooperative State Research. Education. and Extension Service. AlIlIlIal Perf'rJr/llollce AII'Cllds for Historica!!y Black Co!!eges ({lid Ullil'ersities, Fiscal Year 1 995, Submitted to the White House I n i t iative on H i storical l y B l ack

Col leges and U niversities. Washi ngton. DC: CSR EES. February I . 1 996. C lass Act ion Complaint. M ississippi Association of Cooperatives vs. Farmers Home Administration. Washi ngton. DC: First Amendment Class-Action Complaint. Civ, No. 90- 1 60 1 ( H HG ). signed September 9. 1 99 1 . Forest Service. Drqj't StudY of the Cil'il Rights Imp{{ct of DOlI'lIsi�illg at the Forest Sen'ice. Washi ngton. DC: Ben Dixon to the Secretary through J, Potts. December 1 9. 1 996.

1 0 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Appendix B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

Economic Re:-.earch Service. AJIIIlWI A, j / iJ"/llUtil"l! t:lllplm'lI/ellt Program Accomplishments Report s . Washi ngton, DC: FY 1 994 & 1 995. Economic Research Service. ERS FY 1 997 HBCU Rej)or/, Washington. DC: U S DA, August 2 1 . 1 996. Economic Research Service. R({ciullEthllic Millorities ill Rllral A reus; Progress alld Swgll([{ioll, 1 980-90. Washington. DC: ERS-RED. August 1 996. Farm Serv ice Agency. Dow Oil FW"III Loull Applimtiolls uwl Fiscal Years 1 995 through 1 996.

Foreclosures,

Farm Serv ice Agency. llIcollle Tax Liahility Resultillg ./i"Ol1l Deht Write-D(I\l"Il, Washington, DC: FmH A . May J I , 1 99 1 . Farm Service Agency. Reductioll ill Force /or !-""AS. FSA . alld RMA Federal Offices. Washington. DC: FFAS Handbook. ovember g. 1 996. ,

Farm Service Agency. Ol '£'I"utiolls Rel'ie\\' Pmgmlll j(iJ' Statl:' olld COllllty O./Jices ulld COR '.1'. Washington, DC: FAS Handbook, November 2 1 . 1 996, Farm Service Agency. Farlll-Stored Peallilt Loulls ulld Purc!wses for {hUlllt. St{{[e olld COUI/fY O/jiee. Washington. DC: FNS Handbook. November I . 1 996. Farm Serv ice Agency. RI:'I'ie\\' C/leckli.lt ./or Cil'il Rights, ECOA. alld /-'(/1"11/ Credit Prill/ory Looll Sen'icillg COlllpli{{IICe ({lid Foreclosure List fl.,' State os ()l Decelllher 23, 1 996.

Farm Service Agency. III./OJ"/lwtiull

U II

COLillty (1//(1 COlllllll lllity COllullilfees

(///(1 COUII(" Committee Employees, Washi ngton. D.C: Letter from El nora

Dooms . January 6. 1 996. Food and Consumer Services. Ol 'en'ie\\". Washi ngton. DC: December 1 7, 1 996. Food and Consumer Services. Scopillg, Washington. DC: no date. Foreign Agricu ltural Service. Issues of COli cern AjJ"ectillg Aji"icoll Americalls ill FAS {{lid Other Agellcies (�l the F{{ rm olld Foreigll Agricultllml Sen'ice Missioll. Washington. DC: FAS. no date.

1 02 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Appendix B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

Forest Service. Allnllal Atfimwlil 'l' Emplo.'"lIIelll Program A ccomplis/lll1elll.1 Rl'pOrl. Washi ngton. DC: FY 1 995 . Forest Service. B{lI{llIcillg C{lrea {Il1d Pasono/ Nl'ed\ T{lsk Force Repor!, Wash i ngton. DC: Balancing Career and Personal Needs Task Force. March 1 995 . Forest Service. COJ71mellCell1enl

2000;

TOl\'urd {I MlIlli-CII/llIrul O,xulli-;Ulioll : A Serl'iCl'\\ 'ide Recmilll1elll Illilialil'e Addressing Aji"i( '(lil-Amaicall, A siull P{lc!tic A mericall, Hispallic (Il1d N{lli\'(.> A maic{lil UllderrepreSenlalioll, San

Francisco. C A . : Forest Service, December 1 3. 1 995. Forest Service. COllsoliduled Rej){}rt jiJr Ihe USDA Fi)}'esl Sen 'ice, ClP Pm( ·ess.

Forest Service. COJ1lillllollsl.'" ImprOl'illg 0111' \-Vi)rk EIll'irollmelll, Washington. DC: Report of the U S DA Forest Service Task Force on Work Environment . Se p tember 1 993, Forest Service. Eqllal 0pjJor!ullit\· Pmgmms ill Ihe Foresl Sen'ice, FY 9519() Cil'I'/ Righls Impll'lI1elllalioll PI{l1l Updme (I11i! A cc()}lIplishmellls, Wash ington. DC: 1 995/96. Forest Service. USDA Foresl Sen'ice Cil'il Rigl1ls Program, Wa�hi ngton. DC: December 1 996. Forest Service. NRE Missioll A re{l Scopillg. Wa�hi ngton. DC: 1 0. 1 997.

RE. J anuary

Forest Service. Prep{lrillg Employees Ulli! SlIpell 'i.lnrs j()}· {I MlIllicl/l!l/ro/ O':f<(Jlli-;mioll, A Repor! hy Th ree Working Grol/jJs, Washington. DC: Com missioned by the Chief. December 1 993. Forest Service. Secrelar\' 's Cil'il Rig/1lS Inilialil'e, A ll EJllplm'ee Lel/('J: Washi ngton. DC: December 20. 1 996. Forest Service. TO\ \ '(/rd (J Ml/l!icl/ltllral OI�f<(J}li-;(Jli()II-Rep()rl oj ' lhe USDA Forest Sell 'ice Oil Wor/.:.j'orce Dil 'asity. Washi ngton. DC: March 1 99 1 . GAO. Eql/{Il Emplm'lllelll 0ppor!l/lIiIY: Womell {Ind Millorily Represelllulioll 01 Ill/aim; Agricl/l/l/re, Nm '.\', (Jlld S/ule, Washi ngton. DC: GAO Report. September 1 995.

1 03 CIVIL RIGHTS AT T H E U S DEPART"-1ENT O F AGRICULTCRE


CIVIL RIGHTS

Appendix B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

GAO, Millority alld Fell/ale Farll/ers: ParficipOfioll alld Represellrarioll ill USDA Prograllls, Briefillg for House A griculrure COl/1l11irree h\' GA O.

Washington. DC : GAO, April 10, 1 996. GAO. Farm Prograllls. Efforrs to A ch iel'e FClir Treorlllellt (�(Millority Farll/ers. Draft Report to the Comm ittee on Agricultu re. House of Representatives. Washington, DC: ( GAO ) Report RCED-97-4 1 , September 1 996. GLOBE. USDA GLOBE Recomll/endatiOlls 10 the Cil'il Rights A crioll Teall/, Wash ington, DC : GLOBE. December 30. 1 996. Valerie Gri m. Block Porticipotion in the Farlllers HOllie Adll/illistmtioll and Agricultural Sw/Jili::,atiol1 ({lid COl 1sen'arioll Sen·ice. : Agricultural HisfOlT Vol. 70. No. 2 . Spring 1 996. pp. 32 1 -336. .

Stan ford P. Gwin SlIlI/l/wry (�( R�ocrioll to Bel;:,olli Listellillg Sessioll, Belzoni, MS.: for Samuel Thorton. January 2 3 . 1 997. Farm Service Agency. Swrus Oil Ollls/(ll1dillg F'o rec/osures New' Sole and A cce/emted A ccoull ts. Wash i ng ton, DC: letter Arthur V. Hall to C . B . Cooksic, December 23, 1 996. H ispanic Issues Task Force. Reco/lllI/elldatiolls Relatillg 10 the Hispallic COII/IIllIniry. Washi ngton. DC: Letter to P. Reed. January 29, 1 997. I n tertribal Agriculture CounciL Leifer to Peorlie Reed, January 1 4. 1 997. Farm Service Agency. Disciplille for CRJEEO Violatiolls. Washington, DC: Letter from Kurt Lauer to A. Effland, January 2 1 . 1 997. D. Leah Meltzer. Federal Workplace OllllJllds COllllllissiolled by the A dlllillistmtil'e COI(/erellce (!/ the Ullited SlCltes, Washi ngton, DC: Administrative Conference of the U n i ted States, November S. 1 996. OJ. M i l ler & Associates, I nc . Di.lpari(\" Study Filial Reporf, Atlanta, G A . : O J . M i l ler & Associates, March 4. 1 996.

David Montoya, Issues oml ReCOl1l1l1elldatiolls. Washington. DC: Letter to W. Townsend, May 1 7, 1 996. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Chollge ill Workforce EEO PIYdile by PATCOB. October 2 1 . 1 996.

1 04 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


iIV Viii l L:JR"IG Gii HTi TS SA A� pp;'e-;;;fu ndixB B------------I I I • • • • _ •••CC

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

National Agricultural Stat i stic� Service, A firl11otil'e f Employment Program (AEP) PIa/): Fiscal Ye{{r 1 994 A ccomplishlllents Reports (ind 1 9L)5 A EP Update.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Afjimwtil'e Elllplo\'ll1ent Pmgmlll (AEP) Plan: Fisc{{1 Year 1 995 A ccomplishments Reports {{lid / 996 A EP Update. ' National Finance Center. Challge in Workjorce EEO ProfilC' hy PA TCO. New Orleans. LA . : October 2 1 . 1 996.

National Finance Center. USDA RNO Report. 1 997.

ew Orleans. LA . : January 29.

National Performance Review. Creatillg a Nell' TEA M- USDA : Through El11jJOl\'eJ'//le/lt & Excellellce. Washington. DC: US DA's National Performance Review Team. February 1 994. Nat ural Resources Conservation Service, Cil'il Righls Progmm Delil'I!rY, Harrisburg, PA. : November 1 996. Natural Resources Conservation Service. PrC'-illl'ellton' l'OlUlllUn' dehl reslmctllre collsamtio/l cOlltmct (Section 349). Wa�hington. DC: NRCS. no date. .

.

Natural Resources Conservation Servicc. Cuide /or Appmising Opl!rations (it Regional {Ind Stote Offices, Washi ngton, DC: N RCS. J une 1 8, 1 996. atural Resources & Env i ronment. NRE Mission A rea Scoj}ing, Washington. DC: NRCS. January 22. 1 997. Office of Chief Financial Officer. Equal EmplO\'/IIellt Opportunity, Cil'il Rights A llalysis. Washi ngton. DC: OCFO. December 2-1-. 1 996. Office of C i v i l Rights Enforcement. Report of' the USDA Tusk f'orce on Sexual OrienlCi1ion. Washi ngton. DC: USDA . J amwry J I . 1 994. Office of Federal Operation�. A DR Study, U S. Equal EmI 'IO\'/IIC'lIf 0pjJortunity CO/l1missioll, O/lice o/Iedeml Opemlions, Washi ngton. DC: Office of Federal Operations, Novembcr 1 996. Office or the General Counse l . Discrilllinmion in USDA CO/lducled Programs. Washi ngton. DC: Letter to J . G i l l i land through J . M . Kel ly, October 7, 1 993.

1 05 C I V I L RIGHTS AT T H E U S DEPARTMEI�T O F AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••lc cm lv �li Lj RtiC IGHHt1Trss�A Ajp; 'Pe; nd dtix�B�------------

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

Ortice of I nspector Genera l . Debt RestrL t C/l/rillg for Delillquellt Furtller Progmlll BorrOll'ers, Washi ngton. DC: Letter to L. Hardy. January 9. 1 997 OS D B .

Eql/o/ 0flP0r/ullitY '/(J!' Millority (/Ild WOlllell-Olmed BI/silless Withill

(1/1 Ol 'er({// EOP ill USDA .

Wash i ngton. DC: Leller to P. Reed.

George Robertson. Realiglllllellt (�l Policy A lla/ysis ({w/ Coordillatioll Celltn­ Cil'i/ Rights, Wash i ngton. DC : Memo to Secretary through W. Townsend. December 23, 1 996. Rural Coal ition, Testillloll \' (�( the RI/ra/ Co({litioll, Washi ngton, DC: House Appropriations Committee. Subcommillec on Agricu lture. FY 1 997 Agriculture Appropriations. Apri l 7. 1 996. Rural Coali tion, Ulgell t Issl/es DC: J une 28. 1 996.

Re/(I{illg 10 Millority Furtllers,

Washi ngton.

Rural Coal i t ion, Letter to Secretary G l ickman, Washington, DC: October 1 0, 1 996. Rural Coalition. Recolllllielu/utio/l to CRAT, Washi ngton. DC: Memo frolll L. Picciano to P. Reed. December 23, 1 996. Research. Education, Economics. Wash i ngton. DC : R EE. 1 995.

Cil 'i/ Rights 11I11 Wc! Allo/ysis SlUtelllellt,

Research. Education, Econom ics. Allll/w/ Af/irtl/atil'e Elllp/oyee Washington. DC: FY 1 995.

Progmlll

ACcolllplishmellt,1 Reports,

Rural Development. Eql/o/ 0pP0r/ullin' - Progralll Wash i ngton. DC : Rural Development, no date.

COlllpliallce Filldillgs.

Rural Development. NA CS Respo/lse for C.R. Task Force. Edwardsv i l le. I L . : Leller from G . Mers i nger to D. Thomas. January 8. 1 997. Rural Housing Service. Cil'il Rights MI/lti-Hol/sill/.: ProgrwlI Delil'en' Issl/es, Washi ngton. DC: Letter from C. Grate to C. Wehrwein. J anuary 8. 1 997. U.S. Commission on C i v i l Rights. Equa/ Opportl/ll ity i l l Far/JI Wash i ngton. DC: U . S . Commi ssion on Civ i l R ights. 1 965. U.S. Commission on C i v i l R i ghts .

..

ProgrwlIs.

Federal Title VI EI�/()J'( 'elliellt to Ellsure

NOlldiscrilllill(l{ioll ill Fedemlly Assisted Progmlll.I,

Commission o n C i v i l Rights, J une 1 996. 1 06 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE

"

Wash ington. DC : U . S .


CIVIL RIGHTS

Appendix B

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

U . S . Comm i ssion on Civi l R i ghts. The Decline o( Bluck Funning in A lllaim, Washi ngton, DC : U . S . Commission on C i v i l Rights. February 1 982. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Blue Rihhon Task Force. Cil'il Righls FO/'lllll ond Blue Ribbon Task Force Reporl, Washington. DC: USDA. May 8 aI1l1 May 1 4. 1 996. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Cil'il Righls FO/'lllll: Buildin,!!, Bridges for ( I Beller USDA ( Tmnscripls ), Washington. DC: USDA. May 1 4. 1 996. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Cil'il Righls Progress Report, Washi ngton. DC: aCRE, June 1 2, 1 996. U . S . Department of Agricul ture. Ch(lnging Ihe Cullure (ll lhe USDA, Wash ington. DC: Secretary Espy. no date. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Equol ElllploYlllenl Opportunily/ Cil'il Righls Resource "lI'enforr by Mission A rea. Washington. DC: USDA. FY 1 996. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Frwl1el l'ork for Chonge: Work Forc£' Dil 'asily ond Delil 'er'l' (j( Progmlll.I, Washington. DC: U S DA. May 1 990. U . S . Department of Agricul ture. Hispanic Issues Tusk Force Dmfl Aclion Plall, Washington. DC : USDA. January 24. 1 997. U.S. Department of Agricul t ure. Rel )orl of the USDA Tusk Force on Block Farlll Ol\ 'llership. Washington. DC: U S DA . September 22. 1 983. U . S . Department of Agriculture. Report on Cil'il Righls COlllpliunce Rel'iell's, Washi ngton. DC: USDA, October 1 99 1 . U . S . Depal1ment of Agriculture. Finul Report - Rel'l'ell' o( NFC Promolion Fe. May 3. 1 996.

Proclices, Washington. DC:

U . S . Department of Agriculture. SII/(/II or Lillliled Resources FurmedRu'Icher IlIili([/il'e Deparlll1ental A ction Plan Frwl1emJi'k. Washi ngton. DC: aCRE, no date. U . S . Department of Agriculture. USDA Cil il Righls O/:r;uni�Uli(}n(/1 SI/'lI( 'lure ulld Cil'il Righls Resources. W<lshington. DC: USDA. December 1 996. U . S . Department of Agriculture. USDA Coolilion o{ Minorilr Elllployees. Washi ngton. DC: Letter from L. Lucas to D . G l ickman, October 7. 1 996.

1 07 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••I( C:rIVlii L�RWIG GK lHTiS A A� pp; end -;;;fu ixB B-------------

Selected List of Past Reports and Recommendations

(continued)

U . S . Depart ment of Agriculture. USDA Dispute Resolutio/l Board Pilot Projecr Emluarion, Final Report, Washington, DC: U S DA, May 1 994. U. S. Department of Agriculture. USDA Polic\' on Senior Executil'e Sen'ice Merit Stq/fing, Wash ington, DC : U S DA, January 3, 1 997. U . S . Department of Housing and Urban Development, Memoranduill (?f Underswnding Betll"een the USDA and U. S. Department qf Housing and Urbon Del 'elopll1ent, Washington, DC: no date.

U.S. Department of the I n terior, FY 1 996 A llnual Affi mlOtil'e Employ/llellt Progralll A ccolllplishment Report for Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 1 995. Washington, DC: U . S . Department of the I nterior. U . S . Department of Justice. Oflice of the Associate Attorney General, Memorandum to General Counsels, Post-Aderand Guidance on A ffi rmative Action i n Federal Employ ment, Was h ington, DC: February 29. 1 996. U . S . Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A DR Study. Washington. DC: US EEOC, 1 996. U. S. House of Representatives. S UII I II IO I T q/ Bankheod-Jones FOrtll Tenant Act (?( 1 93 7 ( HR-7562 ), Washington, DC: U . S . Congress. J u l y 22, 1 937. U.S. House of Representatives. The Minorit" Fanner: A Disap/ JearillR Americun Resource; Hos the Fanners Home Administration Been the PriJlwr\' Cow/Yst ? House Report 1 0 1 -984. Committee on Government Operations,

Government I n fOnllation, Justice and Agriculture Subcommittee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, November 20, 1 990. U . S . House of Representatives. Alllendments to Soil Conserl'([tion and DOlllestic A llotlllent A ct: 75t/7 CO/lgress. , 3rd Se.lsion-Ch. 30, Washington, DC: U . S . Congress, February 1 6, 1 938. Randy Weber. Mission A rea Scopillg, Washi ngton, DC: to K . Gugu lis, January 2 . 1 997. Randy Weber. Suggestions /or IlIIprovelllent (i the Cil'if Rights Progralll, Washington , DC, December 23, 1 996. Westover Consultants, I nc. Pre-Training A [[itudillal Sun'ey on Workforce Dil'ersi(\·. S il ver Spring. M D : done under contract to U S DA Foreign Agricu ltural Service, March 5 , 1 993.

1 08 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE -------

- --


I I I • • • • _ ••rc cm lv illiL Lj Ric IGiiHt1TrsS�A 'Pe;;nd di. ; ix;(C�-----------Ajp;

U.S. Department of Agriculture B reakdown by Agency as of 9/30/96

Total

All Office of the

#

Secretary

%

Agricultural

#

Marketing Service

%

Agricultural Research

#

Service

%

Rural Housing Service

#

47

6536

6578

% Foreign Agricultural

#

Service

%

Forest Service

#

525

29074

% Office of

#

Communications

%

Office of the

#

General Counsel

%

Rural Utilities

#

Service

%

Natural Resources

#

Conservation Service

%

Economic Research

#

Service

%

1 05

1 90

355

1 08 1 1

537

933

National Agricultural

#

Statistics Service

%

Coop. State. Res.,

# %

309

# %

705

# %

1 660

Service Rural Business­

#

111

Cooperative Service

%

Educ. & Exten. Office of Inspector General Food & Consumer

Hispanic

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

25

16 34.04

20

5

5

o

0

1

o

o

o

42.55

10

1 0 .64

0 . 00

0.00

2. 1 3

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

53. 1 9 2633

Black

White

Men

Women

Women

Men

Women

1 067

1 33 1

779

1 30

205

65

51

27

20

13

12

40.52

50.55

29.59

4 . 94

7.79

2.47

1 .94

1 .03

0.76

0.49

0.46

2584

3406

2060

242

338

1 51

76

1 35

89

18

21

39.53

52. 1 1

31 .52

3.70

5. 1 7

2.31

1 .16

2 . 07

1 .36

0.28

0.32

4270

1 947

3476

246

505

63

1 53

25

60

27

76

64 . 9 1

29.60

52.84

3.74

7.68

0.96

2.33

0 . 38

0.91

0.41

1 .16

267

223

1 45

19

1 14

11

4

5

3

o

1

50.86

42.48

27.62

3.62

21 .71

2. 1 0

0.76

0.95

0.57

0.00

0. 1 9

1 1 471

1 4964

951 8

552

594

227

220

817

54 1

5 1 .47

32.74

1 .90

598 2 . 06

1 043

39.45

3 . 59

2 . 04

0.78

0.76

2.81

1 .86

11 1 0 .48

28

o

0

o

o

o

o

26.67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

54

40

26

5 1 .43

38. 1 0

24.76

1 04

80

74

4

28

2

1

o

1

o

o

54.74

42. 1 1

38.95

2.1 1

1 4 .74

1 .05

0.53

0 . 00

0.53

0 . 00

0.00

1 29

1 98

70

16

53

3

2

8

3

1

1

36.34

55.77

1 9.72

4.51

1 4.93

0.85

0.56

2 . 25

0.85

0.28

0.28

248 2.29

294

116

76

45

1 90

73

2.72

1 .07

0.70

0.42

1 .76

0.68

2757

6973

2275

521

25.50

64.50

2 1 .04

4.82

225 4 1 .90

276

1 16

12

96

5

3

19

9

o

1

5 1 .40

2 1 .60

2.23

1 7 .88

0 . 93

0 . 56

3 . 54

1 .68

0 . 00

0.19

458

417

349

39

78

8

16

9

13

2

2

49.09

44.69

37.41

4.1 8

8.36

0.86

1 .71

0.96

1 .39

0.21

0.21

15 4.85

1 03

3 0.97

3

2

o

1

33 33

0 97

0.65

0.00

0.32

1 98

90

91

64.08

29. 1 3

29.45

0 . 32

299

325

1 73

46

98

21

11

10

16

4

42.41

46 . 1 0

24.54

6.52

1 3.90

2.98

1 .56

1 .42

2 . 27

0 . 57

1 032

497

284

34

59

13

30

3

7

29.94

652 39.28

81

62. 1 7

4.88

1 7. 1 1

2.05

3 . 55

0 . 78

1 .8 1

0.18

0.42

7 6.31

24

1

1

1

1

1

o

2 1 .62

0.90

0 . 90

0.90

0.90

0.90

0 . 00

49

52

23

44. 1 4

46.85

20 72

1 09 C I V I L RIGHTS AT T H E U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

0. 1 4


Appendix C

CIVIL RIGHTS

Department of Agriculture B reakdown by Agency as of 9/30/96

u.s.

(continued)

White

Total

All A n i m a l & Pl ant

#

Health Ins pection Svc.

%

Grain I n spection

#

Packers & Stockyard

%

Food Safety &

#

Inspection Service

%

Office of the Chief

#

Economist

%

Office Budget

#

& Program Analysis

%

Office of Information

#

Resources Mgmt.

%

Office of the Chief

#

Financial Officer

%

Office of

#

Ad m i n istrative Law

%

Office of Civil

#

Rights Enforcement

%

Office of Personnel

#

480 1

791

8970

34

68

252

1 545

17

1 14

113

#

288

% Alternative Agr.

#

Res. & Comm. Center

%

Off. of Small &

#

Disadvantaged B us.

%

Office of the

#

Executive Secretariat

%

Farm Service

#

Agency

%

5

10

17

6407

Men

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

1 920

2 1 05

1419

1 55

234

414

1 78

1 87

71

20

18

39.99

43.85

29.56

3.23

4 . 87

8. 62

3.71

3 . 90

1 .48

0.42

0.37

1 99

439 55.50

1 36

1 32 1 6 .69

49

7

8

6

3

8

3

1 7. 1 9

6. 1 9

0.88

1 .0 1

0.76

0.38

1 .0 1

0.38

25. 1 6

% Office of Operations

Women

Black

2830

5006

2020

469

635

333

72

264

52

68

51

3 1 .55

55.81

22.52

5.23

7.08

3.71

0.80

2 . 94

0.58

0.76

0.57

a

a

a

0.00

0.00

0.00

10

23

7

o

3

o

0

29.41

67.65

20.59

0.00

8 . 82

0.00

0.00

2. 94

34

28

21

5

12

o

1

a

a

o

50.00

41.18

30 .88

7.35

1 7.65

0.00

1 .47

1 . 47

0.00

0.00

0.00

2 0.79

3

2

1.19

0.79

0.40

0.00

110

1 23

75

12

31

3

43.65

48.81

29 76

4.76

1 2 . 30

1.19

o

1 1 00

297

562

1 05

484

26

27

8

20

9

7

7 1 .20

1 9.22

36.38

6.80

3 1 .33

1 .68

1 .75

0.52

1 .29

0.58

0.45

a

a

4 . 88

0.00

0.00

12

5

4

o

7

0

a

o

70.59

29.4 1

23.53

0.00

41 . 1 8

0.00

0.00

0.00

78

13

15

12

47

9

9

1

5

1

2

68.42

1 1 .40

1 3. 1 6

1 0 .53

4 1 .23

7.89

7.89

0.88

4 . 39

0.88

1 . 75

80 70.80

26

30

6

44

a

1

1

3

a

2

23.01

26.55

5.31

38.94

0.00

0.88

0.88

2. 65

0.00

1 .77

1 38

43

33

1 02

1 00

1

2

3

3

1

a

47.92

1 4.93

1 1 .46

35.42

34.72

0.35

0.69

1 .04

1 .04

0. 35

0.00

3

2

1

a

2

a

a

a

a

a

a

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00

40.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

9

1

2

a

7

a

a

a

a

o

a

90. 00

1 0 .00

20.00

0.00

70.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

15

1

3

1

12

a

a

a

a

o

o

88.24

5.88

1 7.65

5. 88

70.59

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

460 7. 1 8

89

74

21

26

39

48

1 . 39

1.15

0.33

0.41

0.61

0.75

3323

2724

27 1 5

21 1

5 1 .87

42.52

42.38

3.29

National Appeals

#

50

69

38

4

12

2

a

1

a

%

39.68

54.76

30. 1 6

3. 1 7

9.52

1 .59

a 0.00

a

Division

0.00

0.00

0. 79

0.00

TOTA L

# 84669

34902

41 740

26930

3 1 60

4944

2588

1 464

1 054

696

1 225

868

%

41 .22

49.30

3 1 .81

3.73

5.84

3.06

1 .73

1 .24

0.82

1 .45

1 .03

1 26

1 1 0 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGR ICULTURE


Appendix C

CIVIL RIGHTS

Department of Agriculture B reakdown by Grade or Level With in Pay Plan for Agency颅 GS 1 Through 8 as of 9/30/96 u.s.

White

Total

All Office of the

#

Secretary

%

Agricultural

#

Marketing Service

%

Agricultural Research

#

Service

%

Rural Housing Service

#

2

960

2226

Women

2996

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

2

o

1

o

1

o

0

o

o

o

o

1 00.00

0.00

50.00

O.

50.00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

22 2 .29

29

6

12

5

5

3.02

0.63

1 .25

0.52

0.52

650

232

469

45

67.71

24. 1 7

48.85

4.69

1 35 1 4 .06

1 527

549 24.66

1 203

70 3.14

218

55

59

18

35

7

12

54.04

9.79

2.47

2 . 65

0.81

1 .57

0.31

0.54

68.60

%

Men

Black

2849

1 06

2338

34

310

4

99

1

41

2

61

95.09

3.54

78.04

1 .1 3

1 0.35

0. 1 3

3 . 30

0.03

1 .37

0.07

2.04

85

o 0.00

16

2

68

o

o

o

o

1 8. 1 8

2 .27

77.27

1 .1 4

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Foreign Agricultural

#

Service

%

Forest Service

# 1 0683

5904

3691

4740

234

330

438

375

41

1 00

375

359

%

55.27

34.55

44.37

2.19

3.09

4.10

3.51

0.38

0.94

3.51

3.36

o 0.00

0

o

o

o

o

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Office of

#

Communications

%

Office of the

#

General Counsel

%

Rural Utilities

#

Service

%

Natural Resources

#

Conservation Service

%

Economic Research

#

Service

%

National Agricultural

#

Statistics Service

%

Coop. State. Res.,

#

Educ. & Exten.

%

Office of Inspector

#

General

%

Food & Consumer

#

Service

%

Rural Busi ness路

#

Cooperative Service

%

88

96.59

13

40

59

2999

94

340

9

1

3

3

6

69.23

7.70

23.08

23.08

46. 1 5

36

2

17

2

17

o

1

o

1

o

o

90.00

5.00

42.50

5.00

42.50

0.00

2 . 50

0.00

2.50

0.00

0.00

32 54.24

o

1

o

1

o

1 .69

0.00

1 .69

0.00

1 .69

0.00

48 1 .60

18

22

64

36

0.60

0.73

2.1 3

1 .20

o

o

o

o

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

58

o

23

98.31

0.00

38.98

1 286

1 446

1 057

115

1 23

70

42.88

48.22

35.25

3.8 3

4. 1 0

2.33

1 04

270

88

5

11

1

76

o

5.32

1 1 .70

1 .06

80.85

0.00

1 .06

307

20 5 .88

241

7

45

4

9

1

2

2 . 06

1 3 .24

1 0.29

10

70.88

2 . 94

1 .18

2.65

0.29

0.59

99

2

28

3

70

1

1

o

o

o

o

94.29

1 .90

26.67

2.86

66.67

0.95

0.95

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

92

7

45

1

38

2

3

2

5

o

1

88.46

6.73

43.27

0.96

36.54

1 .92

2.88

1 .92

4.81

0.00

0 96

250

8 2 . 96

1 10

9 3.33

1 06

3

18

o

12

o

4

40.74

39.26

1.1 1

6.67

0.00

4 . 44

0.00

1 .48

92.59 17

1 .69

93.62

90.29 1 05

1 .14

17

o

3

o

13

0

1

o

o

o

o

1 00.00

0.00

1 1.65

0.00

76.47

0.00

5 . 88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 1 1 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


" I • • • • _ •••CCSiIVlii G HTi L�RiiIGH TSAA� pp;end ;;;Ji; ix-c ; C;-------------

U.S. Department of Agriculture Breakdown by G rade or Level Within Pay Plan for Agency GS 1 Through 8 as of 9/30/96 (continued) Total

All Animal & Plant Health I nspection Svc.

# 1 60 1 %

Gra i n Inspection

#

Packers & Stockyard

%

259

White

Women

Men

Black

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

1013

357

755

45

1 37

1 50

89

30

24

6

8

63.27

22.30

47. 1 6

2.81

8.56

9.37

5 .56

1 .87

1 . 50

0.37

0.50

1 24

89

83

41

35

2

3

1

2

2

1

47.88

34.36

32.05

1 5 .88

1 3. 5 1

0.77

1 .1 6

0.39

0.77

0.77

0.39

Food Safety &

# 4764

2050

2267

1 472

234

466

1 54

47

15

25

44

40

Inspection Service

%

43.03

47.59

30.90

4.91

9.78

3.23

0.99

0.31

0.52

0.92

0.84

Office of the Chief

#

Economist

%

Office Budget

#

& Program Analysis

%

Office of Information

#

Resources Mgmt.

%

Office of the Chief

#

Financial Officer

%

Office of

#

Ad m i n istrative Law

%

Office of Civil

#

R i g hts Enforcement

%

Office of Personnel

#

5

8

29

795

7

24

35

% Office of Operations

#

79

%

5

o

2

a

3

0

0

o

a

a

o

1 00.00

0.00

40.00

0.00

60.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

4

0

o

a

a

o

1 2.50

25.00

50.00

0.00

1 2 .50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

9

a

a

a

1

a

a

3.45

3 1 .03

0.00

0.00

0.00

3.45

0.00

0.00

6

o

75.00

0.00

23

5

13

79.31

1 7.24

44.83

693 87. 1 7

57

34 1

37

322

4

17

3

10

1

3

7. 1 7

42.89

4,65

40.50

0.50

2. 1 4

0.38

1 .26

0. 1 3

0.38

7

o

1

a

5

o

o

o

1

a

o

1 00.00

0.00

1 4.29

0.00

7 1 .43

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 4.29

0.00

0.00

15

a

1

a

2

a

o

4.17

62.50

0.00

4. 1 7

0.00

8 . 33

0.00

0.00

23

a

5

95.83

0.00

20.83

31

1

8

3

21

a

a

a

1

a

88.57

2 . 86

22.86

8.

60.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2 . 86

0.00

2 . 86

50

3

5

26

44

a

o

o

1

o

o

63.29

3.80

6.33

32.91

55.70

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 .27

0.00

0.00

Alternative Agr.

#

1

o

0

o

1

0

0

o

o

o

o

Res. & Comm. Center

%

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Off. of Small &

#

Disadvantaged Bus.

%

Office of the

#

Executive Secretariat

%

2

7

2

o

a

o

2

0

0

o

a

o

o

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

O.

1 00 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

5 7 1 .43

0

a

o

a

00

1 4 .29

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

6

o

1

85.71

0.00

1 4 .29

0.00

Farm Service

# 2 1 53

1 999

1 03

1 64 1

38

257

10

49

1

13

2

39

Agency

%

92.85

4.78

76.22

1 .76

1 1 .94

0.46

2 . 28

0.05

0.60

0.09

1 .8 1

10

1

4

0

0

o

a

o

o

6.25

62 .50

6.25

25.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

National Appeals

#

Division

%

16

14 87.50

NOTE: GS Pay Plan

1 1 2 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Appendix C

CIVIL RIGHTS

U.S. Department of Agricu lture Breakdown by G rade or Level Within Pay Plan for Agency足 GS 9 Through 1 2 as of 9/30/96 Total

All Office of the

#

Secretary

%

Agricultural

#

Marketing Service

%

Agricultural Research

#

Service

%

Rural Housing Service

#

9

1 365

1 928

2926

% Foreign Agricultural Service Forest Service

# %

1 35

#

1 4390

% Office of

#

Commun ications

%

Office of the

#

General Counsel

%

Rural Utilities

#

Service

%

Natural Resources

#

Conservation Service

%

Economic Research

#

Service

%

National Agricultural

#

Statistics Service

%

Coop. State. Res.,

#

Educ. & Exten.

%

Office of Inspector

#

General

%

Food & Consumer

#

Service

%

Rural Business足

#

Cooperative Service

%

41

22

78

6831

86

302

68

320

997

22

Black

White

Women

Men

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

8

1

6

o

2

o

0

o

o

o

o

88.89

1 1.11

66.67

o.

22.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

13

7

8

7

0.95

0.51

0.59

0.51

354

871

261

77

61

42

2 1 .93

63.81

19.12

5 . 64

4.47

3.08

18 1 .32

90 4.67

41 2. 1 3

12

33

41

5

5

0.62

1 .7 1

2.13

0 . 26

0.26

750

1 048

602

51

38.90

54.36

3 1 .22

2.65

1 268

1 404

1 030

1 65

1 58

48

50

21

16

20

14

43.34

47.98

35.20

5.64

5 .40

1 .64

1 .7 1

0.72

0 . 55

0.68

0.48

91

30

57

9

31

4

1

1

2

o

o

67.4 1

22.22

42.22

6.67

22.96

2 . 96

0.74

0.74

1 .48

0 . 00

0.00

4857

838 1

4 1 80

219

219

452

1 94

1 43

101

338

1 63

33.75

58.24

29.05

1 .52

1 .52

3. 1 4

1 .35

0.99

0.70

2 . 35

1 .1 3

28

11

10

2

18

0

0

o

o

o

o

68.29

28.83

24.39

4.88

43.90

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

3

1

0

o

o

o

o

4.55

1 3.64

4.55

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

1

1

o

1 .28

2 .56

1 .28

1 .28

0.00

16

4

13

72.73

1 8. 1 8

59.09

44

27

27

4

15

0

56.41

34.62

34.62

5.13

1 9.23

0.00

1 306

4846

1 095

323

94

201

62

44

19

111

36

1 9. 1 2

70.94

1 6 .03

4 . 73

1 .38

2 . 94

0.91

0 . 64

0 . 28

1 .62

0.53

48

26

27

8

16

1

1

3

4

o

o

55.81

30.23

3 1 .40

9.30

1 8 .60

1 .16

1 .16

3.49

4 . 65

0 . 00

0.00

111

1 64

80

19

26

4

3

4

2

o

0

3 6 . 75

54.30

26.49

6.29

8.61

1 . 32

0 . 99

1 . 32

0 . 66

0 . 00

0.00

o

o

o

0

1 . 47

0 . 00

0 .00

0 . 00

0.00

55

10

32

3

22

0

8 0 . 88

1 4.71

4 7 . 06

4.41

32.35

0 . 00

1 38

1 46

82

22

42

9

7

3

7

2

o

43. 1 3

45.63

2 5 . 63

6 . 88

1 3. 1 3

2.81

2 . 89

0 . 94

2 .89

0 . 63

0.00

609

300

417

52

1 37

23

35

10

17

3

3

6 1 .08

30.09

4 1 .83

5. 22

1 3.74

2.31

3.51

1 .00

1 .71

0 . 30

0.30

6

o

o

o

o

o

4 . 55

2 7 . 27

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

4 . 55

0 . 00

0 . 00

17

4

10

77.27

1 8. 1 8

45 .45

1 1 3 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


1 1 11 • • • _ ••IC Cm LA IViiIL RiC IGHHnTrss�A �p; 'Pe;: nddtix�C�------------

u.s. Department of Agriculture B reakdown by G rade or Level Withi n Pay Plan for Agency GS 9 Through 1 2 as of 9/30/96 (continued)

Total

All

Animal & Plant

#

Health Inspection Svc.

%

Grain Inspection

#

Packers & Stockyard

%

Food Safety &

#

Inspection Service

%

Office of the Chief

#

Economist

%

Office B udget

#

& Program Analysis

%

Office of Information

#

Resources Mgmt.

%

2257

42 1

3549

7

14

94

Office of the Chief

#

Financial Officer

%

Office of

#

Adm i n i strative Law

%

Office of Civil

# %

18

#

19

R i g hts Enforcement Office of Personnel

512

4

% Office of Operations

#

74

%

White

Women

Men

Black

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

688

1 1 32

49 1

81

64

204

80

1 41

45

11

8

30.48

50. 1 6

2 1 .75

3.59

2 . 84

9 . 04

3 . 54

6.25

1 . 99

0.49

0 . 35

67

262

49

79

13

5

3

3

1

5

1

1 5.91

62.23

1 1 . 64

1 8 . 76

3.09

1 .19

0.71

0.71

0.24

1 .1 9

0.24

605

2367

419

1 94

1 33

1 65

22

1 95

21

23

10

1 7.05

66.69

1 1 .8 1

5 . 47

3 . 75

4 . 65

0 . 62

5 . 49

0.59

0.65

0 . 28

3

4

3

o

0

o

0

o

o

o

0

42.86

5 7. 1 4

42.86

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

11

2

8

1

3

o

0

o

o

o

o

78.57

1 4 .23

57. 1 4

7. 1 4

2 1 .43

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

46

39

31

4

13

2

2

2

o

1

o

48.94

4 1 .49

32 . 98

4.26

1 3 .84

2. 1 3

2. 1 3

2. 1 3

0 . 00

1 . 06

0 .00

324

1 31

1 74

35

1 29

14

9

4

9

4

3

63.28

25.56

33.98

6 . 84

25 . 20

2.73

1 . 76

0 . 78

1 .76

0.78

0.56

4

o

2

o

2

0

0

o

o

o

o

1 00 . 00

0 . 00

5 0 . 00

0 . 00

50.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0 .00

0.00

14

1

3

2

7

1

3

o

o

o

1

77.78

5.56

1 6.67

1 1.11

38.89

5 . 56

1 6 .67

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

5 . 56

17

1

5

o

11

o

0

1

1

o

o

89.47

5 . 26

2 6 . 32

O.

57.89

0.00

0 . 00

5 . 26

5 .26

0 . 00

0.00

45

7

11

22

32

0

1

o

1

1

0

60.81

9.46

1 4 .86

29.73

43.24

0 . 00

1 .35

0.00

1 . 35

1 . 35

0.00

Alternative Agr.

#

1

0

0

o

1

0

0

o

o

o

0

Res. & Comm. Center

%

1 00 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

1 00 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

Off. of Small &

#

1

o

0

o

1

0

0

o

o

o

0

Disadvantaged Bus.

%

1 00.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

O.

1 00 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

Office of the

# 9

Executive Secretariat

%

9

o

2

o

7

o

0

o

o

o

o

1 00 . 00

0 . 00

2 2 . 22

0.00

77.78

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

Farm Service

# 3020

1 030

1 792

835

1 02

1 60

57

20

13

8

26

7

Agency

%

34 . 1 1

5 9 . 34

27.65

3 . 38

5 . 30

1 . 89

0 . 66

0.43

0.26

0 . 86

0.23

National Appeals

# 3

Division

%

3

o

3

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

1 00 .00

0.00

1 00 .00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0 .00

0 . 00

0 . 00

1 1 4 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••IC Cm IViiIL RiC IQiiHnTrss�A LR �p; 'Pe;;ndix di ;: ·�c�------------

U.S. Department of Agriculture B reakdown by G rade or Level Withi n Pay Plan for Agency­ GS/G M 1 3 Thru 1 5 as of 9/30/96 White

Total

All Office of the

#

Secretary

%

Agricu l t u ra l

#

Marketing Service

%

Agricu ltural Research

#

Service

%

R u ra l H o u s i n g Service

#

6

285

1 81 2

646

#

Service

%

Forest Service

#

1 73

29 1 2

% Office of

#

Communications

%

Office of the

#

General Counsel

%

R ural Utilities

#

Service

%

Natural Resources

#

Conservation Service

%

Economic Research

#

Service

%

National Agricu ltural

#

Statistics Service

%

Coop. State. Res.,

#

Educ. & Exten.

%

Office of Inspector

#

General

%

Food & Consumer

#

Service

%

R u ral Business­

#

Cooperative Service

%

48

1 12

213

939

346

285

1 28

272

374

69

Men

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

6

o

6

o

o

o

0

o

o

o

o

1 00 . 00

0.00

1 00.00

O.

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

59

213

47

5

8

1

3

7

1

o

o

20.70

74.74

1 6a.49

1 .75

2.81

0.35

1 .05

2 . 46

0.35

0.00

0.00

272

1 422

231

18

20

17

4

82

13

1

4

1 5.01

78.48

1 2 .75

0 . 99

1 .10

0 . 94

0.22

4.53

0.72

0.06

0.22

1 50

431 66.72

1 05

46

37

11

4

3

3

5

1

1 6.25

7. 1 2

5.73

1 .72

0.62

0.46

0.46

0.77

0. 1 5

23.22

% Foreign Agricultural

Women

Black

64

98

48

3

13

6

3

2

o

o

o

36.99

56.65

27.75

1 .73

7.51

3.47

1 .73

1 .16

0.00

0.00

0.00

42 1 .44

87 2 . 99

19

34

19

49

10

0.65

1 .1 7

0.65

1 .68

0.34

626

2056

536

60

2 1 .50

70.60

1 8.41

2 . 06

17

27

13

4

4

o

0

o

o

o

o

35.42

56.2�

27.08

8 . 33

8.33

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 0.89

8

1

0

o

o

o

o

7. 1 4

0.89

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

30

60

42

44.64

53.57

37.50

27 1 2 .68

1 67

20

10

6

3

o

6

1

o

o

78.40

9.39

4.69

2 . 82

1 .4 1

0.00

2.82

0.47

0.00

0.00

1 57

656

117

78

30

21

5

13

4

14

1

1 6.72

68.86

1 2 .46

8.31

3.1 9

2 . 24

0.53

1 .38

0.43

1 .49

0. 1 1

84

239

73

3

4

4

1

16

5

o

1

24.28

69.08

21 . 1 0

0.87

1 .16

1 .16

0.29

4.26

1 .45

0.00

0.29

3 1 .05

1

2

1

o

0.35

0.70

0.35

0.00

40

227

28

13

7

3

1 4 .04

79.65

9.82

4 . 56

2.46

1 . 05

8 6.25

10

2

1

2

o

1

1

7.81

1 . 56

0.78

1 .56

0.00

0.78

0.78

23 8.46

18

9

5

4

2

o

6.62

3.31

0.37

1 . 84

1 .47

0.74

0.00

3

1

o

o

0.80

0.27

0.00

0.00

1 .45

0.00

1 .45

0.00

42

73

30

32.81

57.03

24.44

66

1 67

43

24.26

6 1 .40

1 5.81

1 66

1 78

1 20

19

39

8

44.36

47.59

32.09

5.08

1 0.43

2.14

6 1 .60

1 .45

0.00

15

47

10

4

5

2 1 .74

68. 1 2

1 4.49

5.80

7.25

o

o

o

1 1 5 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURF


I I I • • • • _ ••'-c illiL c�lv Li RlH I GiiHi'iTriS�A A,p; 'Pe;;nd di. ; ix�C�------------

U.S. Department of Agricu lture Breakdown by G rade or Level Withi n Pay Plan for Agency GS/GM 1 3 Thru 1 5 as of 9/30/96 (continued) Total

All Animal & Plant

#

Health Inspection Svc.

%

Grain Inspection

#

Packers & Stockyard

%

Food Safety &

#

Inspection Service

%

Office of the Chief

#

Economist

%

Office Budget

#

& Program Analysis

%

Office of Information

#

Resources Mgmt.

%

Office of the Ch ief

#

Financial Officer

%

760

1 04

621

17

42

1 26

212

White

Women

Men

Black

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

201

501

1 60

20

31

23

6

12

2

3

2

26.45

65.92

2 1 .05

2.63

4 .08

3.03

0.79

1 .58

0.26

0.39

0.26

7

82

4

12

0

o

2

2

o

1

1

6 . 73

78.85

3.85

1 1 .54

0.00

0.00

1 .92

1 .92

0.00

0.96

0.96

1 64

356

1 22

36

32

11

3

53

6

1

1

26.41

57.33

1 9.65

5.80

5.15

1 .77

0.48

8.53

0.97

0. 1 6

0. 1 6

o

o

o

5.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

15

1

o

0

o

0

5.88

88.24

5.88

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

17

22

12

2

5

o

0

1

o

o

o

40.48

52.38

28.57

4 .76

1 1 .90

0.00

0.00

2.38

0.00

0.00

0.00

40

77

30

7

9

1

0

1

1

o

o

3 1 .75

61 . 1 1

23.81

5.56

7. 1 4

0.79

0.00

0.79

0.79

0.00

0.00

80

1 00

45

19

32

8

1

1

1

4

37.74

47. 1 7

2 1 .23

8.96

1 5.09

3.77

0.47

0.47

0.47

1 .89

0.47

Office of

#

0

1

0

o

0

o

0

o

o

o

o

Administrative Law

%

0.00

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

4.35

1 .45

1 .45

o

1

1 .72

0 . 00

1 .72

1 .28

1 .28

0.00

Office of Civil

#

Rights Enforcement

%

Office of Personnel

#

69

58

% Office of Operations

#

78

% Alternative Agr.

#

Res. & Comm. Center

%

Off. of Small &

#

3

6

41

12

7

8

25

6

5

59.42

1 7.39

1 0. 1 4

1 1 . 59

36.23

8.70

7.25

1 .45

1 .72

0.00

21

24

17

3

11

o

53.45

4 1 .38

29.31

5.

1 8.97

0.00

3

o

35

27

16

12

17

o

1

3

44.87

34.62

20.51

1 5 .38

2 1 .79

0.00

1 .28

3.85

o

1

2

1

o

0

o

0

o

o

o

o

33.33

66,67

33.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

5

1

2

o

3

o

0

o

o

o

o

83.33

1 6.67

33.33

O.

50.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Disadvantaged Bus.

%

Office of the

#

0

1

0

o

0

o

0

o

o

o

o

Executive Secretariat

%

0.00

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Farm Service

#

Agency

%

National Appeals

#

Division

%

1 1 61

1 06

285

784

235

56

39

19

5

6

5

11

1

24.55

65.53

20.24

4.82

3.36

1 .64

0.43

0 . 52

0.43

0.95

0.09

0.94

0.00

33

67

24

3

8

2

0

o

o

31 . 1 3

63.21

23.58

2.83

7.55

1 .89

0.00

0.00

0.00

"NOTE: Includes Pay Plans

-

GG, GH, GM, GS"

1 1 6 C I VIL RIGHTS AT THE U,S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

o


I I I • • • • _ ••IC C� IV illiL Li RlH IGiiHf1TriS�Ap AP; 'Pe;';nd di.ix�C�------------

U.S. Department of Agriculture B reakdown by G rade or Level Within Pay Plan for Agency­ Senior Executives as of 9/30/96

All Office of the

#

Secretary

%

Agricultural

#

Marketing Service

%

Agricultural Research

#

Service

%

R u ra l Housing Service

#

25

11

69

3

% Foreign Agricultural

#

Service

%

Forest Service

#

7

58

% Office of

#

Commu nications

%

Office of the

#

General Counsel

%

R u ra l Utilities

#

Service

%

Natural Resources

#

Conservation Service

%

Economic Research

#

Service

%

National Agricultural

#

Statistics Service

%

Coop. State. Res.,

#

Educ. & Exten.

%

Office of Inspector

#

General

%

Food & Consumer

#

Service

%

R ural B usiness-

#

Cooperative Service

%

Animal & Plant

#

Health Inspection Svc.

%

4

20

6

26

10

Women

9

15

4

17

Men

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

10

11

8

4

2

a

a

a

o

a

a

40.0

44.0

32.0

1 6.0

8.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

8

2

o

0

a

a

1

o

a

a

18.18

72.73

18.18

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

9.09

0.00

0.00

0.00

a

a

o

1 .45

0 . 00

1 .45

0.00

1 .45

0.00

0.00

0.00

7

59

7

10.14

85.50

1 0. 1 4

a

o

1

1

1

1

0

a

0

o

o

a

o

33.3

33.3

33.3

33.3

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

5

2

o

0

o

0

a

a

o

a

28.57

7 1 .42

28.57

o

0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

1

o

a

a

o

1 .72

1 .72

1 .72

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

10

43

8

4

1 7.24

74. 1 4

1 3.79

1 6.90

1

2

0

1

0

o

0

a

a

o

25.20

50

0.00

25.0

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2 1 0. 0

18

2 1 0.0

o

0

a

0

o

o

a

o

90.0

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0

5

0

o

o

0

a

a

o

o

0.00

83.33

0

1 6 .67

0.00

0 . 00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

25.0

4

14

5

7

0

o

0

o

o

o

o

1 5 .38

53.85

1 9 .23

26.92

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

5

6

5

o

0

o

0

a

a

a

o

50.00

50.00

50.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

o

a

a

a

a

o

o

o

1 4.28

85.71

1 4.28

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7

13

Black

White

Total

6

5

6

4

2

1

o

0

o

o

00

38.46

46. 1 5

30.79

1 5 .38

7.69

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3

5

3

o

0

1

0

a

a

o

o

33.33

55.56

33.33

0.00

0.00

1 1 .1 1

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

7

8

5

o

2

o

0

o

o

o

o

46.66

53.33

33.33

0.00

1 3 .33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

o

2

0

2

a

o

0

a

o

o

o

0.00

50.

0.00

50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

3

11

3

3

0

a

a

a

a

o

a

1 7 .65

64.71

1 7 .65

1 7 .65

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 1 7 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••IC IV"IL LR Cm RiiC IGiiH:nTrsS�A 'Pe; �p; nd dtix�C;;------------

Department of Agriculture Breakdown by G rade or Level Within Pay Plan for Agency­ Senior Executives as of 9/30/96 (continued) u.s.

White

Total

All

Grain Inspection

#

Packers & Stockyard

%

Food Safety &

#

Inspection Service

%

Office of the Chief

#

Economist

%

Office Budget

#

& Program Analysis

%

Office of Information

#

Resources Mgmt.

%

Office of the Chief

#

Financial Officer

%

Office of

#

Ad m i n istrative Law

%

Office of Ci vi l

#

R i g hts Enforcement

%

Office of Personnel

#

4

19

5

4

3

6

4

2

2

% Office of Operations

#

3

%

Women

Men

Black

Women

Men

Hispanic

Women

Men

Women

Asian American

American Indian

Pacific Islander

Alaskan Native

Men

Women

Men

Women

a

4

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

0.00

1 00.00

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

8

9

8

1

a

a

a

1

a

a

a

42. 1 0

47.36

42.40

5.26

0.00

0.00

0.00

5.26

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

4

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

20.00

80.00

20.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0 . 00

0.00

a

4

a

a

a

a

a

o

a

a

a

0.00

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

2

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

33.33

66.67

33.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

2

3

2

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

33.33

50.00

33.33

1 6 .67

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

4

1

a

a

25

75

25

0.00

0.00

Q

0.00

a

a

a

a

a

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

a

1

a

a

a

1

a

a

a

a

a

0.00

50

0 . 00

0.00

0.00

50

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

a 0.00

o

a

a

a

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

1

a

a

1

o

50

50.00

0.00

O.

50.00

0.00

2

o

1

1

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

66.67

0.00

33.33

33.33

33.33

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Alternative Agr.

#

Res. & Comm. Center

%

Off. of Small &

#

1

a

a

a

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

Disadvantaged Bus.

%

1 00 . 00

0.00

0.00

O.

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1 4. 1 6

1

a

a

a

a

a

4.16

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Office of the

#

Executive Secretariat

%

a

a

Farm Service

#

Agency

%

National Appeals

# 1

Division

%

Judicial Officer

# %

Policy Analysis Coordination P g m .

24

4

18

3

1

1 6 .66

75 .0

1 2 .5

4. 1 6

a

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

o

a

0.00

1 00.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1

a

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

o

1 00

0.00

1 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

# 1 % 1 00

o

1

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

a

0.00

1 00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

NOTE: Includes Pay Plans · AL, ES, EX"

SL, S f, CA, LTA "

1 1 8 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••rlc Cii\j I vm I LR IG L RJC iiH ;rT r!S i""A A� pp� e� ndfu u-�D)-------------

USDA Agencies and Abbreviations

AARC

Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercial ization Corporation

AMS

Agricultural Marketing Service

APH IS

A n i mal and Plant Health I nspection Service

ARS

Agricultural Research Service

BCA

Board of Contract Appeals

CR

Congressional Relations

CSREES

Cooperative. State. Research. Education. and Extension Service

DAMS

Departmental Admi n i stration Management Services

ERS

Economic Research Serv i ce

FAS

Foreign Agricultural Service

FCS

Food and Consumer Service

FFAS

Farm and Foreign Aglicultural Services

FNCS

Food, N utrition and Consumer Services

FS

Forest Service

FS A

Farm Service Agency

FSI S

Food Safety and I nspection Service

GIPSA

Grain I nspection. Packers and Stockyards Adm i n i stration

HWM

H azardous Waste Management

MAP

Moderni zation of Adm i n istrati ve Processes

MRP

Marketing and Regulatory Programs

NAD

National Appeals D i v i sion

NASS

National Agricul tural Statistics Service

NRCS

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRE

Natural Resources and Envi ronment

OALJ

Office of Admini strative Law J udges

OB PA

Office of Budget and Program Analysis

OC

Office of Commun ications

OCA

Office of Consumer Affairs

OCE

Office of the Chief Economist

OCFO

Office of the Chief Financial Officer

1 1 9 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


1 1 11 • • • _ ••IC IVnIL LA R:iC IGHHnTrss�A Alp; 'Pe;: nd di ix�D)-----------C�

USDA Agencies and Abbreviations (continued)

OES

Office of the Executive Secretariat

OGC

Oftice of the General Counsel

OIG

Oftice of I nspector General

OJO

Ortice of the Judicial Officer

00

Office o f Operations

ORACBA

Ortice of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefi t Analysis

OSEC

Office of the Secretary

PACC

Pol icy Analysis and Coordination Center

RBS

Rural Busi ness-Cooperative Service

RD

Rural Development

REE

Research. Education and Economics

RHS

Rural Housing Service

ASA

Assistant Secretary for Admi n i stration

CIO

Chief I n formation O fficer

RUS

Rural U t i l ities Service

WAOB

World Agricultural Outlook Board

USDA's 1 994 reorganization affected these agencies, which may be mentioned i n the report:

ASCS

Agricultural S tabi l i zation and Conservation Serv ice became part of FSA

FmHA

Farmers H ome Administration was split between FSA and R ural Development

SCS

Soi l Conservation Service ( became N RCS)

1 20 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT O F AGRICULTURE


I I I • • • • _ ••rlc Cii\j I vm I LR L RiC IG iiH ;rT ns i"A A� PI; } e;;; nd� x i�D)-------------

Other Abbreviations

A EP

Affi rmative Employment Plan

EEOMAS

Equal Employment Opportunity Monitoring and Analysis System

EQIP

Environmental Quality I ncentive Program

GAO

General Accounting Office

GLOBE

Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Employees Organization

NFC

National Finance Center

PATCOB

Professional, Admi nistrative, Technical, Clerical, Other, and Blue Col l ar

PRB

Performance Review Board

REAP

Research Employment Access Program

S BA

Small Business Administration

SES

Senior Executive Service

1 21 CIVIL RIGHTS AT THE U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Civil Rights At the United States Department of Agriculture