Zebrowski-study
New Study Finds Signs of Progress in Equity of Federal Farm Payments
U.S. agricultural policy has a powerful influence on how farms operate and who benefits from billions of dollars in federal support. While a legacy of racial discrimination is still evident in the US agricultural landscape, a new study by Wesley Zebrowski, PhD, found cautious signs of progress toward greater equity in federal farm payments.
Wesley Zebrowski, PhD, examined whether racial and ethnic disparities persist in the distribution of U.S. government farm payments
Zebrowski is an assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago’s School of Environmental Sustainability. Their research focuses on the economic, social, and environmental consequences of environmental policy.
In a recent paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Zebrowski examined whether racial and ethnic disparities persist in the distribution of U.S. government farm payments, more than two decades after the landmark Pigford v. Glickman (1999) lawsuit exposed widespread discrimination against Black farmers by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“I was really interested in whether things actually got better after Pigford,” Zebrowski said. “That case had major legal and political consequences. The question is: did it meaningfully change outcomes?”
A Long History of Unequal Access
The question is rooted in a well-documented history. Throughout much of the 20th century, farmers of color—especially Black farmers—faced systemic discrimination in access to credit and USDA assistance. Those barriers proved devastating during the mid-century transition to industrial agriculture, when access to loans became essential for survival.
“If you didn’t have access to credit, you couldn’t make the transition,” Zebrowski explained. “And if you couldn’t transition, you exited farming.”
The result was a dramatic decline in the number of Black farmers. By the late 20th century, an estimated 98 percent had left farming.
Pigford v. Glickman, settled in 1999, was a class action lawsuit alleging that the USDA discriminated against Black farmers in allocating loans and assistance between 1981 and 1996. The USDA ultimately paid billions of dollars in compensation, though payments were delayed for years and distributed through a complex, often criticized process. Similar claims by Native American, Latino, and women farmers led to smaller, separate settlement mechanisms.
A New Way of Measuring Equity
While previous studies have examined specific programs or loan decisions, Zebrowski took a different approach. They used USDA Agricultural Census microdata to examine racial, ethnic, and gender inequities in governmental payments to a subset of field and specialty crop farmers. Rather than simply comparing averages, Zebrowski employed a statistical matching method to pair farmers who are as similar as possible in terms of factors including age, farm size, revenue, and crop types, differing primarily by race or ethnicity.
“You can’t just control for acreage or assets,” they said. “Those variables are themselves shaped by decades of discrimination. Matching allows you to compare like with like.”
The analysis used data from 2002 through 2017, capturing periods before and after major legal settlements and policy reforms.
What the Data Show
The headline finding may surprise some. Across matched farmers, Zebrowski found no consistent evidence of broad, ongoing racial disparities in total federal farm payments.
“That’s encouraging,” they said. “If discrimination were widespread and systematic, we’d expect to see clearer patterns.”
In one notable exception, Black farmers received substantially higher payments in 2012 than their matched white counterparts. Zebrowski attributes this spike to delayed Pigford settlement payments appearing in the data.
“That’s essentially the restitution showing up,” they said.
In other years, results varied by group and program, with some indications that Hispanic farmers received less funding in certain periods—an outcome Zebrowski argues warrants closer scrutiny.
Progress, Not a Victory Lap
Zebrowski is careful to emphasize that the research does not capture every farmer or every mechanism through which bias may operate, and the results do not mean discrimination has disappeared.
“My results apply only to farmers I can match,” they said. “Discrimination could be happening outside that subset.”
The USDA continues to receive civil rights complaints from farmers, and qualitative accounts of bias persist. Moreover, the structure of farm programs—many of which reward acreage and output—means that even race-neutral policies can reproduce racialized outcomes.
“If you pay per acre,” Zebrowski noted, “95 percent of the money will go to white farmers, simply because of who owns the most land.”
Why Pigford Still Matters
Despite its imperfections, Zebrowski believes Pigford played a critical role in pushing the USDA toward greater accountability.
“It sent a signal that there are legal and financial consequences,” he said. “Federal agencies are big, slow-moving institutions. Change doesn’t happen unless they’re pushed.”
Government Accountability Office reports suggest that USDA civil rights compliance has improved slowly over time, though significant challenges remain—particularly in how complaints are handled.
An Ongoing Test
Zebrowski argues that this kind of analysis should be repeated regularly, especially as political priorities shift.
“These data are collected every five years,” they said. “We should be revisiting this question every decade at least.”
They also warn against complacency, particularly amid rollbacks of programs that support historically disadvantaged farmers.
“I would hate for anyone to read this and say, ‘We fixed racism in farm policy,’” they said. “What this suggests is that some progress has been made since Pigford. Whether that progress continues is still very much an open question.”
By Stephanie Folk
January 2026
Zebrowski is an assistant professor at Loyola University Chicago’s School of Environmental Sustainability. Their research focuses on the economic, social, and environmental consequences of environmental policy.
In a recent paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Zebrowski examined whether racial and ethnic disparities persist in the distribution of U.S. government farm payments, more than two decades after the landmark Pigford v. Glickman (1999) lawsuit exposed widespread discrimination against Black farmers by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
“I was really interested in whether things actually got better after Pigford,” Zebrowski said. “That case had major legal and political consequences. The question is: did it meaningfully change outcomes?”
A Long History of Unequal Access
The question is rooted in a well-documented history. Throughout much of the 20th century, farmers of color—especially Black farmers—faced systemic discrimination in access to credit and USDA assistance. Those barriers proved devastating during the mid-century transition to industrial agriculture, when access to loans became essential for survival.
“If you didn’t have access to credit, you couldn’t make the transition,” Zebrowski explained. “And if you couldn’t transition, you exited farming.”
The result was a dramatic decline in the number of Black farmers. By the late 20th century, an estimated 98 percent had left farming.
Pigford v. Glickman, settled in 1999, was a class action lawsuit alleging that the USDA discriminated against Black farmers in allocating loans and assistance between 1981 and 1996. The USDA ultimately paid billions of dollars in compensation, though payments were delayed for years and distributed through a complex, often criticized process. Similar claims by Native American, Latino, and women farmers led to smaller, separate settlement mechanisms.
A New Way of Measuring Equity
While previous studies have examined specific programs or loan decisions, Zebrowski took a different approach. They used USDA Agricultural Census microdata to examine racial, ethnic, and gender inequities in governmental payments to a subset of field and specialty crop farmers. Rather than simply comparing averages, Zebrowski employed a statistical matching method to pair farmers who are as similar as possible in terms of factors including age, farm size, revenue, and crop types, differing primarily by race or ethnicity.
“You can’t just control for acreage or assets,” they said. “Those variables are themselves shaped by decades of discrimination. Matching allows you to compare like with like.”
The analysis used data from 2002 through 2017, capturing periods before and after major legal settlements and policy reforms.
What the Data Show
The headline finding may surprise some. Across matched farmers, Zebrowski found no consistent evidence of broad, ongoing racial disparities in total federal farm payments.
“That’s encouraging,” they said. “If discrimination were widespread and systematic, we’d expect to see clearer patterns.”
In one notable exception, Black farmers received substantially higher payments in 2012 than their matched white counterparts. Zebrowski attributes this spike to delayed Pigford settlement payments appearing in the data.
“That’s essentially the restitution showing up,” they said.
In other years, results varied by group and program, with some indications that Hispanic farmers received less funding in certain periods—an outcome Zebrowski argues warrants closer scrutiny.
Progress, Not a Victory Lap
Zebrowski is careful to emphasize that the research does not capture every farmer or every mechanism through which bias may operate, and the results do not mean discrimination has disappeared.
“My results apply only to farmers I can match,” they said. “Discrimination could be happening outside that subset.”
The USDA continues to receive civil rights complaints from farmers, and qualitative accounts of bias persist. Moreover, the structure of farm programs—many of which reward acreage and output—means that even race-neutral policies can reproduce racialized outcomes.
“If you pay per acre,” Zebrowski noted, “95 percent of the money will go to white farmers, simply because of who owns the most land.”
Why Pigford Still Matters
Despite its imperfections, Zebrowski believes Pigford played a critical role in pushing the USDA toward greater accountability.
“It sent a signal that there are legal and financial consequences,” he said. “Federal agencies are big, slow-moving institutions. Change doesn’t happen unless they’re pushed.”
Government Accountability Office reports suggest that USDA civil rights compliance has improved slowly over time, though significant challenges remain—particularly in how complaints are handled.
An Ongoing Test
Zebrowski argues that this kind of analysis should be repeated regularly, especially as political priorities shift.
“These data are collected every five years,” they said. “We should be revisiting this question every decade at least.”
They also warn against complacency, particularly amid rollbacks of programs that support historically disadvantaged farmers.
“I would hate for anyone to read this and say, ‘We fixed racism in farm policy,’” they said. “What this suggests is that some progress has been made since Pigford. Whether that progress continues is still very much an open question.”
By Stephanie Folk
January 2026