Land Loss Report...For this project, CSI documented Ford Black land loss grantees’ work, provided...
20
Transcript of Land Loss Report...For this project, CSI documented Ford Black land loss grantees’ work, provided...
2 3
Copyright © 2011 the Center for Social Inclusion
All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the permission of the Center for Social Inclusion. Please credit the Center for Social Inclusion, “Energy Democracy: Community-Scale Green Energy Solutions” and the Center for Social Inclusion for those sections excerpted.
For any commercial reproduction, please obtain permission from the Center for Social Inclusion, 65 Broadway, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10006.
Phone: +1.212.248.2785 Fax: +1.212.248.6409Email: [email protected] centerforsocialinclusion.org
This paper is made possible by the generous support of the Quixote Foundation, our advisory board, and by the community stakeholders who agreed to share their experiences. The contents are the responsibility of the Center for Social Inclusion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Quixote Foundation, members of the advisory board, or those interviewed in connection with information presented in the following pages.
The Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) would like to express its deepest appreciation for the tireless efforts of Black land loss prevention advocates, Black farmers’ organiza-tions, land conservation groups, and other committed groups and individuals working to stem the tide of Black land loss. If not for their steadfast dedication, countless more Black landowners and their families would have been deprived of one of their most valuable assets and sources of wealth.
CSI also would like to thank the Ford Foundation, both for its generous support of Afri-can Americans whose lands have been in jeopardy and for the foundation’s foresight in recognizing the potential of Black land retention as a critical asset building strategy in rural low-income communities of color. The Ford Black land loss grantees’ thoughtful insight, critical feedback and engaged participation on this project brought a deeper level of sophistication to our understanding of this complex issue.
Former CSI Director of Southern Programs Cassandra Welchlin and consultant Jessica Norwood proved to be a formidable team in leading and managing the grantees through lively but constructive dialogue, as well as guiding and moving the Ford Black land loss project and report forward. The ever reliable CSI staff (Darnelle Bernier, Anthony Gian-catarino, Denis Rhoden, and Khalil Shahyd) provided indispensable research support and helped complete the report. Kimberly James and Jocelyn Sargent reviewed several versions of this report and offered insightful comments and useful edits.
AC
KN
OW
LE
DG
EM
EN
TS
4 5
TA
BL
E O
F C
ON
TE
NT
S
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary 6
Key Points 6 About the Project 7
Introduction 8
Why Black Land Loss Matters 9
The Landscape of Black Land Loss and Rural Poverty 11
Ford Foundation Investment in Collaboration 14
Causes of Continued Black Land Loss 16
Outcomes of Collaboration 18
The Seven Strategies 19 Gaining access to legal support 20 Coordinated policy development 20 Developing an educated community 20 Cultivating financial/resource development 20 Strengthening leadership development 22 Building infrastructure 22 Shared Outputs and Short-Term Indicators 23
Emerging Opportunities 24
Potential Concerns 26
Broader Considerations 27
Conclusion 29
Appendix A: Participants List 30
Appendix B: Shared Outputs and Short-Term Indicators Metric 31
6 7
Ex
EC
uT
IvE
Su
MM
AR
Y
E x E C u T I v E S u M M A R Y
Land is central to the American social, political, and economic imagination, and it has been central to the nation’s growth and development. Today, any strategy to create sus-tainable energy, produce a healthy food system, strengthen rural economies, and build the wealth of people of color must include a focus on Black rural land ownership and use, especially in the South where 55 percent of the nation’s Black population now resides.
Regaining Ground is a strategic working paper sharing the results of the collective think-ing of leading Black land loss prevention advocates. Funded by the Ford Foundation, these advocates, representing Ford Foundation grantee organizations, came together in person and through calls over a two-year period (2008-2010). With assistance from the Center for Social Inclusion, they collaborated to network, discuss, brainstorm and strategize on how to stem, and ultimately reverse, the tide of Black land loss and culti-vate community asset building in rural, southern Black communities.
Regaining Ground is both documentation of a strategic process and testament to the val-ue of investing in developing collective solutions. The challenges Black land loss advocates face are enormous, but so are the gains to be made by supporting their collective work.
K E Y P O I N T S
Black Land Loss Status: Black farmers and Black-operated farms have virtually disap-peared from the American landscape. In 1910, 218,000 Black farmers were registered as full or part owners of 15 million acres of land. By 2007, 28,000 Black farmers were full or part owners of 2.9 million acres of land.1 Because the uS government only tracks privately owned land used for farming (rather than privately owned, non-farmland), the true scope of black land loss, specifically the amount of privately held, Black-owned, non-farmland, is unknown, however, the 1999 Agricultural Economics and Landowner-ship report found that there were 7.8 million acres of Black privately owned land valued at 14 billion dollars. Despite the dire numbers, in parts of the Black Belt South, Black farmers continue to play an important role in the rural economy and civic life. Ninety-three percent of all Black farms are located in Southern states.
Causes of Black Land Loss: Grantees identified problems related to heirs’ property; lack of access to capital, markets, and technology; and systemic discrimination as ma-jor contributors to contemporary Black land loss. Other contributors include: lack of estate planning, lack of legal counsel, delinquent property taxes, and involuntary/parti-tion sales.
Goals: Grantees identified two long-term goals or outcomes: preventing further Black land loss and cultivating Black-owned assets. They defined several intermediate goals or outcomes: (1) strengthening relationships among Black land loss prevention advo-cates, (2) enabling others to understand the work the advocates are doing and its im-pact on Black land loss and wealth building, and (3) determining strategic entry points and common places of intersection and opportunity.
Strategies: Grantees discussed a core set of seven strategies that provide multiple pathways for interaction and collaboration in solving challenges. The strategies in-clude: (1) supporting sustainable enterprise, (2) gaining access to legal support, (3) co-ordinating policy development, (4) developing an educated community, (5) cultivating
1 uSDA “Minority and Women Farmers” Agricultural Outlook May 1998. www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/agoutlook/may1998/ao251d.pdf, united States Department of Agriculture. “2007 Agricultural Census.” www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99 _1_054 _054.pdf
financial/resource development, (6) strengthening leadership development, and (7) building infrastructure.
Emerging Approaches: Grantees discussed three, immediate target areas of focus: (1) modeling a state statue on heirs’ property, (2) preventing foreclosures of Black-owned farms, and (3) creating a revolving loan fund.
Concerns and Opportunities: Participants were concerned about the decline of fund-ing by national foundations for rural issues and how it would impact funding for the Black land loss field. They felt, however, that Program Related Investments and Mis-sion-Driven Investments offer a very promising avenue for funding, particularly if they are linked to a foundation’s priorities and mission.
Gaps to Be Bridged: Grantees discussed the need for better integration between “Black land loss prevention” groups, which primarily consist of Black farmers’ organiza-tions whose members tend to be older, and “Black land asset development groups” who were not as closely tied to farming and tended to be younger. While the former groups emphasized the priority of immediate aid to Black farmers, the latter groups tended to focus more on land asset development, which may or may not involve farming.
Broader Considerations: Grantees also reflected upon broader considerations re-lated to the Black land loss field, including the necessary components to build Black wealth, shared and community models of landownership, amending traditional prop-erty appraisal to promote sustainability, and creating a regional Black land loss legal action group.
Conclusion: Black land loss grantees felt energized by learning more about the work and strategies of their peers. The convenings provided a space for reflection and deep-er discussion of Black land loss, Black wealth, and building community assets. Despite different priorities, agendas, and needs of their respective organizations, participants were able to come together, network, brainstorm, disagree, and ultimately strategize to collectively forge a set of core solutions to advance their work.
A B O u T T h E P R O J E C T
The Ford Foundation Black land loss grantees who participated in this collaborative project represent a diverse cross-section of leading Black land loss prevention orga-nizations operating in the South. They categorized their work in four areas: building community capacity, providing technical support and legal services to aid Black land-owners, research and policy development, and promoting new models of sustainable economic development.
The Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) is a national organization that unites public policy research and grassroots advocacy to transform structural inequity and exclusion into structural fairness and inclusion. CSI works with community groups and national orga-nizations to develop policy ideas, foster effective leadership, and develop communica-tions tools for an opportunity-rich world in which we all thrive.
For this project, CSI documented Ford Black land loss grantees’ work, provided critical technical assistance, and facilitated the discussions among grantees that led to their developing a set of core strategies and preliminary short-term indicators.
8 9
INT
RO
Du
CT
ION
2 2007 Agricultural Census. The uS Department of Agriculture (calculations done via Table 55).
3 Lois Wright Morton and Troy C. Blanchard. “Starved for Access: Life in Rural America’s Food Deserts.” Rural Realities. vol. 1, Issue 4, 2007.
4 Report. Center for Social Inclusion. “Energy Democracy: community scale, green energy solutions.” 2010.
5 The rural South has significantly expanded, although development across the South is uneven. John B. Cromartie, “Migrants in the Rural South Choose urban and Natural Amenities.” Rural America, volume 15, No. 4, February 2001.
6 Working Paper, No. 44. The Decline (and Revival?) of Black Farmers and Rural Landowners: A Review of the Research Literature. Jess Gilbert, Gwen Sharp, M. Sandy Felin. university of Wisconsin—Madison. May 2001
7 Edward “Jerry” Pennick. Publication. African-American Land Retention, Acquisition and Sustainable Development: Eradicating Poverty and Building Intergenerational Wealth in the Black Belt Region.
I N T R O D u C T I O N
Regaining Ground may seem like an odd choice for the title of a report about Black land loss. After all, the evidence has been painfully clear: African American landowners have been literally losing ground since the turn of the last century.
Of course, the title is not meant to describe the current status of African American owned land or the plight of Black farmers. Instead, Regaining Ground serves as the ral-lying call of the diverse cohort of Ford Foundation Black land loss grantees who came together periodically in 2008-2010 to network, discuss, brainstorm, and strategize on how to stem, and ultimately reverse, the tide of Black land loss and cultivate community asset building in rural, Southern Black communities.
The Ford grantees included both land loss prevention and asset development advocates, Black farmers’ organizations, land conservation groups, academics, economic develop-ment organizations, and other interested allies.
Funded by the Ford Foundation, the grantees convened and vetted the major causes of Black land loss and promising solutions, identified a core set of strategies to better con-nect their work, discussed preliminary short-term indicators of success, and explored how to cultivate new rural Black wealth grounded in the principles of economic sustain-ability, environmental health, and racial equity.
In many ways, Regaining Ground serves as a strategic working paper, a window to the cur-rent thinking and future aspirations of the leading Black land loss prevention advocates. It is not primarily a research paper summarizing the latest statistics, figures, and argu-ments on Black land loss, although these are presented as needed. Its primary purpose is to reengage everyone interested in supporting a more racially just and economically sustainable future for the country and for Southern, rural low-income communities of color in particular. This paper seeks to refocus attention on Black land loss and its impact on the present and future of rural, southern Black communities. It also demonstrates the power of strategic grantmaking that includes facilitated alignment and coordination.
Wh
Y B
LA
CK
LA
ND
LO
SS
MA
TT
ER
S
W h Y B L A C K L A N D L O S S M A T T E R S
Black land loss is about everyone. Everyone interested in producing healthy and viable food systems, building a new renewable energy economy, stemming urban sprawl, and promoting more sustainable wealth for low-income people can support these struc-tural shifts by supporting Black land owning communities in the uS South. Consider the potential benefits of Black-owned land, particularly for low-income, southern rural communities of color:
• Healthy, local food. Americans rely on farmers for local food production, and most Black-owned or operated farms produce food items. Approximately 46% produce beef, pork, poultry, eggs, or seafood via aquaculture; 7% produce vegetables and fruits.2 Black farmland production of grains, seed, oils, and other commodities also contribute to consumer products. healthy, local food is critical to public health. Recent episodes of food contamination and the crisis of childhood obesity have not only refocused the nation’s attention on what and how we feed our children, but on how access to healthy fruits and vegetables is difficult for many in “ food deserts”—counties where residents live more than ten miles from a supermar-ket—even in the rural South.3
• Renewable energy economy. Black-owned land can be a valuable asset for community-scale renewable energy generation, such as wind and solar farms or biofuel production from sugarcane farms or forest land. Yet communities of color have not been factored into conver-sations about America’s renewable energy economy and future. While communi-ty-owned and/or controlled renewable facilities offer wealth-building potential for southern rural communities of color,4 this economic transformation will be nearly impossible to achieve with continued Black land loss.
• Stemming urban sprawl. The “small town” quality of life of Southern, rural residents is constantly threat-ened by urban sprawl. Since the 1970s, migration to the South has contributed to a population explosion, as well as traffic congestion, poor land use planning, and environmental degradation.5 Preserving and cultivating Black-owned land can serve as a buffer from urban sprawl that preserves the environment and improves quality of life.
• Black landownership and use is key to developing a sustainable economy and creating a racially equitable future for rural, Southern Black communities.
Land remains an important familial, communal, environmental, and economic part of the lives of Southern Black rural communities. Black farmers continue to play an important role in the rural economy and civic life of several sub-regions of the Black Belt South.6 here, land represents a potential power base whose benefits can extend beyond financial value. For example, African Americans view landownership as essential to building wealth and achieving political and eco-nomic independence.7 In the past, land ownership served as a foundation for civic engagement in the civil rights movement as southern Black landowners served as community leaders. Continued Black land loss threatens a more progressive eco-nomic and democratic future for rural southern Black communities.
10 11
• Black land loss in the South reflects broader policy issues. The issues of land and homeownership, wealth building, and sustainability that define the struggles of Southern Black land loss prevention advocates are prob-lems that affect many other communities across the country. Examining the reali-ty of disinvestment, structural barriers, and policies through the lens of rural Black communities can help us find national solutions that will benefit all of us.
Th
E L
AN
DS
CA
PE
OF
BL
AC
K L
AN
D L
OS
S A
ND
Ru
RA
L P
Ov
ER
TY
T h E L A N D S C A P E O F B L A C K L A N D L O S S A N D R u R A L P O v E R T Y
• Blacks are poorer.Seventeen percent of the Southern population is Black, 26 percent of whom live in poverty while only 10% of Southern Whites are poor.8 The disparity is magni-fied greatly in the rural South where Blacks make up 9% of the population and one in three are poor while Whites comprise over 85% of the population and only in one in nine are considered poor. African Americans, in general, have seen slow or no growth in wealth over 10 years, and the wealth gap between the Blacks and Whites has widened by over $95,000.10 Overall, wealth accumulation, measured by assets, access to capital, and education, is worsening for Blacks, making it harder for them to hold onto land.
• Black farmers and black-operated farms have virtually disappeared from the American landscape.
In 1920, Black farmers represented 97 percent of non-White farmers; by 1992, they accounted for only 43 percent.11 In 1910, 218,000 Black farmers were registered as full or part owners of 15 million acres of land.12 By 2007, 28,000 Black farmers were full or part owners of 2.9 million acres of land.13 Just between 1982 and 1997, Black farmers in the South declined by 45%.14 Moreover, Black operated farms are significantly smaller than non-black operated farms in size (104 vs. 418 acres) and sales ($134,807 vs. $21,340).15
• Discriminatory policies, practices and behaviors have contributed to Black land loss.
While it is true that the dwindling numbers of Black farmers is a reflection of the economic transformation of our society from agrarian to industrial to a service- and information-based economy, their disappearance (particularly in comparison to White farmers) cannot be totally explained by economics. The 2001 Associated Press series “Torn from the Land” documented numerous cases where Black owned lands were unfairly seized through a combination of white violence, government indifference, and corrupt attorneys. Other government policies, including restric-tive covenants, redlining, and housing discrimination, also worked to inhibit Blacks’ accumulation of wealth.16 In addition, decades of government policies that fueled urbanization and urban sprawl have eroded rural populations and communities. From 1990 to 2000, the uS experienced an overall 22% decrease in population liv-ing on farms while city populations increased by 21% and the suburbs by 4%.
• Systemic discrimination in private and government lending and exclusion from crop subsidy and conservation programs have played a major role
in keeping Black farmers at a tremendous disadvantage compared to Whites. Decades of racial discrimination by the u.S. Department of Agriculture prompt-ed Black landowners to file a class action lawsuit in the late 1990s that secured the largest civil rights settlement in u.S. history (See “Pigford v. Glickman” sidebar). When it comes to USDA crop subsidies, 90% go to growers of just five commodity crops—rice, cotton, corn, wheat and soybeans—all markets that Black farmers have traditionally been shut out of. USDA’s own research has re-vealed that the use of discriminatory tactics by its officials created the cur-rent conditions of Black farmers and their exclusion from crop programs.17 As a result, farmers of color receive only 1% of program crop farm subsidies in the uS, leaving the remaining 99% to be divided among their White coun-
8 uS Census Bureau. 2005 -2010 ACS Census Estimates
9 uSD. “Rural Poverty at a Glance” www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr100/rdrr100.pdf).
10 Shapiro, Thomas et. al. “The Racial Wealth Gap Increases Fourfold.” Institute on Assets and Social Policy. May 2010
11 Economic Research Service. “Agricultural Outlook Report.” 1998 www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/may1998/ao251d.pdf
12 Federation of Southern Cooperatives. “Data Sheet.” www.federationsoutherncoop.com/landloss.htm
13 united States Department of Agriculture. “2007 Agricultural Census.” www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99 _1_054 _054.pdf
14 u.S. Census Bureau. Data from the 1990 and 2000 Census; Wood and Gilbert, 2000, 44.
15 u.S. 2007 Census of Agriculture. “Black Farmers”
16 www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=race_wealth_and_intergenerational_poverty
17 Cook, Ken. 2007 “Short Crop: how a Widening Farm Subsidy Gap is Leaving Black Farmers Further Behind” www.ewg.org/files/agmag/Short-Crop.pdf
12 13
terparts.19 Similar patterns can be found in uSDA conservation programs. In 2002 alone, White farmers received $1.2 billion dollars in direct payments for conservation while Black farmers received only 0.2 percent of that amount.19
PIGFORD v. GLICKMANPigford v. Glickman is the largest civil rights settlement in u.S. history responding to decades of systemic discrimination that contributed to the decline of Black farms and the loss of Black–owned land. The case demonstrated that Black farmers were denied access to credit and other government assistance provided to White farmers.
In 1997 and 1998, two North Carolina farmers, Tim Pigford and Cecil Brewington, filed two separate class action racial discrimination suits (which were combined into one) on behalf of all African American farmers that suffered racial discrimination by the United States Department of Agriculture (uSDA) from 1983 to 1997.
For decades, Black farmers had complained of unfair treatment by the USDA, specifi-cally from predominantly White local county committees, which determined eligibil-ity for uSDA farm aid and loans. Black farmers contended their requests for farm aim were denied or they were forced to wait longer for payments and/or received lesser payments than similarly situated White farmers. Moreover, Black farmers complained the uSDA was unresponsive to their complaints.
Pigford I. The court approved a consent decree before the case went to trial. Eligible Black farmers had until October 12, 1999 to file a claim and 22,700 filed. Under the con-sent decree, Black farmers could select one of two tracks to receive their settlement:
Track 1: Recipients could receive a $50,000 payment and loan forgiveness. Burden of proof lower than Track 2 (most widely selected option) Track 2: Recipients could receive a higher payment, but burden of proof was higher.
Late-filers. A second deadline of September 2000 was allowed for “late-filers” fac-ing extraordinary circumstances. 58,000 “late-filers” made claims, but 55,000 did not meet the “extraordinary” criteria. An additional 25,000 “late filers” filed claims after the September 2000 deadline.
Pigford II. The 2008 Farm Bill contained a provision allowing this second group of “late filers” to have their cases heard. In February 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder and Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement for Pigford II claimants, for which the House of Representatives finalized appropria-tions in May 2010.
Pigford II recipients could select the fast track and receive a payment up to $50,000. Alternatively, they could undergo a longer, more rigorous process and receive a pay-ment up to $250,000.
Source: www.blackfarmerscase.com; Congressional Research Service, Tadlock Cowan and Jody Feder.
The Pigford Case: uSDA Settlement of a Discrimination Suit by Black Farmers. June 15, 2010).
18 Oxfam America. 2007 “”Shut Out: how uS Farm Programs Fail Minority Farmers” [http://www.oxfamamerica.org/files/shut-out.pdf ]”
19 Ibid
• The true scope of Black land loss in the US is unknown. For many, Black farmers symbolize the crisis of Black land loss, yet their plight only represents part of the problem. Less well known are the thousands of stories of other Black landowning families that have become dispossessed, or remain vulner-able to being dispossessed, of one of their families’ most valuable assets. Because the uS government only tracks privately owned land used for farming (rather than privately owned, non-farmland), the true scope of black land loss, specifically the amount of privately held, black-owned, non-farmland, is unknown, however, the 1999 Agricultural Economics and Landownership report found that there were 7.8 million acres of Black privately owned land valued at 14 billion dollars. While state-based Black land loss groups can provide estimates for their particular state, more evidence-based research is needed to track and accurately document privately held, Black-owned non-farmland throughout the united States in order to deter-mine the true scope of Black land loss.
• Black farmers still play a vital role in southern, rural communities of color. Despite their smaller numbers, Black farmers still play a vital role in many rural economies in the Black Belt South.20 Most privately held, Black-owned land (both farms and non- farmland) is located in the South. Eight southern states contain more than 1,000 Black farmers and 93% of all Black farms are located in southern states.21 While Black farmers only account for 1% of all farmers nationally, Black farmers account for 9% of farmers in the South. Five Black Belt states (Mississippi, South Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia) contain the highest percentage of Black principal farm operators.22
• The future of rural, southern Black communities remains in jeopardy. Continued Black land loss threatens a healthy, sustainable, economic future for communities in the rural South and is a bellwether for other rural communities. A viable future depends on stemming Black land loss and supporting emerging alternative uses for Black-owed land, particularly non-farm land.
• The opportunities are great. Since the 1970s, Black populations have been returning to the rural South, a re-versal of previous south-to-north Black migration patterns. Black migration to the rural South is changing the face of rural communities. Leveraging these op-portunities into a new, healthy, and sustainable economic relationship between low-income people of color and the land will require the philanthropic community to invest in effective strategies on the ground in the South, as well as in rural com-munities throughout the country.
20 Gilbert, Sharp and Felin. Decline (and Revival?) of Black Farmers and Rural Landowners. May 2001.
21 Jess Gilbert, Gwen Sharp and M. Sandy Feln. “The Decline (and Revival?) of Black Farmers and Rural Landowners: A Review of the Research Literature.” university of Wisconsin—Madison. No. 44. May 2001; Wood and Gilbert, 2000, 44.
22 Jess Gilbert, Gwen Sharp, M. Sandy Felin. Working Paper, No. 44. The Decline (and Revival?) of Black Farmers and Rural Landowners: A Review of the Research Literature. university of Wisconsin—Madison. May 2001.
14 15
FO
RD
FO
uN
DA
TIO
N IN
vE
ST
ME
NT
IN C
OL
LA
BO
RA
TIO
N
F O R D F O u N D A T I O N I N v E S T M E N T I N C O L L A B O R A T I O N
Through investment by the Ford Foundation, over two years (2008 to 2010) a cohort of southern Black Belt organizations worked collaboratively to define the problem of Black land loss, identify a core set of strategies, suggest preliminary indicators of suc-cess with examples from ongoing work, and plan next steps to strengthen the relation-ship between rural Black landowners, policy, sustainability and wealth building. This reports shares the results of their efforts.
Together, the Ford Black land loss grantees represent a diverse cross-section of the Black land loss prevention field operating in the South. Their work falls into four basic categories:
• building community capacity • providing technical support and legal services • generating research and policy development • promoting new models of sustainable economic development
Individuals from these 16 organizations and/or institutions participated in the collaboration:
• Black Belt Community Foundation• Black Family Land Trust• Center for Social Inclusion• Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation• Community Based Land Development Consortium• Community Investment Network• Faith Partnerships• Farmers Legal Action Group• Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund• Foundation for the Mid-South• Greater New Orleans Foundation• Land Loss Prevention Project• North Carolina Department of Agriculture• Southern Echo• Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education• The Conservation Fund
Over the two-year period of the project, several conference calls and four in-person meetings (in Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and Georgia) provided these grantees the opportunity to come together, network, and strategize, to vet the most significant contributors to Black land loss, highlight effective approaches, discuss the more promis-ing solutions, identify desired strategies, and suggest short-term indicators of success.
Center for Social Inclusion (CSI). The Ford Foundation funded the Center for Social Inclusion (CSI) to document Ford Black land loss grantees’ work, provide critical tech-nical assistance, facilitate their collaboration, and support strategy development. CSI is a national organization that unites public policy research and grassroots advocacy to transform structural inequity and exclusion into structural fairness and inclusion. CSI works with community groups and national organizations to develop policy ideas, foster effective leadership, and develop communications tools for an opportunity-rich
world in which we all thrive. During the grant period, CSI coordinated the convenings and calls, and conducted numerous interviews. CSI also played a major role in facilitat-ing the discussions among the grantees, which led to the development of a set of core strategies and preliminary short-term indicators.
16 17
CA
uS
ES
OF
CO
NT
INu
ED
BL
AC
K L
AN
D L
OS
S
C A u S E S O F C O N T I N u E D B L A C K L A N D L O S S
In addition to the policies and practices described earlier that contribute to Black land loss, grantees pointed to the following as primary contemporary causes:
• Heirs’ property. Heirs’ property is a form of land ownership common in rural, southern African American communities that makes land management complicated and properties vulnerable to exploitation and loss.
• Lack of estate planning. For various reasons, many Black families lack estate planning. African Americans possess fewer assets in general, but even those who have significant assets are less likely to possess a will. Approximately, 60% of Black Americans lack an estate plan.23
• Lack of legal counsel. Clearing the title on heirs’ property can be a lengthy process, requiring time and access to financial resources. Low-income Black families are less likely to have ac-cess to legal counsel, particularly attorneys who are knowledgeable of the com-plexities of heirs’ property law.
• Involuntary/partition sales. Under heirs’ property ownership, land is divided equally among surviving heirs and one landowning heir can force a sale of the families’ entire parcel of land—without the consent of the other surviving heirs. This forced sale allows unscrupulous indi-viduals to buy the land at a fraction of its true value. unpaid taxes also can result in state courts ordering an involuntary sale of heirs’ property.
23 Pennick. “African-American Land Retention, Acquisition and Sustainable Development.” p. 9.
WHAT IS HEIRS’ PROPERTy?Heirs’ property describes land that is held collectively by the surviving family members after the original landowner has died without a will or a probated, valid will. The land is distributed according to state laws of descent and distribution. Under heirs’ property, the deed to the land is registered in the name of the deceased, original landowner. All family members own the land as “tenants in common” with each heir having an equal undivided share.
With each subsequent generation, as the number of heirs increases, the original land plot is divided over and over, and land plots become smaller and smaller. No single heir possesses clear title to the entire land plot. Over time, heirs can number in the hun-dreds, and heirs may not know each other or work on the land. Nationally, the exact amount of heirs’ property is unclear. A single Alabama county contained an estimated 771 parcels of heirs’ property, valued at $310 million.
When their land is designated as heirs’ property, low-income Black families are more likely to lose their land and lose eligibility for government assistance. Lack of a clear ti-tle means that landowning heirs are ineligible for state and federal housing land grants, and cannot access their property’s equity. Following Hurricane Katrina, for example, 25,000 families (of 185,000 eligible for assistance) were initially unable to access the federal government’s rebuilding program due to heirs’ property.
(See: Website. Center for Heirs Property Preservation. http://www.heirsproperty.org Proposal. Conner Beily,
Patrick Kennealy and Janice Dyer. “Heir Property and Land Loss: Addressing Problems Affecting Rural and
Community Economic Development in Alabama.” Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station—Auburn univer-
sity. 2007; Website. Craig H. Baab. Heir Property Ownership: An Untapped Asset for Low-Wealth Americans
and Local Government. American Bar Association.
18 19
Ou
TC
OM
ES
OF
CO
LL
AB
OR
AT
ION
O u T C O M E S O F C O L L A B O R A T I O N
Through the collaboration, Ford grantees identified two over-arching long-term goals or desired outcomes: preventing further Black land loss and cultivating Black-owned assets. They also developed a set of interim goals or outcomes, which would give the Black land loss field greater collective impact. These include: strengthening relation-ships among Black land loss prevention advocates and with community asset build-ing advocates, enabling others to understand the work the field is doing and its im-pact on African American land loss and wealth building, and determining strategic entry points and common places of intersection and opportunity. Further, grantees devised a core set of seven strategies to achieve their ultimate goal of preventing further Black land loss and increasing and sustaining wealth-building opportunities among southern, rural African American communities. The strategies which comprise a framework to further their work collectively, are:
• supporting sustainable enterprise• gaining access to legal support• coordinating policy development • developing an educated community • cultivating financial/resource development • strengthening leadership development• building infrastructure Grantees created a visual representation of the seven strategies, which they named a “Mixed Method Relationships Diagram” (Figure 1).
23 Pennick. “African-American Land Retention, Acquisition and Sustainable Development.” p. 9.
Mixed Method Relationships Diagram (Figure 1)
T h E S E v E N S T R A T E G I E S
SuPPORTING SuSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE Grantees believed that early traction and the greatest momentum exist for develop-ing sustainable enterprise. They discussed the importance of supporting place-based models of farming as well as non-farming examples of sustainable enterprise. If proper-ly resourced, sustainable enterprise could serve as an anchor to complement the other strategies. Fundamentally, land that yields income from sustainable usage can stem land loss.
One example highlighted by grantees is the story of Joe Thompson, a Black farmer in North Carolina who used to grow tobacco, but was unable to earn a living as he faced smaller markets and greater competition. Today, Thompson owns one of eight prawn farms in the Southeast and earns a higher profit margin per acre. With the help of the Black Family Land Trust, Thompson received a conservation easement from the State of North Carolina (See “What is a Conservation Easement?” sidebar), which allowed him to protect his livelihood, the rural character of his county, and the environment. Thompson’s success offers a model for other Black farmers with access to the uSDA conservation easement program, and it demonstrates how farmers with appropriate resources can adopt alternative farming practices and tie their products to current demand. Recognizing that the majority of Black landowners do not want to farm or work the land but still want to retain it as a family asset, grantees also explored non-farming strategies to generate income and promote asset development for Black communi-ties. One promising avenue is ecotourism. An example comes from McIntosh County Sustainable Environment and Economic Development (McIntosh SEED), a commu-nity organization in Georgia that offers a two-hour guided tour weaving together songs, stories, crafts and culture.
Another important option is energy development either through planting crops for biofuels or creating solar or wind farms. (See the discussion of building infrastructure on page 22)
WhAT IS A CONSERvATION EASEMENT?A conservation easement is a legal agreement aimed at protecting natural, cultural, and productive uses of land. The legal document is voluntarily made by the landowner and details how the land may continue to be used for cultivation. however, conserva-tion easements restrict the use of land for real estate or industrial development. Con-servation easements are permanently tied to the land and are continued when the land is sold or passed to an heir. Non-profits and government agencies often regulate and enforce easements.
Conservation easements are beneficial as they:• Support a landowner’s ability to keep the land • Cultivate management decision-making processes by the landowner, who is able to create and tailor easements to fit within his/her needs and resources• Reduce income and estate taxes as conservation easements can be classified as a charitable donation• Are permanent, thus allowing the land to remain undeveloped by industrial or other real estate practices
BLACk LAnD LOSS
PREvEnTIOn ADvOCATES
ACCESS TO LEGAL SuPPORT
INFRASTRuCTuRE BuILDING
SuSTAINABLE ENTERPRISE
LEADERShIP BuILDING
FINANCIAL/ RESOuRCE
DEvELOPMENT
COORDINATED POLICY
DEvELOPMENT
EDuCATED COMMuNITY
20 21
North Carolina is well known for its conservation easement program. There are 25 members of the Conservation Trust for North Carolina, including the Black Family Land Trust (BFLT), a participant in the Ford-supported collaborative project.
For more information regarding conservation easements, please see: Black Family Land Trust (http://www.
bflt.org/pdfs/conservation.pdf), Conservation Trust for North Carolina
G A I N I N G A C C E S S T O L E G A L S u P P O R TGrantees identified Black landowners’ lack of legal access as a major contributor to Black land loss.The Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition (hPRC), which includes the Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation, Black Family Land Trust, The Federation of Southern Cooperatives, Alabama Appleseed, Georgia Appleseed, and Land Loss Pre-vention Project (all of which are Ford grantees and/or were invited to participate in the convenings) has been working to address the significant deficiencies in state statutes that force partition sales and accelerate the rate of involuntary dispossession of heirs’ property owners, particularly African Americans.24 Grantees believe legislative reform of heirs’ property statutes can serve as an ideal opportunity to engage legal profession-als in the Black Belt states to offer more services to Black landowners and the Black land loss prevention field. While estate planning and paralegals are important combatants in preventing Black land loss, a stronger field of networked legal professionals and their allies could provide more streamlined access to legal services to vulnerable Southern communities of color.
C O O R D I N A T E D P O L I C Y D E v E L O P M E N TFord grantees discussed the need for policy advocacy on critical issues related to Black land loss. After their first meeting in Memphis in 2009, they formed a sub-group to address immediate issues surrounding pending foreclosures against litigants in Pigford v. Glickman. In the short term, grantees submitted information requests and policy recommendations to the Farm Service Agency (FSA). They also coordinated with the Farmers Legal Action Group (FLAG) and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC)to write a policy letter. Their specific policy recommendations called for a moratorium on pending foreclosures and formalized notification of Black farmers on their options for reorganization, homestead, transfer, and assumption. Grantees discussed longer-term strategy to ensure that Black farmers in the Pigford lawsuit do not lose their farms as they await their long overdue settlement payments from the federal government.
hPRC worked on a state-level policy solution, which led the American Bar Association’s Property Preservation Task Force to submit a proposal to the National Conference of Commissioners on uniform State Laws (NCCuSL). The proposal provides states with language to insert into their own laws on issues of tenancy-in-common land ownership and protection of vulnerable landowners.25
D E v E L O P I N G A N E D u C A T E D C O M M u N I T Y
As one grantee noted, “If we do not educate the community, we will be in the same place 10 years from now.” Grantees recommended developing a comprehensive educa-tion program targeting Black families.
Financial education is a critical component that can help families hold on to their land
and develop it as a wealth-building asset. The Foundation for the Mid South has sup-ported programs that provide financial skills instruction and practice along with Indi-vidual Development Accounts (IDAs.) The IDAs match low-income participants’ savings that can be used to buy or refurbish a home or start a small business.
The Black church has also proved to be a valuable venue for community education ef-forts. For example, Stanley Moore, who chairs the Land Stewardship committee of the Alabama NAACP, has enlisted churches to serve as mediators in family land disputes. Realizing the many obstacles to estate planning and clearing title on property, Moore illustrates how clergy can become part of a successful education campaign. Similarly, for Diana Jones-Wilson of Faith Partnerships in North Carolina, the faith-based community not only serves in mediating land disputes among family members, but also plays a cen-tral role in interceding on behalf of the community with elected officials and developers.
Educating not only Black landowners, but other stakeholders involved in land-related decisions, is absolutely critical to preventing further Black land loss. Grantees offered a working definition of an educated community: one where all of the players involved in the production, distribution, and consumption of land are informed of the issues and opportunities to stem Black land loss. Potential players would include tax assessors, bankers, local elected officials, grocery stores, lawyers, judges, farmers, and other re-lated institutions, such as schools, hospitals and churches. An educated community would also include the conservation community and engage them in an effective dia-logue on structural racism. This could give the Black land loss field an opportunity to tap into a new generation of young leaders.
C U L T I V A T I N G F I N A N C I A L / R E S O U R C E D E v E L O P M E N T
Securing adequate financial and other types of resources is critical to the sustainability of farmers and of the land loss prevention field. Grantees discussed their perception of a decline in foundation support of rural philanthropy and their concerns about future funding. The loss of funding has already negatively impacted the Black land loss pre-vention field with the Southern Rural Development Initiative (SRDI) closing its doors in February 2009. Formed in the 1990s, SRDI’s purpose was to generate more philan-thropic and federal dollars for community-based rural development. It helped commu-nities identify local philanthropic potential through a “philanthropy index” and federal rural funding through its “federal funds tool.” The Ford grantee cohort, which included the now defunct SRDI, has felt the exit of its funding and has been working to develop a joint funding proposal to link organizations and the field in a sustainable way.
Access to capital and financial support are important for enabling small farmers and rural entrepreneurs to incorporate innovations in technologies, equipment, and cul-tivating techniques. These inputs can enable farmers to utilize technological innova-tions to market their produce and access wider markets, improve crop yields, and act as a hedge against inclement weather. however, most Black and other limited-resource farmers have been excluded from crop subsidy and other farm support programs that are biased toward larger farms. This results in accelerated loss of farmland, or equally important, farm land removed from production because farmers must pursue wage work in order to make a living.
It is essential that the next federal farm bill include a major increase in programs tar-
24 Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition. “hPRC Projects.” www.southerncoalition.org/hprc/?q=node/3.
25 Central Alabama Fair housing Center. “Letter to Thomas Mitchell Regarding NCCuSL Drafting Committee on Partition of Tenancy-in-Common Real Property Act.” 2008. www.law.upenn.edu/bll/archives/ulc/utcpa/2008feb22_heirs.htm
22 23
geted to Black, other minority, and limited resource farmers. In addition, the uSDA’s Census of Agriculture consistently undercounts farmers of color, which makes tracking participation rates difficult. Reforms are needed in order to produce more reliable data that can shed greater light on the circumstance and needs of Black farmers.
S T R E N G T h E N I N G L E A D E R S h I P D E v E L O P M E N T
Grantees identified cultivating leadership among the younger generation as an impor-tant strategy to ensure the sustainability of the Black land loss prevention movement. The Community Investment Network (CIN) offers one model to intentionally promote younger leadership. CIN is an umbrella organization for 12 “giving circles” which are collectives that strategically invest “their time, talents, and treasures” into their com-munities in order to address racial and economic inequities. CIN focuses on emerging young leaders whose insights and financial contributions the philanthropic community has largely overlooked. Through CIN, more leaders are engaging in social change issues and discovering how to use current narratives to impact historical challenges.
LEADERShIP DEvELOPMENT AND CAPACITY BuILDING ThROuGh REGRANTINGFord Foundation grantee Southern Echo re-granted to 20 organizations in Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina, maximizing its reach by providing sub-grantees with technical support on how to engage the community. All of South-ern Echo’s sub-grantees are brought together annually in a networking conference. The conference provides a space and an opportunity for the sub-grantees to share their work, experiences, successes, and challenges and to learn best practices through Echo’s peer-to-peer learning model. Sub-grantees also connect with government of-ficials about programs related to agriculture, natural resources, environment, and land use. In addition, the sub-grantees are provided a travel grant, which allows them to travel to other peer sites and to attend conferences to maximize their learning and share their expertise.
B u I L D I N G I N F R A S T R u C T u R E
Creating a sustainable economy around African American land will require investments in infrastructure. Attention to emerging energy opportunities, investments in roads, Broadband build-out, and smart development of water and sewage is paramount to extending opportunities for productive land usage.
Emerging opportunities in the energy sector suggest that Black landowners could play a significant role, but they have been largely ignored as critical contributors. Energy Democracy, a CSI white paper, introduces a policy framework to promote small-scale, locally owned and/or controlled renewable energy projects “to be structured to allow local investment, sweat equity, and a transparent process for setting fair prices.”26 The white paper calls for an intervention on behalf of low wealth communities of color to in-clude them in this transformative opportunity. Effective policies and strategies should be flexible and pay attention to context, as a “one-size-fits-all” model does not work. This was evident with the release of federal stimulus grants, which many African Ameri-can led organizations lacked the capacity to access and manage.
S H A R E D O U T P U T S A N D S H O R T - T E R M I N D I C A T O R S
For most of the strategies described above, grantees developed a set of short-term in-dicators of success, which appear in Appendix B, along with examples of current and planned work to meet those goals.
26 Report. Center for Social Inclusion. “Energy Democracy: community scale, green energy solutions.” 2010.
24 25
EM
ER
GIN
G O
PP
OR
Tu
NIT
IES
E M E R G I N G O P P O R T u N I T I E S
Grantees discussed three immediate target areas of focus (modeling a state statue on heirs property, preventing foreclosures of Black-owned farms, and developing a revolv-ing loan fund for Black land loss grantees). Two additional opportunities (Program Re-lated Investments/Mission-Driven Investments and investment in alternative sustain-able development models) are avenues CSI believes are important to further the work.
• Modeling a State Statute on Heirs’ Property. Given that grantees identified heirs’ property as one of the major causes of black land loss, a model state statute could serve as the basis of a broader political and education campaign to engage communities of color as well as the legal profes-sion. The Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition (hPRC), which includes Ford Black loss grantees, has worked to address the significant deficiencies in state statutes that force partition sales and accelerate the rate of involuntary dispossession of heirs’ property owners.27 Their work led to the uniform Partition of heirs Proper-ty Act, which was approved by National Conference of Commissioners of uniform State Laws, endorsed by the American Bar Association, and as of March 2011 was being considered by seven states. Because Black Belt states are not guaranteed to adopt this proposed legislation, a lot of organizing, education, and advocacy will be needed.
• Preventing Foreclosures of Black-owned Farms. Black land loss grantees formed a sub-group to address the immediate issues sur-rounding pending foreclosures against litigants in Pigford v. Glickman. (Note: At the time, the u.S. Congress had not yet appropriated the $1.15 billion settlement for Black farmers in the Pigford II case—which occurred in May 2010).
• Creating a Revolving Loan Fund. Grantees extensively discussed and recommended a revolving loan fund to assist Black landowners. Within the cohort, two separate revolving loan fund proposals existed, one by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC), the other a joint proposal by the Black Family Land Trust, Land Loss Prevention Project, and the Conservation Fund.28 In January 2010, grantees agreed to pursue developing a uni-fied revolving loan fund proposal.
• Program Related Investment (PRI) and Mission Driven Investment (MDI). Grantees discussed the possibility of using PRIs as a potential source of low-in-terest loans. As a result, CSI circulated two revolving fund proposals developed by Ford Black land loss grantees to foundation program officers. While interested, they recommended both proposals should be revised to include additional finan-cial information and the logistics of managing the revolving fund. This example indicates that PRI (and MDI) merit further consideration. Several national founda-tions already have used them as mechanisms to fulfill their missions. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Program Officer Jocelyn Sargent believes PRIs are a very promising avenue for Black land loss grantees to pursue for funding, particularly if the PRI proposal is linked to a foundation’s priorities and mission, such as increased access to fresh fruits and vegetables for children and pregnant mothers through farm-ers’ markets. Black farmers, she indicated, could play a critical role in fulfilling this need, particularly in the South, where access to fresh produce can be more difficult for low-income communities of color.29
27 Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition. “hPRC Projects.” www.southerncoalition.org/hprc/?q=node/3.
28 The revolving loan fund model was partly based on a proposal by the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Loan Assistance Fund. See Pennick. African-American Land Retention, Acquisition and Sustainable Development.”
29 Interview. Jocelyn Sargent. Program Officer. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. September 2010.
• Investing in Sustainable Models. Grantees expressed interest in seeking alternative models for land use. In these discussions investment in Broadband and renewable energy generation came to the fore. Broadband is seen as essential for farmers to remain competitive actors in farming by streamlining orders, finding lower prices for goods, and even em-ploying mobile sensors to track pest infiltration of crops. Farmers who are facing economic troubles with food production can use their land as a resource to create energy through wind farms, solar fields, or biofuels. Energy could be supplied to the national grid or Black farmers can be hubs for localized energy distribution within the rural community. Both Broadband and energy production contribute to sustainable options for land use.
26 27
PO
TE
NT
IAL
CO
NC
ER
NS
P O T E N T I A L C O N C E R N S
Grantees discussed three immediate target areas of focus (modeling a state statue on heirs property, preventing foreclosures of Black-owned farms, and developing a revolv-ing loan fund for Black land loss grantees). Two additional opportunities (Program Re-lated Investments/Mission-Driven Investments and investment in alternative sustain-able development models) are avenues CSI believes are important to further the work.
• Decline of Rural Philanthropy. Grantees perceived a decline in funding by national foundations for rural issues and were concerned about how it would impact funding for the Black land loss field. Their perceptions are supported by existing data showing that a significant funding gap exists for rural philanthropy. In 2004, rural development only received $100.5 million of $30 billion in uS foundation grants.30 Black land loss grantees’ concerns were also shared by the rural philanthropic and non-profit sector. In 2010, the Council on Foundations planned to encourage the uSDA to provide challenge and capacity building grants to community foundations.31 The organizational re-structuring and shift in priorities of several national foundations have fueled Black land loss advocates’ fears that national foundations are abandoning rural America, and from their perspective, few alternative funding sources exist. They believe that community foundations in the south cannot serve as a viable alternative for resourcing this work because they are less likely to fund social justice work. While national foundations have reduced funding for rural initiatives, grantees’ argued the need is greater than ever for the Black land loss field in order to hire more at-torneys, offer educational programs, and engage in the policy development and advocacy process.
• Integration of Black land loss “prevention” and “asset development” fields. Black land loss grantees are a wide array of organizations with related, but differ-ent, priorities and agendas. As several grantees noted, the cohort included Black land loss prevention groups, which primarily consisted of Black farmers’ organiza-tions whose members tend to be older; Black land asset development groups who were not as closely tied to farming and tended to be younger; and combinations of the two. While the former group emphasized the priority of immediate aid to Black farmers, the latter group tended to focus more on land asset development, which may or may not involve farming. Overall, grantees mentioned the need for better integration between the different types of advocates concerned with Black land loss.
30 Press release. National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. “Rural Advocates Challenge Foundation Leaders to Give More and Give Equitably.” May 18, 2004.
31 Council on Foundations. 2010 Legislative Agenda for Philanthropic Growth. www.cof.org/files/Bamboo/programsandservices/publicpolicy/documents/2010legagenda.pdf
B R O A D E R C O N S I D E R A T I O N S
The convenings provided opportunities for grantees to reflect on the assumptions un-derlying their work, as well as broader issues. For example, what exactly is sustainabili-ty? If black-owned lands are not generating income, will they always remain vulnerable? Below is a sampling of broader considerations grantees explored:
• Wealth and asset building for communities of color. What is the relationship of access to capital to Black land loss? Grantees discussed whether access to financial capital is essential for preventing Black land loss. They determined that it is necessary but insufficient to building Black wealth. Creating wealth from land also requires human capital, equipment and technology, access to markets, financial literacy, and information on government programs.
• Redefining land ownership. New models of landownership, specifically shared and community models, have received attention from foundations and from several Black land loss grantees. Tuskegee university and the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, members of the Southern Regional Asset Building Coalition, attended regional conferences in Mississippi and Florida to promote policy and program development for asset ownership, protection, and preservation. Also, the Annie E Casey Foundation is-sued its report “Expanding Asset-Building Opportunities Through Shared Owner-ship”, which highlights how the typical individual ownership of assets is not the only possibility for wealth building. It describes how the Black Family Land Trust (BFLT) is using conservation easements to protect wetlands and develop afford-able housing at the same time.
• Amending traditional property appraisal methods. Lending institutions require appraisals to determine property values. For exam-ple, Fannie Mae tracks comparables and considers neighborhood factors such as location, growth and market conditions. But traditional methods of property ap-praisal can devalue properties in low-wealth communities of color by overlooking property improvements that increase its value. For example, Fannie Mae does not consider property-enhancing improvements such as composting, rainwater catch-ment systems, backyard gardens and small energy production. Including these in the property appraisal formula could benefit individual low-income homeowners and the community as a whole. Traditional property appraisal methods should be adapted to include a sustainable usage appraisal section, which would positively consider any improvements that could be clearly linked to increased sustainability. Traditional property appraisal methods underscore how race neutral methods can contribute to racially biased results.33
• Regional Black land loss legal action group. Should the Black land loss field consider establishing a regional Black legal action group to serve as a central portal for issues of Black land loss? If so, Farmers Legal Action Group (FLAG) could serve as a possible prototype. Since 1986, FLAG has provided legal services to family farmers and their rural communities in order to keep family farmers on the land. As a non-profit law center, FLAG has undertaken critical legal legwork on the Farm Bill and farm foreclosures, and provided leader-ship in litigation on behalf of farmers. The model presented by FLAG could eas-ily be translated to a regional level. Similar to FLAG, a regional legal action group could provide comprehensive legal services, conduct and promote educational
33 Fannie Mae. “Small Residential Income Property Appraisal Report.” March 2005.
BR
OA
DE
R C
ON
SID
ER
AT
ION
S
28 29
seminars with its partners, coordinate a regional mediation network for families, advance state and federal policy strategies, and connect individual legal actions to a broader litigation strategy.
C O N C L u S I O N
Preventing Black land loss and cultivating Black community assets are complex issues. Grantees appreciated and welcomed the opportunity to further explore a range of criti-cal concerns with fellow advocates. They felt energized by learning more about the work and strategies of their peers. Despite different priorities, agendas, and needs of their respective organizations, the participants found that the convenings provided a space for reflection and deeper discussions. They were able to come together to network, brainstorm, disagree, strategize, and ultimately forge a collective set of core solutions to advance their work. They developed indicators of success and found examples from the field. While grantees realized the challenge of sustainability and the decline of rural philanthropy, they also explored alternative means to move forward. They came to-gether to “regain their ground” by preventing further Black land loss and cultivating asset development in southern Black communities.
CO
NC
Lu
SIO
N
30 31
AP
PE
ND
Ix A
A P P E N D I x A : P A R T I C I P A N T S L I S T
Lillian Alexander Black Family Land Trust
Calvin Allen The Conservation Fund
Craig Babb Alabama Appleseed, Heirs’ Property
Crystal Baker Georgia Appleseed, Heirs’ Property
Byron Baldwin Community Investment Network
Marco Cocito-Monoc Greater New Orleans Foundation
James Ford Community Based Land Development Consortium
Archie hart North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Lynne hayes Farmers Legal Action Group
Savi horne Land Loss Prevention Project
Brenda hyde Southern Echo
Necole Irvin Foundation for the Mid-South
Joseph James* The Corporation for Economic Opportunity
Felicia Jones Black Belt Community Foundation
Ellen Lee Greater New Orleans Foundation
Alan McGregor Formerly of Southern Rural Development Initiative
Michelle Serrano Mills Community Investment Network
Stanley Moore Tuskegee volunteer Power Corporation
Jerry Pennick Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund
Denis Rhoden Center for Social Inclusion
Mikki Sager The Conservation Fund
Dickey Selmon Southern Echo
Dannette Sharpley Black Family Land Trust
Ashley Shelton* Louisiana Disaster and Recovery Foundation
Mikhiela Sherrod Southwest Georgia Project for Community Education
Jennie Stephens Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation
Joshua Walden Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation
Cassandra Welchlin Center for Social Inclusion
Maya Wiley Center for Social Inclusion
Diana Wilson Faith Partnerships
hollis Watkins Southern Echo
Robert Zabawa Tuskegee university
* Interviewed only.
AP
PE
ND
Ix A
A P P E N D I x B : S h A R E D O u T P u T S A N D S h O R T - T E R M I N D I C A T O R S M E T R I C *
*Short-term indicators were
not developed for Sustainable
Enterprise (Output #7).
Increased awareness among African-American landowners on available options (and how to use them) to preserve their land
Increased use of land conservation strategies by Black land loss prevention organizations Increased number of African American communities and organizations that create conservation and forestry plans with community input
Increased number of African Americans engaged in land loss prevention
Increased number of institutions and organizations supporting Black land loss prevention efforts Increased engagement of the faith-based community in Black land loss prevention
Black Family Land Trust has partnered with the North Carolina Conservation Service to increase access for African American farmers to uSDA conservation easements in three North Carolina cities: Sandyfield, Henderson, and Cedar Grove.
Federation of Southern Cooperatives (FSC) es-tablished the Silvo Pasture training site, the Epps Center, and a forest management program.
NGAP Giving Circle donated money for the clean-up of contaminated water to the West End Revitalization Organization, which subse-quently testified before Congress and produced a report.
Alabama Appleseed, Tuskegee university, and FSC partnered on extension service presentations in 50 counties on heirs’ property ownership.
Center for Heirs’ Property Preservation (CHPP) estate planning (will clinics, including free draft-ing of wills and probating estates) provided in six South Carolina coastal counties.
ChPP held a training in the Gettysville commu-nity where 35-40 identified community leaders learned to train the community.
FSC held a youth training forestry program and has an ongoing sustainable agriculture program.
Tuskegee university, FSC and Appleseed part-nered with the Alabama NAACP to discuss decep-tive techniques contributing to black land loss.
ChPP planning seminar considered a Black church-led strategy. North Carolina Bishops considering scheduling land informational meetings on state ease-ment work.
SHORT-TERM INDICATORS EXAMPLES (CURRENT AND FUTURE) FROM BLACK LAND LOSS FIELD
OUTPUT #1: EDUCATED COMMUNITy
32 33
*Short-term indicators were
not developed for Sustainable
Enterprise (Output #7).
Developed cadre of trained, culturally competent, and committed full-time lawyers who provide land-related legal assistance
Trained cadre of other legal professionals (paralegals, law students) to provide land-related legal assistance
AL Appleseed, FSC, Land Loss Prevention Center, and the Black Family Land Trust have developed training manuals.
ChPP is working with Charleston School of Law to present a continuing legal education (CLE) program on heirs’ property that includes cultural competency.
AL Appleseed has 3-4 accredited CLE trainings across the state.
Southern university and FSC have a direct legal assistance program.
SHORT-TERM INDICATORS EXAMPLES (CURRENT AND FUTURE) FROM BLACK LAND LOSS FIELD
OUTPUT #2: ACCESS TO LEGAL SUPPORT
Offered recommendations to the 2012 Farm Bill
Offered recommendations to uSDA on foreclosed farms
Developed overall, coordinated policy agenda that connects work on Black farmers, Heirs’ Property, Development, Sustainable usage and Asset Building
Drafted model state legislation on heirs’ property
FSC issued white paper on the Southern Region Asset Building Coalition.
FSC provided training on the 2012 Farm Bill.
Several Ford grantees participated in a consortium of groups in conversations with the uSDA on ending foreclosures.
Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition developed and circulated draft legislation on uniform Partition of heirs Property, which has been approved by the uniform Law Commission and endorsed by the ABA.
OUTPUT #3: COORDINATED POLICy DEvELOPMENT
*Short-term indicators were
not developed for Sustainable
Enterprise (Output #7).
Established joint planning for funding to support a culture of abundance rather than scarcity and competition
Accessed conservation dollars and resources
Increased funding from operating support grants
Black land loss organizations receive funding through the Ford Presidential Award.
FSC and Tuskegee university participated in Southern Regional Asset Building Coalition.
Develop “giving circles” and collective giving models.
Establish a revolving loan fund under a non-profit umbrella.
Funding of Appleseed centers across the region for Heirs’ Property work.
Heirs’ Property Retention Coalition is considering whether to seek joint funding.
Identify intermediaries to develop the capacities of Black land loss organizations in basic principles of management.
NC State has gotten more farmers into cost-sharing programs, a 3-year process that includes certification and transitioning land.
SHORT-TERM INDICATORS EXAMPLES (CURRENT AND FUTURE) FROM BLACK LAND LOSS FIELD
OUTPUT #4: FINANCIAL/RESOURCE DEvELOPMENT
Increased involvement of youth
Increased influence through sitting at the table on boards and local uSDA offices
Promotion of cross regional work, including outside of the South
Plan to address uSDA turnover and lack of new leadership
Southern Echo’s grantees have engaged youth in farming and training.
AL Appleseed set up pro bono attorneys to compare uniform Law in 22 states.
FSC worked in urban centers to identify Heirs’ Property for sales.
ChPP communicates constantly with heirs across the country to mediate.
Work and passage of Farm Bill and Pigford advocacy across the region over last two years.
Efforts with administration to appoint Southern Blacks in key positions (SC, AL, LA, GA, MS).
OUTPUT #5: LEADERSHIP BUILDInG
34 35
Increased building of the technical infrastructure
SHORT-TERM INDICATORS EXAMPLES (CURRENT AND FUTURE) FROM BLACK LAND LOSS FIELD
OUTPUT #6: INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDINg
36
The Center for Social Inclusion works to unite public policy research and grassroots advocacy to transform structural inequality and exclusion into fairness and inclusion for all. We work with community groups and national organizations to develop policy ideas, foster effective leadership, and develop communications tools for an opportunity-rich world in which we all will thrive.
The Center for Social Inclusion65 Broadway, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10006
(212) 248-2785www.centerforsocialinclusion.org
© 2010 Center for Social Inclusion. Creative: Tronvig Group.
