Connect with us

News

Some USDA programs have been mired in inequity. A panel's final report offers changes

Published

on

Some USDA programs have been mired in inequity. A panel's final report offers changes

Handy Kennedy, founder of AgriUnity cooperative, counts his cows on HK Farms on April 20, 2021 in Cobbtown, Ga. The cooperative is a group of Black farmers formed to better their chances of success by putting their resources together to reduce their overhead costs.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images


Handy Kennedy, founder of AgriUnity cooperative, counts his cows on HK Farms on April 20, 2021 in Cobbtown, Ga. The cooperative is a group of Black farmers formed to better their chances of success by putting their resources together to reduce their overhead costs.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

An equity commission created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture has released over 60 recommendations it says will finally bring more fairness to policies affecting farming and rural America.

The department has sprawling oversight of policies affecting not just farming subsidies but widely utilized nutrition assistance programs and rural development projects, such as utilities, broadband and homebuilding.

Advertisement

“Many of the issues and recommendations we identified are not new,” wrote the commission’s leaders, United Farm Workers President Emeritus Arturo Rodriguez and Ertharin Cousin, former U.S. Ambassador for Food Security and executive director of the U.N. World Food Programme, in the commission’s final report released Thursday. “However, they will require renewed commitment from USDA to improve its customer-facing business processes and address historical inequities whose impacts continue to the present moment.”

This final report builds on interim recommendations the commission made last year when it released a preliminary set of 32 changes it believed USDA could get a head start on, including making it easier for farmers to qualify for conservation programs and making the language more accessible.

“It’s not easy to look at mistakes head on and recognize where we miss the mark, but the Equity Commission is driving that work at USDA,” said Agriculture Deputy Secretary Torres Small, the first Latina in the position. “Secretary Vilsack and former Deputy Secretary Jewel Bronaugh started the Equity Commission to build a more equitable and fair future for everyone who participates in agriculture. Today is a momentous day as we receive the final report, recognize the crucial efforts of each member of our Equity Commission and Subcommittees, and commit to the work ahead.”

What does the commission recommend?

The USDA Equity Commission was born from a Biden executive order in 2022 — and subsequent congressional funding — calling for federal departments to address racial equity and underserved communities. It was originally spearheaded by former USDA Deputy Secretary Bronaugh until her departure last February. She was the first Black woman to hold such a high role in the department.

The group met last fall to vote on 66 recommendations that touch on many of the issues that have placed the department at the forefront of national conversations, such as concerns over Chinese ownership of U.S. farmland and equity access issues for low-interest farming loans. The recommendations range from the care of farmworkers to the implementation of nutrition assistance programs and increasing the development of housing.

Advertisement

Among the commission’s newest recommendations include:

  • amend a USDA rural housing program’s policies to be more open to alternative and innovative forms of housing construction, like 3D printed and modular; 
  • eliminate the current “one-and-done” funding stipulation that disqualifies rural communities from receiving access to more broadband expansion grants and low interest loans to support broadband — and allow additional USDA funding for communities where broadband does not currently meet the federally established standard;
  • conduct outreach and support small businesses, especially those owned by underrepresented communities in becoming approved SNAP vendors and maintaining eligibility — and support innovative approaches to improving access in food/SNAP access deserts and promoting local food systems;
  • implement proposed changes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food packages to better support access to culturally appropriate foods;
  • add the USDA secretary as a permanent member of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which has the authority to review, approve, or deny any proposed U.S. land purchases by those in other countries that might raise national concerns;
  • ensure equitable funding to community-led land access and transition projects by making funding available as a line of credit or grant prior to purchase.

There are also dozens more recommendations that range from supporting efforts that help create a pathway to citizenship for farmworkers, conducting research into how USDA’s various grant and loan programs are run, advising on where to expand staffing if given the funds from Congress, expanding language access for USDA programs and more.

The report attempts to tackle a broader discriminatory past

President Biden campaigned in part on the promise that he would bring equity to agriculture and rejuvenate rural economies. After last year’s interim report, USDA hired and established its first chief diversity and inclusion officer and touted its expanded outreach with Tribal nations, its climate justice initiatives and its new effort to help those with limited English proficiency access USDA programs and resources as well as its informational materials for noncitizens.

Nearly two decades ago a class action lawsuit led by Black farmers against the USDA was settled. Then there was a class action from Native Americans, Hispanic farmers, and women farmers. Even after lawsuits from minority groups, many others, including smaller farmers as well as young and beginning farmers, say they are constantly left out of USDA’s programs and structure.

They say barriers to access to programs include incorrect denials, cumbersome paperwork and a lack of clear communication about what applicants could qualify for to begin with.

In fact, an NPR analysis from last year found across the first two years of the Biden administration, Black and Asian-identifying farmers were the least successful in acquiring a direct loan, data shows.

Advertisement

Advocates for farmers of color have argued that rejections and withdrawals often happen because the multi-step application process is too cumbersome and confusing. Those whose families have generational experience and long-standing outside resources to navigate the federal bureaucracy sail through. And this lack of access is credited as one of the reasons for a sharp decline in particularly Black-owned farmland over the last centuries.

In the final report, the equity commission makes recommendations to address some of the language barriers, credit barriers and issues proving generational landownership that have also resulted in discrimination.

Though USDA has tried to emphasize working with these often-left-out groups, criticism has continued. A race-targeted program to cancel the debt of farmers of color was made race-neutral after lawsuits backed by conservative outfits stalled the program in courts. A $3 billion program aimed to help farmers and ranchers reduce their emissions has an equity portion, but USDA continues to face distrust.

Congress has also allocated $2.2 billion for USDA to pay farmers who can show they were discriminated against. Farmers had until earlier this month to apply.

Advertisement

News

How a Nation of Immigrants Traces Its Roots

Published

on

How a Nation of Immigrants Traces Its Roots

Why are there so many Greeks in Tarpon Springs, Fla.? Because in the early 1900s, Greek sponge divers came from the Dodecanese islands and revolutionized the sponge industry on Florida’s gulf coast.

What explains the pockets of Portuguese and Cape Verdeans in New Bedford, Mass.? In the 1800s, winds pushed whaling boats east to the Azores and Cape Verde, where experienced whalers joined the crews.

Advertisement

There’s the Basque population in Boise, Idaho, whose ancestors traded a mountainous region between France and Spain for the American West in the hopes of finding gold but later turned to sheep herding. There are the families of Yemeni immigrants hired by Ford Motor Company to build cars in Detroit, and the Vietnamese refugees who were resettled near New Orleans and Houston, where they could carry on shrimping.

These stories are everywhere on this map of American ancestry, which shows how people described their backgrounds to the Census Bureau. There are nearly 200 unique identities represented; blend them — as 340 million Americans do — and we arrive at a jumbled, overlapping, story-filled infinity.

Much of what we see is a history of immigration. Over 250 years, the country has absorbed more than 100 million people. We can trace the pressures that pushed and pulled them here — and the policies that welcomed certain groups while keeping others out — through the patterns in where their descendants live today.

Advertisement

Now, a larger share of the country was born abroad than ever before, and the Trump administration’s sweeping immigration bans echo exclusionist policies enacted in response to similar demographic conditions a century ago.

Those policies defined Americans for generations. Recent efforts to limit immigration will likewise affect how future Americans understand their heritage and themselves.

Advertisement

How we got here

In the late 1700s, the area that would become the present-day United States was already diverse. At least 1.5 million Native people, and possibly many more, were living across the territory. They were joined by about three million Europeans and enslaved Africans living in both the English colonies and the French and Spanish territories.

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the distribution of national origins in the former English colonies, based on the 1790 census, as well as major cultural groupings of Native American tribes. Sources: The American Heritage Pictorial Atlas of United States History; Handbook of North American Indians. The New York Times

From colonial times, immigration was an important contributor to population growth. It accelerated as the new country’s territory expanded west and immigrants arrived to settle it. From 1820 to 1860, more than five million people came, through a mostly open door.

Advertisement

With the advent of the steamship, the cost of passage plummeted, and companies offered special immigrant fares that were often coupled with rail tickets to the interior of the country. Once a community of immigrants was established somewhere, it tended to grow.

After 1840, immigration from Western Europe began to rise quickly as political instability in Germany and the famine in Ireland drove people to leave. Asian immigrants, drawn by the discovery of gold in California in 1848, were recruited to work on farms and railroads.

Later in the 19th century, pogroms across Eastern Europe and the aftermath of Italian reunification drove a surge of migration to the United States. From 1880 to 1920, 24 million immigrants arrived. They went almost everywhere except the South, where the land-owning elite already had cheap labor from the formerly enslaved and poor tenant farmers.

Advertisement

Cities swelled. In 1910, according to the Ellis Island National Museum of Immigration, three-quarters of the residents of Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit and New York City were immigrants or children of immigrants.

Advertisement

1850

2 million total immigrants

The 1850 census did not include data on the birthplace of enslaved people.

Advertisement

1910

14 million total immigrants

1970

Advertisement

9 million total immigrants

2024

50 million total immigrants

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. The New York Times

Many rural areas in the Midwest had a similar share of immigrants in 1910, but newcomers to the cities tended to be from novel sources like Russia or Italy. That meant there were more languages, more cuisines and more workers. It also meant there were more crowds, more slums and more people behaving in unfamiliar ways — fodder to drive views that the new immigrants were unassimilable and that policies were needed to keep them out.

Advertisement

The first federal law to severely limit immigration had come much earlier, in 1882, when practically all Chinese people were barred from entering the country. More restrictions followed, and eventually animosity toward new immigrants led to the passage of laws in the 1920s creating a quota system tied to nationality.

Western Europeans were given generous quotas and Southern and Eastern Europeans much smaller ones. For the rest of the Eastern Hemisphere, the quotas were set to almost nothing. Ships raced through the night to reach New York Harbor, all trying to be first to dock at Ellis Island.

There weren’t quotas for countries in the Americas and the Caribbean, but there were other restrictions. Mexicans faced mass deportation campaigns in the 1930s and 1950s, even as millions were recruited as temporary workers to fill agricultural jobs across the Southwest.

Advertisement

Over the next 40 years, these rules drove the foreign-born population in the United States to its lowest levels. Children of immigrants replaced immigrants, blending into American society while retaining their own cultural traditions.

Then, alongside the civil rights movement of the 1960s, activists and lawmakers who saw the national quota system as racist pushed to replace it with one based on employment and family ties.

Advertisement

Another decades-long wave of immigration followed, this time from different parts of the world.

Advertisement

Share of immigrants in the United States by region of birth

Advertisement

Chart data is unavailable.

Note: The 1850 census did not include data on the birthplace of enslaved people. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. The New York Times

Advertisement

The new rules allowed people to sponsor their family members and relatives, and they gave preference to workers with advanced degrees and specialized skills. The family visas, in particular, led to an unforeseen boom in immigration.

An expanded refugee program also brought more immigrants, many from Southeast Asia who were displaced by Cold War conflicts.

Advertisement

For the first time, immigrants from the Western Hemisphere faced limits on their numbers. Similar to the European workers who arrived earlier in the century, many chose to settle in the United States permanently instead of risking returning to their home countries between periods of working in the United States. Millions who couldn’t get visas turned to entering illegally.

The most recent immigration wave, during the Biden administration, was different still: The number of visas for immigrants remained steady, while migrants from Central America arrived at the southwest border in large numbers to seek asylum. Desperate conditions in Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela, as well as wars in Afghanistan, Ukraine and elsewhere led hundreds of thousands of people to flee to the United States — many of them drawn to established communities of immigrants from their countries.

Where we are today

Advertisement

The lines of American ancestry today are not neatly drawn, and groups overlap and spill into one another. Some people don’t answer the census questions about their origins at all. For others, it’s complicated. Descendents of enslaved people, for example, may identify themselves as African American because they are unable to trace their roots to a specific place.

Many areas have truly mixed populations, with people of several different ancestries nearly equally represented.

Advertisement

Take this area just southwest of Houston, for example:

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2019-2024 American Community Survey; Mapbox. The New York Times

Advertisement

Nigerian, Jordanian, Mexican, Vietnamese, African American, Salvadoran, Iraqi, German, English, Irish and Chinese people are all among the top groups in these neighborhoods.

Every city has its own distinct pattern, visualized in the the patchwork of gold, green and blue in Los Angeles, the stark reds, blues and yellows of Chicago, a purple Minneapolis, a green Honolulu:

Advertisement

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2019-2024 American Community Survey; Mapbox. The New York Times

Who comes next?

Advertisement

If the patterns in these maps reflect the immigration policies of at least a century ago, we can expect them to shift and change again as a result of contemporary decisions about who makes up the American mosaic.

No comprehensive immigration legislation has passed Congress since the 1980s. After a surge of immigration during the Biden administration, in which an estimated eight million people entered the country over three years, demographic experts now estimate that the United States could reach net-zero or negative immigration sometime soon. That is in part because of the Trump administration’s aggressive actions to speed deportations of people who are in the country illegally and to limit pathways to legal immigration.

Advertisement

At the same time, the factors that pull immigrants to the United States remain strong. And, unlike 100 years ago, the country now faces a declining population and work force. The tension between the need for new workers and resurgent nativist politics will influence who comes, who settles and who is counted among the ancestors of future generations.

Advertisement

About the data

The ancestry maps in this article and the related interactive map draw from seven tables of race, ethnicity and ancestry data that the Census Bureau published as part of the American Community Survey estimates for 2019-2024.

Advertisement

The census ancestry and origin data are estimates based on a sample of the population and include margins of error that can be large for small population groups. We used the estimates published by the Census Bureau without adjustment.

In the survey, respondents are asked questions about their race and whether they are of Hispanic or Latino origin. Each of those questions allows respondents to list their national origins. An additional question asks about their ancestries. People can claim multiple ancestries or origins and appear in multiple categories.

Advertisement

Some groups appear in multiple tables. For example, people can select “white” as their race and list “German” as a specific origin. Separately, anyone can also choose “German” in response to the survey’s ancestry question. For such groups, we used the table with the higher value for the country as a whole. In a small number of cases, similar ancestries were grouped together.

Colors for each census tract are blended based on the adjusted number of people who reported being of each race and ancestry in the tract, for each group above a minimum threshold.

In charts of the immigrant population, counts come from Census Bureau research publications, the 2000 census and the American Community Survey. Those counts include only foreign-born residents and exclude any descendants born in the United States.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

News

What the SCOTUS campaign finance ruling means, according to an expert

Published

on

What the SCOTUS campaign finance ruling means, according to an expert

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter testifies during a Senate Rules and Administration Committee hearing on artificial intelligence and the future of elections on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., Sept. 27, 2023.

Drew Angerer/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Supreme Court struck down limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines. The ruling is the latest in a series of Supreme Court decisions that have loosened campaign finance restrictions, overturning a 2001 precedent that upheld the spending limits.

Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Trevor Potter, who now serves as president of the Campaign Legal Center, joined NPR’s Morning Edition to break down the ruling. Speaking to NPR’s Michel Martin, Potter discussed why the court reversed its earlier precedent, how the ruling changes campaign finance rules and whether greater transparency could address concerns about corruption.

Listen to the full interview by clicking on the blue play button above. And read takeaways from the conversation below.

Advertisement

The post-Watergate limits were meant to prevent corruption

Potter said they were designed to stop donors from routing large contributions through national party committees to directly fund a favored candidate’s campaign. The restrictions were intended to prevent “an obvious way around” campaign contribution limits.

The court previously upheld the same limits

Asked why the Supreme Court upheld the law about 20 years ago, Potter said the justices concluded the restrictions were a constitutional way to prevent corruption. He said the court viewed them as an “anti-circumvention measure” to stop donors from using political parties to bypass contribution limits.

Potter rejects the majority’s rationale

Potter rejected the majority’s view that political parties have less political power than outside groups, saying earlier Supreme Court decisions allowing unlimited outside spending created that imbalance. He pointed to Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent in support of that argument.

Disclosure wouldn’t necessarily reveal private fundraising arrangements

Potter said disclosure alone would not address his concerns because it cannot reveal private agreements between candidates and donors. While campaign donations to political parties are public, he said voters would not see behind-the-scenes requests from candidates asking donors to contribute to party committees that later support their campaigns.

“We’re never going to see that,” Potter said. “I don’t think there’s a way to practically disclose those backroom deals.”

Advertisement

This interview was written for the web by Majd Al-Waheidi and edited by Treye Green.

Continue Reading

News

Woman survives falling 1,500 feet down Mount Shasta

Published

on

Woman survives falling 1,500 feet down Mount Shasta

A woman suffered several injuries but survived falling 1,500 feet down California’s Mount Shasta on Sunday, officials said.

The climber, 31, was attempting to ascend the mountain, which is technically a stratovolcano with the second-highest peak in the Cascades, according to the U.S. Forest Service. She was climbing in a group of three novices at an elevation of around 13,000 feet when she fell.

She suffered a suspected ankle fracture and “additional injuries consistent with the significant fall,” although she was found alert and “in good spirits,” the forest service said. Officials haven’t identified the climber.

Efforts to locate and rescue the woman got underway at around noon on Sunday and involved three climbing rangers from the forest service as well as members of the California Highway Patrol. An initial helicopter search was limited because of cloud cover on the mountain, the forest service said, prompting one ranger to ascend a portion of the mountain on foot to reach her. One member of the woman’s climbing party helped carry rescue equipment, as did a fourth climber who stopped to assist.

California Highway Patrol safely removed the woman from the mountain at around 5:30 p.m., and she was eventually taken to Mercy Medical Center Mount Shasta for medical care, according to the forest service. 

Advertisement

The agency said the woman’s fall “serves as an important reminder that Mount Shasta is a high-altitude mountaineering environment, not a hike,” and “experienced climbers can encounter rapidly ranging weather, steep snow and ice, rockfall, and hazardous fall conditions.” 

It also encouraged prospective climbers to “be honest about your experience and physical conditioning” before attempting to summit the mountain.

The woman and her climbing party were ascending Mount Shasta along a route called Avalanche Gulch, which “is steep and rigorous requiring crampons, a mountain axe, helmet, and basic snow travel skills,” according to the Mount Shasta Avalanche Center. It takes climbers up a 7,000-foot vertical ascent that features “steep snow and ice, rock fall, and weather extremes,” the center said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending