Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Farm Security Administration

The Farm Security Administration (FSA) was a New Deal agency created in 1937 within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, succeeding the Resettlement Administration established two years earlier, to deliver supervised credit, debt adjustment, and limited resettlement to farm families devastated by the Great Depression's agricultural collapse, including tenant farmers, sharecroppers, and migrants displaced by factors such as the Dust Bowl.^[1]^[2] Through programs offering low-interest rehabilitation loans and technical guidance, the FSA assisted approximately 47,000 families in purchasing land via tenant purchase loans and provided supplemental aid to over 100,000 others, yielding measurable improvements for participants such as a 69 percent rise in family incomes and substantial increases in per capita meat and milk consumption between 1937 and 1941.^[1]^[3] The agency also fostered cooperatives, medical care, and education for rural poor, though its reach was constrained, affecting only a small portion of the millions in need, and resettlement efforts proved costly with mixed outcomes.^[1] Critics, including conservative politicians and farm organizations, assailed the FSA for promoting government dependency and resembling socialist collectivism, leading to its reorganization into the Farmers Home Administration in 1946.^[4]^[1] A defining feature was its Historical Section's photography initiative, directed by Roy Stryker, which generated over 164,000 images depicting rural hardship and resilience, serving both to justify relief expenditures and to create an enduring visual archive of 1930s America.^[2]

Origins and Establishment

Agricultural and Economic Context

In the 1920s, U.S. agriculture faced chronic overproduction following the post-World War I recovery of European farming, which reduced demand for American exports and caused commodity prices to plummet from their wartime peaks.^[5] Farmers, having expanded operations and incurred substantial debt during the high-price years of 1915–1920 to purchase land and equipment, responded to falling prices by increasing output to cover fixed costs, exacerbating surpluses and further depressing incomes, which dropped from approximately $22 billion in 1919 to $13 billion by 1929.^[6] This cycle of debt accumulation left many operators, particularly smaller holders, vulnerable as real interest rates spiked and land values declined.^[7] The Great Depression intensified these pressures starting in 1929, with farm product prices collapsing amid broader economic contraction, while the Dust Bowl—severe droughts combined with poor land management practices in the Great Plains from 1930 onward—devastated soil fertility and crop yields, displacing hundreds of thousands of tenant farmers and sharecroppers who lacked ownership stakes or reserves to endure the environmental and market shocks.^[8] Foreclosure rates surged, peaking at over 200,000 farms lost in 1933 alone, with higher incidences in Plains states where submarginal lands had been overcultivated.^[9] Nearly half a million people, many tenant farmers, migrated from areas like Oklahoma as dust storms rendered farms untenable and low prices eliminated profitability.^[10] Prior New Deal interventions, such as the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), aimed to stabilize prices through production controls and subsidies but disproportionately benefited larger landowners who received payments for reducing acreage, often at the expense of tenants and sharecroppers evicted to consolidate benefits and minimize labor shares.^[11] This policy distortion widened disparities for marginal operators, as smallholders and non-owners rarely qualified for direct aid, prompting the need for targeted relief mechanisms to address rural poverty beyond mere price supports.^[12] By 1935, widespread farm distress and policy shortcomings underscored the requirement for programs focused on rehabilitating indebted small-scale producers rather than solely aiding commercial agriculture.^[1]

Legislative Creation and Predecessors

The Resettlement Administration (RA) was established on April 30, 1935, by Executive Order 7027 issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which created an independent agency under the administration of Under Secretary of Agriculture Rexford G. Tugwell to address rural poverty through rehabilitation, relief in distressed agricultural areas, and resettlement of low-income families from both rural and urban settings.^[13] The RA absorbed land acquisition and development programs previously managed by the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, emphasizing experimental projects such as subsistence homesteads and planned communities aimed at relocating Dust Bowl migrants and providing self-sustaining farmsteads.^[14] These initiatives drew from earlier New Deal efforts like the Subsistence Homesteads Division but expanded under the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935, which allocated substantial funds—totaling over $4 billion overall—for broad relief, though RA-specific expenditures focused on pilot resettlements that often proved costly and administratively challenging.^[15] Criticism of the RA mounted in Congress, particularly from conservative members who viewed its resettlement experiments as inefficient, overly centralized, and verging on social engineering, prompting calls to integrate its functions into the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a narrower mandate centered on financial assistance rather than communal relocation.^[4] This reflected broader congressional skepticism toward independent New Deal agencies, leading to the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, introduced in January 1937 by Senator John H. Bankhead Jr. and Representative Marvin Jones, which passed both houses and was signed into law by President Roosevelt on July 22, 1937 (Public Law 75-210).^[16] The act formally created the Farm Security Administration (FSA) as a USDA agency, effectively absorbing and reorienting the RA's ongoing programs toward promoting farm ownership through supervised credit, while curtailing expansive resettlement in favor of targeted loans for tenant purchases and rehabilitation to foster individual self-sufficiency.^[17] The Bankhead-Jones Act authorized the creation of the Farmers' Home Corporation to manage long-term loans, with initial appropriations starting at $10 million for fiscal year 1938, escalating to a maximum of $50 million annually by fiscal year 1940, a more restrained funding approach compared to the RA's reliance on emergency relief allocations.^[18] This legislative shift marked a pragmatic evolution in federal rural policy, prioritizing verifiable economic stabilization via debt instruments over RA-style communal experiments, amid debates that highlighted tensions between relief-oriented interventionism and fiscal conservatism in addressing tenancy's root causes like soil depletion and market instability.^[19] The FSA thus inherited RA personnel, assets, and uncompleted projects but operated under USDA oversight, ensuring continuity in aiding distressed farmers while aligning with congressional preferences for decentralized, credit-based solutions.^[20]

Organizational Structure

Leadership and Key Administrators

The Resettlement Administration (RA), established in 1935 as a precursor to the Farm Security Administration (FSA), was directed by Rexford G. Tugwell, an economist from Columbia University and member of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "brain trust," who advocated for centralized planning in rural relief efforts.^[21] Tugwell's leadership emphasized expert-driven interventions to relocate and rehabilitate displaced farmers, setting a reformist tone that carried into the FSA despite his departure amid controversies over administrative overreach.^[22] In 1937, following the RA's reorganization into the FSA via the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, Will W. Alexander was appointed administrator, bringing experience from the Commission on Interracial Cooperation and a focus on aiding Southern tenant farmers, including African Americans disproportionately affected by tenancy.^[23] Alexander oversaw the agency's expansion, prioritizing direct assistance to low-income rural families while navigating tensions between progressive reformers and entrenched agricultural interests favoring production controls over social welfare.^[19] The FSA's bureaucratic framework included eight regional offices coordinating policy implementation across states, supported by approximately 900 county supervisors who served as on-the-ground administrators, blending roles as loan officers, agricultural advisors, and social caseworkers to monitor borrower compliance and family welfare. These supervisors, often drawn from social work and extension service backgrounds, emphasized supervised credit and behavioral guidance for clients, reflecting the agency's paternalistic yet technocratic ethos. Key internal shifts under Alexander involved recruiting specialists like economists for policy analysis and agronomists for soil management, underscoring a preference for scientific expertise in addressing rural poverty's root causes over reliance on market mechanisms alone.^[19] This staffing approach, inherited from Tugwell's RA, positioned FSA administrators as planners intent on restructuring farm economies through data-driven reforms.^[24]

Funding Mechanisms and Operational Scope

The Farm Security Administration (FSA) relied principally on annual congressional appropriations for its operations, drawn from general taxpayer revenues to finance rehabilitation loans, tenant purchase programs, administrative overhead, and related activities. These appropriations grew substantially during the agency's early years, enabling expanded lending and support services amid the Great Depression's rural crisis; by the late 1930s, funding levels had reached hundreds of millions of dollars annually to address widespread farm distress. To augment these direct allocations, the FSA incorporated revolving loan funds, wherein repayments of principal and interest from prior credits were recycled to issue new loans, thereby extending the impact of initial appropriations without proportional increases in federal outlays.^[25]^[26] Operationally, the FSA's scope was deliberately constrained to intervene in cases of acute rural poverty, targeting approximately 875,000 low-income farm families—equivalent to roughly one-quarter of U.S. farm households at the time—through supervised credit and technical assistance rather than universal coverage. Priority was given to "sub-marginal" operators on uneconomic or eroded lands, particularly in the South, where sharecropping and tenancy predominated, and in Dust Bowl regions plagued by drought and soil depletion, reflecting a focus on those least able to access private credit markets. This selective approach aimed to rehabilitate viable small farms while avoiding extension to more solvent operations, though it excluded millions of other struggling rural households outside designated criteria.^[25] The framework's implementation faced administrative hurdles, notably elevated overhead from intensive borrower supervision, which involved farm planning, budgeting oversight, and periodic audits to mitigate default risks inherent in lending to high-risk clients. Such case management, while intended to foster self-sufficiency, drew criticism for consuming disproportionate resources; historical analyses indicate supervision-related expenses formed a substantial share of program budgets, underscoring tensions between the need for rigorous monitoring and fiscal efficiency in a taxpayer-funded enterprise.^[25]^[27]

Primary Programs

Rehabilitation and Relief Loans

The Rehabilitation and Relief Loans program of the Farm Security Administration (FSA), established in 1937 as a continuation of the Resettlement Administration's rural rehabilitation efforts, extended grants and low-interest loans to low-income farm families unable to secure commercial credit, enabling purchases of seeds, livestock, equipment, and other essentials for subsistence production on their existing holdings.^[1]^[28] These funds targeted families committed to viable farming but trapped in debt cycles from cash-crop monoculture and environmental degradation, prioritizing aid to maintain family-operated units rather than large-scale operations.^[25] Grants addressed immediate survival needs like food and clothing, while loans, typically at 3 percent interest, supported longer-term improvements such as work animals and tools, with repayment schedules aligned to seasonal income.^[19]^[29] Eligibility required demonstration of potential for self-support through efficient resource use, excluding those deemed unlikely to benefit from structured aid; by October 1939, approximately 278,400 families had received rehabilitation loans, with over 20,000 farms salvaged from foreclosure that year alone.^[30] The program emphasized crop diversification—shifting from surplus-prone staples like cotton or tobacco toward balanced subsistence gardens, feed crops, and small livestock herds—to mitigate price volatility and foster household food security, thereby reducing reliance on relief and commercial debt.^[31] This approach reflected a causal understanding that poverty persisted not merely from lack of capital but from maladaptive practices, with loans capped to prevent overextension and promote gradual viability.^[25] Nationally, the initiative aided around 800,000 families with rehabilitation assistance by 1940, though exact figures varied by state and included predecessor programs.^[32] Supervision formed the program's core mechanism for ensuring funds translated into lasting reforms, mandating borrowers to develop detailed annual farm and home management plans outlining production goals, budgeting, and maintenance practices, reviewed and adjusted by county supervisors during regular on-site visits.^[33]^[34] These plans enforced behavioral changes, such as allocating portions of land for home consumption over market sales and tracking expenditures to curb wasteful habits, with non-compliance risking loan suspension.^[31] Supervisors provided technical guidance on soil conservation and diversified cropping, aiming to interrupt intergenerational poverty by equipping families with skills for independent operation; repayment rates remained high, with few delinquencies reported among rehabilitation borrowers by 1941, underscoring the efficacy of tied credit and oversight.^[29]^[25]

Tenant Purchase Initiatives

The Tenant Purchase program, established under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937, authorized the Farm Security Administration to extend credit to qualified tenants, sharecroppers, and farm laborers for acquiring family-type farms of 50 to 200 acres, including necessary livestock, equipment, and buildings.^[17] Loans carried a 3 percent interest rate with repayment terms up to 40 years, structured to align with crop cycles and income potential, and were sized to cover up to 100 percent of purchase costs for viable units typically valued at $3,000 to $6,000.^[19] By fiscal year 1947, the program had disbursed approximately $294 million in loans to 47,104 families, with repayment rates exceeding 90 percent due to rigorous underwriting.^[3] Eligibility required applicants to demonstrate farming experience, personal character, and capacity for self-sustaining operations without ongoing subsidies, with priority given to those who had successfully managed prior rehabilitation loans as a proxy for repayment reliability.^[16] The initiative targeted displaced Southern sharecroppers and Midwestern tenants hardest hit by mechanization and debt, but empirical criteria—emphasizing minimal initial equity and operating capital—disqualified many destitute cases, as only about 10 percent of Southern tenants met thresholds without depleting liquidity needed for farm viability.^[35] To enhance affordability, the program linked loans to FSA-sponsored cooperatives for bulk procurement of seeds, fertilizers, and machinery, reducing input costs by 10-20 percent in participating groups.^[36] Implementation faced constraints from limited inventories of subdividable land suitable for smallholder operations and resistance from large landowners, who preemptively evicted tenants to prevent loan applications and farm fragmentation. In the South, where tenants comprised over half of farm operators, such opposition—often tied to preserving cheap labor pools—curtailed purchases to under 20,000 units despite demand, underscoring causal barriers beyond credit access.^[37] Overall, the program's selective approach prioritized sustainable ownership over volume, yielding higher long-term retention rates than unsubsidized tenancy transitions.^[16]

Resettlement Communities

The Farm Security Administration inherited and continued a limited number of experimental resettlement communities from its predecessor, the Resettlement Administration, which sought to relocate impoverished rural families into cooperative group settlements featuring shared infrastructure, communal decision-making, and collective resource allocation. These projects aimed to demonstrate viable alternatives to individual tenancy by fostering joint farming operations, but they incorporated collectivist elements such as profit-sharing corporations and centralized oversight that often clashed with participants' independent farming backgrounds. Empirical evidence from operations revealed persistent issues, including disputes over labor division, wage disparities despite egalitarian rhetoric, and difficulties in achieving economic self-sufficiency due to mismatched expertise and motivational structures.^[38] A key example was the Casa Grande Valley Farms project in Arizona, initiated in 1937 on approximately 3,600 acres to house 62 families engaged in cooperative production of cotton, alfalfa, sorghum, and livestock. Families resided in provided housing and contributed to a corporate entity that divided net profits, with communal facilities intended to promote efficiency; however, the venture succumbed to mismanagement, interpersonal frictions among strangers selected for relocation, and inadequate adaptation to arid conditions, ultimately requiring federal divestment in the early 1940s. Similar dynamics plagued other sites, where poor site selection—such as marginal lands unsuited for sustained yields—and lax supervision exacerbated crop shortfalls and financial losses, contributing to widespread abandonment.^[39]^[38] Critics in Congress decried these initiatives as infusions of socialism into agriculture, prompting 1938 appropriations restrictions that capped resettlement at around 30 demonstration projects nationwide rather than broader relocation efforts. This backlash reflected causal realities of high per-family costs—often exceeding viable private benchmarks—coupled with low success metrics, as bureaucratic planning failed to replicate the incentives of market-driven farming, leading to dependency and eventual program contraction in favor of decentralized loans. Assessments, including those by observers like Edward Banfield, attributed failures to inherent flaws in coercive collectivism, where external directives undermined voluntary cooperation and local knowledge.^[40]^[41]

Information and Documentation Projects

Photography Program

The Farm Security Administration's Photography Program, formally known as the Historical Section, was initiated in 1936 under the direction of economist Roy Emerson Stryker to visually document rural poverty, agricultural distress, and the impacts of the Great Depression on American farmers and migrants.^[42] Originally established within the Resettlement Administration in 1935, the program transitioned to the FSA and expanded to employ approximately 14 field photographers who captured conditions across the United States, particularly in Dust Bowl regions and migrant labor camps.^[42] These efforts generated around 77,000 images, preserved as negatives and prints in the Library of Congress, forming a comprehensive visual record intended to inform policy and public understanding of economic hardships.^[42] Stryker provided photographers with detailed "shooting scripts"—outlines specifying subjects such as sharecroppers' homes, eroded farmlands, and families in transit—to systematically illustrate the human costs of rural decline and advocate for federal interventions like loans and resettlement.^[42] Prominent contributors included Dorothea Lange, whose 1936 photograph Migrant Mother depicted a pea picker's encampment in Nipomo, California, symbolizing widespread destitution, and Walker Evans, who partnered with James Agee to document Alabama tenant farmers in stark, unembellished portraits emphasizing isolation and decay.^[42] Other photographers, such as Arthur Rothstein and Russell Lee, followed similar directives, focusing on scenes of displacement and environmental degradation to highlight causal links between drought, overfarming, and economic collapse without broader contextual images of resilience or recovery.^[43] Although presented as an informational archive to justify FSA programs, the Photography Program faced contemporary and later criticism for prioritizing images of extreme poverty over a balanced portrayal, effectively shaping public perception to favor expansive government aid rather than purely factual depiction.^[44] Stryker's editorial process, which involved "killing" (punching holes in) negatives deemed insufficiently compelling or politically counterproductive, ensured dissemination of selectively curated visuals that amplified narratives of victimhood and urgency, aligning with New Deal objectives amid opposition from fiscal conservatives who viewed such documentation as manipulative advocacy.^[45] Empirical analysis of the archive reveals a disproportionate emphasis on white rural subjects in states like Oklahoma and Arkansas, potentially underrepresenting urban or minority experiences, though the images accurately reflected verifiable instances of hardship driven by market failures and natural disasters.^[46] This approach, while rooted in observable data from field reports, prioritized causal storytelling for policy support over comprehensive neutrality, influencing long-term views of Depression-era agriculture as a sector requiring sustained federal oversight.^[47]

Documentary Films and Media Outreach

The Farm Security Administration built upon the Resettlement Administration's pioneering documentary efforts by commissioning and distributing films that dramatized rural distress to advocate for federal aid programs. A key precursor was Pare Lorentz's The Plow That Broke the Plains (1936), produced for the Resettlement Administration and narrated by Thomas Chalmers, which traced the Dust Bowl's origins to overplowing and drought, urging soil conservation and resettlement to mitigate environmental degradation.^[48]^[49] Similarly, Lorentz's The River (1937), released under joint Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration auspices and narrated by an external voiceover, depicted Mississippi Valley flooding's human toll while promoting engineered flood control and land rehabilitation as causal remedies.^[50]^[51] The FSA's media outreach incorporated a film production and distribution unit, drawing on Lorentz's model through the U.S. Film Service (established 1938), to create and circulate short documentaries emphasizing empirical evidence of tenant farmer poverty, crop failures, and migration hardships. These shorts, often screened in commercial theaters, educational institutions, and rural venues, sought to cultivate public empathy for displaced agrarian workers and bolster legislative support for FSA loans and communities, though critics contemporaneously labeled them as New Deal propaganda prioritizing narrative persuasion over neutral reportage.^[52]^[53] Between 1937 and 1943, the unit oversaw dozens of such productions, including educational reels on cooperative farming and health initiatives, distributed nationwide to reach broad audiences without measurable uplift in farm yields attributable to viewing.^[54] As World War II escalated, FSA film content pivoted toward morale enhancement for agricultural laborers, featuring shorts on wartime food production and rural contributions to the war economy, yet post-war analyses revealed scant causal links between this outreach and sustained productivity gains, with impacts confined largely to heightened awareness rather than behavioral shifts among farmers.^[55]^[56] This propagandistic orientation, while effective in visualizing policy rationales grounded in observed rural decay, reflected agency priorities in shaping perceptions over purely informational dissemination.

Wartime and Post-War Evolution

World War II Resource Mobilization

With the onset of World War II, the Farm Security Administration shifted its emphasis from rural rehabilitation to supporting agricultural production for national defense, launching the "Food for Defense" program in May 1940 to boost output of hogs, chickens, and dairy products through adapted loan mechanisms for equipment and inputs.^[57] This pivot aligned FSA activities with broader wartime imperatives, including recruitment and deferment of farm labor to sustain output amid manpower shortages, as well as credit extensions totaling $200–225 million announced on January 21, 1943, to facilitate expanded cultivation and machinery acquisition.^[58] In December 1942, FSA integrated into the Food Production Administration under Executive Order 9280, transitioning to the War Food Administration (WFA) by April 1943 via Executive Order 9334, where it operated as an independent agency focused on labor mobilization, including agreements for importing workers from Mexico, the Bahamas, and other regions starting August 1942.^[58] This collaboration reduced emphasis on long-term borrower supervision in favor of immediate yield increases, with FSA supervisors promoting higher food and feed production to meet WFA goals, though staffing—exceeding 8,000 personnel by 1941, including thousands of rural rehabilitation and home management supervisors—faced constraints from a 30% funding cut for fiscal years 1942–1943.^[57] Wartime inflation, which elevated consumer prices by approximately 30–50% from 1941 to 1945, compounded repayment pressures on FSA borrowers despite rising farm incomes from demand, as input costs for machinery and labor outpaced supervised farm plans designed for peacetime viability; nonetheless, early war-year delinquency rates remained low, with strong repayment records noted through 1941.^[29] By April 1943, congressional opposition led the House to vote for FSA's termination, reflecting tensions between its relief-oriented bureaucracy and production priorities, though operations persisted until formal reorganization in 1946.^[57]

Transition to Farmers Home Administration

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) was established on August 14, 1946, through the Farmers' Home Administration Act (Public Law 79-731), which consolidated the Farm Security Administration (FSA) with the Emergency Crop and Feed Loan Division of the Farm Credit Administration.^[1]^[59] This legislation transferred the FSA's outstanding loan portfolio and operational responsibilities to the new agency, effectively dissolving the FSA and redirecting its functions toward conventional credit provision rather than extensive rehabilitation or resettlement efforts.^[16] Under the FmHA, loan programs emphasized unsupervised financing for farm purchases, improvements, and operations, targeted at small farmers deemed creditworthy but unable to access private commercial loans due to temporary setbacks.^[59] Stricter eligibility criteria excluded many prior FSA clients reliant on intensive supervision or relief-oriented aid, marking a shift away from the FSA's model of government-managed farming cooperatives and tenant relocation projects.^[16] By 1947, the FmHA had absorbed FSA's farm ownership and operating loan authorities, prioritizing self-sustaining borrowers over systemic reform.^[1] This transition reflected broader conservative reforms in postwar agricultural policy, driven by congressional scrutiny and lobbying from organizations like the American Farm Bureau Federation, which had long criticized the FSA for promoting what they viewed as excessive federal intervention akin to collectivization.^[60] Key FSA administrators associated with its progressive elements departed amid investigations into alleged mismanagement and ideological overreach, paving the way for FmHA's alignment with decentralized, market-oriented lending.^[1] The elimination of resettlement communities and mandatory supervisory services underscored the triumph of Farm Bureau-influenced priorities, which favored private credit extension over centralized planning.^[16]

Criticisms and Controversies

Political and Ideological Opposition

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), representing large-scale commercial farmers, mounted significant opposition to the Farm Security Administration (FSA), framing its resettlement and loan programs as collectivist experiments that undermined private property and free enterprise in agriculture. In 1938 congressional hearings on farm tenancy legislation, AFBF leaders testified that FSA initiatives, inherited from the Resettlement Administration, encouraged government-managed communities akin to socialism, potentially displacing independent farmers through federal competition and redistribution of land.^[61] This lobbying aligned with broader conservative critiques viewing the agency as an overreach beyond relief into social engineering. Southern Democrats in Congress, protective of the region's plantation-based sharecropping system, collaborated with Republicans in the emerging conservative coalition to restrict FSA funding and scope, portraying the agency's tenant purchase loans as disruptive to traditional agrarian hierarchies and paternalistic labor relations. Key actions included the 1937 Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, which authorized FSA but capped explicit appropriations at $150 million over two years for land purchases, effectively limiting relocation efforts that could empower sharecroppers and tenants at the expense of landowners. Opponents highlighted how such federal interventions exacerbated rural displacements, with estimates of around 100,000 sharecroppers affected by broader mechanization trends and tenancy shifts, arguing that FSA aid accelerated instability rather than preserving Southern economic order. Ideological attacks intensified with accusations of radical influences within FSA leadership and staff, tied to Rexford Tugwell's earlier role in the "brain trust" and Resettlement Administration, which critics in Congress labeled as breeding grounds for socialist doctrines. Red-baiting rhetoric in hearings and debates equated agency policies with collectivism, alleging that personnel sympathetic to centralized planning promoted un-American ideologies under the guise of relief, fueling demands for oversight and purges to safeguard capitalist agriculture.^[62] This scrutiny reflected deeper fears of federal power eroding local control and property norms.

Economic Inefficiencies and Client Outcomes

The Farm Security Administration's rehabilitation loans often resulted in poor repayment outcomes due to the selection of clients from the most impoverished rural populations, who lacked the resources and skills for sustained farming success despite intensive supervision. Inadequate oversight exacerbated these issues, as county supervisors struggled to enforce farm plans amid widespread poverty and environmental challenges like the Dust Bowl.^[63] Resettlement initiatives incurred high per-family costs, averaging $1,050 to $2,050 for farmsteads including housing, barns, and infrastructure, far exceeding the scale of standard rehabilitation loans which typically covered equipment and supplies at around $80 per family. These expenditures yielded limited long-term viability, with many projects failing to achieve economic independence for relocated families owing to mismatched land quality and ongoing subsidies required.^[64]^[65]^[66] Grant programs, intended as emergency aid, fostered dependency by providing ongoing commodities and cash averaging $15-18 monthly per family in sampled cases, with 40% of recipients lacking basic production assets like gardens and 20% without livestock for self-provisioning. This structure delayed necessary market adjustments, such as workforce migration to urban industrial jobs during the late 1930s recovery, as clients remained tied to marginal agriculture without incentives for relocation or diversification.^[67]

Assessments of Program Effectiveness

The Farm Security Administration extended rehabilitation loans and grants to approximately 800,000 farm families between 1937 and its wartime peak, offering short-term relief through supervised credit, emergency aid, and resettlement assistance.^[68] Empirical evaluations from USDA records show participating families achieved income gains of 69 percent from 1937 to 1941 relative to comparable non-participants, attributed to program inputs like equipment purchases, soil conservation, and farm management training.^[1] Net worth for clients rose by an average of 21 percent in the first year of participation, per contemporaneous agency data.^[19] Long-term outcomes proved more constrained, with modest success in fostering permanent economic independence. Analyses of supervised credit initiatives highlight persistent client failures due to inadequate initial capital, adverse weather, market volatility, and administrative challenges in enforcing repayment discipline among chronically impoverished borrowers.^[63] While the program rehabilitated some tenants into viable operators, rural poverty rates remained elevated post-1940s, as structural factors like land tenure inequities and low commodity prices limited broad escapes from subsistence farming; agency reports indicate only a fraction of borrowers fully graduated to unsupervised private credit.^[25] FSA loans carried interest rates of 3 to 5 percent—below prevailing commercial bank rates of 6 to 8 percent—subsidized via federal appropriations that absorbed defaults and administrative costs estimated at over $1 billion by 1943.^[69] This taxpayer-funded below-market credit arguably distorted rural lending markets by reducing incentives for private institutions to serve high-risk borrowers, fostering dependency on government oversight rather than competitive capital allocation.^[63] The program's influence on national farm output was negligible, as FSA targeted marginal operators comprising less than 10 percent of agricultural acreage; output surges of 50 percent from 1939 to 1945 stemmed primarily from wartime demand expansion, mechanization, and fertilizer adoption, overshadowing relief efforts.^[1] Overall, while delivering targeted aid amid Depression-era distress, FSA's scale and focus yielded limited causal impact on systemic rural productivity or poverty reduction.

Legacy and Historiographical Analysis

Long-Term Policy Influences

The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), established by the Farmers Home Administration Act of August 14, 1946, succeeded the FSA by consolidating its rehabilitation loan programs with emergency crop and feed loans from the Farm Credit Administration, shifting emphasis from broad rural resettlement to targeted credit provision for farm ownership, operating expenses, and rural housing.^[1] This evolution marked a dilution of the FSA's interventionist approach, prioritizing repayable loans over grants and community-building initiatives, with FmHA extending over 1.5 million farm ownership loans by the 1980s to facilitate transitions for smallholders amid post-war economic pressures.^[3] In 1994, FmHA's agricultural lending functions merged into the modern Farm Service Agency (FSA) under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act, further orienting programs toward commercial agriculture, disaster assistance, and commodity support rather than poverty alleviation or tenancy reform.^[1] Successor entities perpetuated federal involvement in rural credit but increasingly aligned with market-driven priorities, administering annual subsidies exceeding $20 billion through mechanisms like Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) under the 2018 Farm Bill extensions into 2025, which critics argue sustain dependency among larger producers rather than fostering self-sufficiency as envisioned by the FSA.^[70] The FSA's model of cooperative lending influenced later rural development frameworks, including community facility loans that supported infrastructure in underserved areas, yet these evolved into subsidy-heavy systems critiqued for inefficient allocation, with over 70% of commodity payments flowing to the top 10% of recipients by farm size in recent decades.^[71] This trajectory reflects a pragmatic adaptation to agricultural consolidation, where federal aid transitioned from rehabilitating marginal farms to buffering market risks for viable operations. The FSA's extensive documentation of Depression-era rural conditions, through loans enabling equipment purchases and its informational outreach, indirectly informed post-war mechanization trends; by providing credit for tractors and harvesters to wartime labor-short farms, it contributed to a surge in productivity that reduced the U.S. farm workforce from 12.7% of employment in 1940 to under 2% by 1970, accelerating urbanization and farm consolidation.^[72] These efforts highlighted soil conservation needs, influencing policies like the expansion of the Agricultural Adjustment Act's frameworks into mechanized, input-intensive agriculture, though without the FSA's original focus on smallholder equity.^[62]

Balanced Evaluations of Impact

Historians sympathetic to New Deal interventions have praised the Farm Security Administration (FSA) as a pioneering effort in targeted rural relief, crediting it with providing sustainable loans and resettlement that helped alleviate chronic poverty for hundreds of thousands of tenant farmers and sharecroppers, positioning it as a conceptual precursor to Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty programs by emphasizing rehabilitation over mere handouts.^[25]^[73] This view highlights the agency's supervised credit model, which aimed to foster self-sufficiency through farm improvements and debt restructuring, with proponents arguing it disrupted exploitative tenancy systems and laid groundwork for modern rural development policies.^[74] Critics, often from conservative economic perspectives, have countered that the FSA induced moral hazard by subsidizing risky borrowers with federal guarantees, potentially discouraging private lending and creating dependency among clients who failed to graduate from supervision, as evidenced by high default rates in some supervised loan portfolios despite intensive oversight.^[75] The program's fiscal burden, involving hundreds of millions in loans and grants by the late 1930s—such as $370 million allocated through 1939 in select regions—yielded limited macroeconomic returns, with New Deal agricultural spending, including FSA outlays, comprising less than 1% of annual GDP contributions to rural recovery amid broader fiscal deficits.^[76] Quantitative assessments indicate the FSA's microeconomic impacts were modest, aiding individual households but not substantially altering aggregate rural employment or output, particularly as farm prices and demand rebounded naturally after the 1937-1938 recession due to monetary easing and pre-war export growth rather than program-specific interventions.^[77] Reexaminations reveal unintended consequences, including accelerated agricultural mechanization spurred by New Deal credit access, which enabled landlords to invest in tractors and harvesters, displacing tenant farmers and sharecroppers even as FSA aid temporarily buffered some families—causal evidence from regional studies shows tenancy rates declining faster in subsidized areas due to capital-intensive shifts, undermining the program's long-term goal of stabilizing rural labor.^[78]^[79] This dynamic highlights a tension between short-term relief and structural incentives, where federal support inadvertently hastened labor displacement in an era of technological transition, with empirical data from southern farm counties indicating net tenant losses despite rehabilitation efforts.^[80] Overall, while the FSA mitigated acute distress for select groups, its net impact favored temporary stabilization over transformative recovery, as broader economic forces post-1938 drove rural rebound independent of sustained agency influence.^[77]

References

[1]
Agency History
FSA also promoted co-ops and even provided medical care to poor rural families. Although the scope of its programs was limited, poor farm families who took part ...Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
[2]
Farm Security Administration/Office of War Information Black-and ...
The Farm Security Administration (FSA) was created in the Department of Agriculture in 1937. The FSA and its predecessor, the Resettlement Administration (RA), ...
[3]
The History and Development of USDA Farm Loan Programs, Part 3
Mar 25, 2021 · From 1937 to 1947, an earlier study found that USDA made $293,876,733 in tenant purchase loans to 47,104 families (Banfield 1949). Adjusted for ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[4]
[PDF] The Farm Security Administration Photo Project - National Archives
President Roosevelt created the Farm Security Administration (FSA) in 193 7 to aid poor farmers, sharecroppers, tenant farmers and migrant workers. It developed ...
[5]
The U.S. Economy in the 1920s – EH.net
The 1920-1921 depression hit farmers very hard. Prices had been bid up with the increasing foreign demand during the First World War. As European production ...Missing: overproduction | Show results with:overproduction
[6]
Economic problems in the 1920s - CCEA - BBC
Overproduction and underconsumption of agricultural products meant that farm income fell from $22 billion in 1919 to $13 billion in 1929. Three million rural ...
[7]
Not Guilty? Agriculture in the 1920s and the Great Depression
Nov 22, 2005 · The fall in prices, from June 1920, dramatically worsened the financial conditions of farmers. Real interest rates jumped to almost 50 percent ...
[8]
The Dust Bowl | National Drought Mitigation Center
Due to low crop prices and high machinery costs, more submarginal lands were put into production. Farmers also started to abandon soil conservation practices.
[9]
[PDF] FARM FORECLOSURES - Montgomery County Public Schools
During 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, more than 200,000 farms underwent foreclosure. Foreclosure rates were higher in the Great Plains states ...Missing: statistics | Show results with:statistics
[10]
Climate Migrants of the 1930's Dust Bowl | Worlds Revealed
Dec 1, 2023 · Nearly half a million people (sometimes referred to as Okies) migrated out of Oklahoma, many of them tenant farmers who were forced to abandon ...
[11]
The New Deal's Impacts on Sharecropping and Tenant Farming in ...
Apr 5, 2021 · The impacts of the New Deal parity system on the most vulnerable of southern farmers – sharecroppers and tenant farmers, many of whom were and are farmers of ...<|separator|>
[12]
Agricultural Adjustment Administration - North Carolina History
Though the AAA generally benefited North Carolina farmers, it harmed small farmers–in particular, African American tenant farmers. The AAA's limiting crop ...Missing: disparities | Show results with:disparities
[13]
Executive Order 7027—Establishment of the Resettlement ...
I hereby establish an agency within the Government to be known as the "Resettlement Administration", and appoint Rexford G. Tugwell, Under Secretary of ...
[14]
Records of the Farmers Home Administration [FmHA]
The FmHA provided small farmers credit for homes, buildings, and operations. Records include central office, regional, and county office records, and related ...Missing: helped | Show results with:helped
[15]
Subsistence Homesteads - National Agricultural Library - USDA
On April 30, Executive Order No. 7027 created the Resettlement Administration. Part of the RA's mandate included the authority "to administer approved ...
[16]
Reviewing the History and Development of USDA Farm Loans, Part 2
Mar 11, 2021 · As discussed previously, the law created the Farm Security Administration to implement: (1) farm tenant purchase loans; (2) rehabilitation loans ...
[17]
[PDF] The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act
Accordingly, the establishment of a Farm Security. Administration in the Department of Agriculture was suggested. Its function would be to administer, under ...
[18]
Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 - Encyclopedia.com
The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act was passed by Congress on July 22, 1937. It authorized a modest credit program to assist tenant farmers to purchase land, ...
[19]
Farm Security Administration | The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma ...
The FSA, created in 1937, was a New Deal program providing loans, health care, and training to families who had exhausted their means but desired success.Missing: establishment achievements
[20]
US Farm Security Administration records, 1928-1956 - Archives West
The U.S. Farm Security Administration (FSA) was established to implement the provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Tenant Act of 1937. It took over the duties of ...<|separator|>
[21]
Resettlement Administration (RA) - Encyclopedia.com
To head the RA the president appointed brains truster and undersecretary of agriculture Rexford G. Tugwell, who recruited Will W. Alexander of the Commission on ...
[22]
FSA CO-OP Farmsteads - Wessels Living History Farm
The agency's head was Rexford Tugwell, a visionary economist and planner. He was also one of Roosevelt's original “brain trusters” advising the president on ...
[23]
The Negro in the New Deal Resettlement Program - Folkstreams
... farm tenancy system. As Tugwell's successor and first head of the Farm Security Administration, Will Alexander did more than any other one man to insure the ...
[24]
[PDF] Yesterday's solutions to today's problems - K-REx
The Farm Security Administration, with its large in- vestment at stake, was ... the New Deal's Resettlement Administration under Rexford Guy Tugwell.
[25]
Client Failures and Supervised Credit in the Farm Security ...
But, at the family or local level, internal FSA mistakes and problems hurt rural rehabilitation as much as did these larger, external factors.
[26]
[PDF] Budget of the Farm Security Administration for the Fiscal Year 1940 ...
10« For expenses of administering the rural rehabilitation loan, direct relief, migratory labor camp and voluntary farm debt adjustment programs . • • • • • . .
[27]
[PDF] An Analysis of the Administrative Expenses of 28 ... - Social Security
Corps, and Farm Security Administration; dis- ... supervision of the State agency. By public ... administrative expense to assistance costs may reflect ...
[28]
Farm Security Administration (FSA) - Recovery Programs | DPLA
The Farm Security Administration (FSA), created in 1937 under the Department of Agriculture, helped with rural rehabilitation, farm loans, and subsistence ...
[29]
FSA REPAYMENTS HELD FINE RECORD; Few Delinquents Among ...
... Farm Security Administration for the purchase of ... The interest rate is 3 per cent. ... About 10,000 tenant borrowers obtained operating capital through FSA ...
[30]
SALVAGE OF FARMS REPORTED BY FSA - The New York Times
SALVAGE OF FARMS REPORTED BY FSA; 20,549 of 278,400 Families in Real Missouri Aided in 4 Years of Agency CREDIT PART OF PROGRAM Help in Management Problems Also ...
[31]
Page FOUR — Charlotte Gazette 7 April 1938 — Virginia Chronicle ...
... FSA program.” !' Under the Rural Rehabilitation program of the FSA, credit is tied to regular advice about managing the farm and home. The farmer gets the ...
[32]
[PDF] National Farm Program data, 1932-1940 : Texas ... - AgEcon Search
From 1935 to 1940 in Texas,the Farm Security Administration aided 62,916 ... Adnini stration aided approximately 800,000 fam families with rehabilitation loans.
[33]
[PDF] Farm Security Administration services available to veterans
Practical on-the-farm supervision is provided along vath loans of either t^'pe,. FSA supervisors will assist the family to plan and carry out a sound farm.
[34]
[PDF] Your Guide to FSA Farm Loans
FSA has the responsibility of providing credit counseling and supervision to its direct borrowers by helping applicants evaluate the adequacy of their real ...
[35]
Ten Years of the Farm Tenant Purchase Program - jstor
This will exclude most Southern tenants (only about one in ten of its present borrowers could have met that requirement without impairing operating capital ...
[36]
farm security
The Farm Security Administration was cre¬ ated to help needy and low-income farm families to become permanently self-supporting. Since.
[37]
Client Failures and Supervised Credit in the Farm Security ...
Jul 1, 2013 · The Farm Security Administration (FSA) was the New Deal's most sustained and successful effort to address chronic rural poverty in the ...<|separator|>
[38]
The New Deal's Failed Kibbutz in the Desert
Apr 19, 2024 · The largest of nine such projects initiated during 1937 and 1937 was Casa Grande, a 3600-acre cotton, alfalfa, sorghum, and livestock farm on ...Missing: resettlement | Show results with:resettlement
[39]
Government Project: The Eternal Folly of Central Planning
Apr 1, 2024 · Alas, no amount of tinkering and prodding by the FSA's social engineers was able to turn Casa Grande into a kibbutz. Adding to the tension, ...
[40]
Old Lessons for the New Right | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
Apr 10, 2024 · Above all, the failure of the Casa Grande experiment should serve as a reminder that policymakers are wise to be skeptical about using federal ...
[41]
Remembering Edward C. Banfield | Misrule of Law
May 1, 2024 · The Casa Grande cooperative failed because the headstrong participants, many of whom were formerly tenant farmers—thrown together with strangers ...
[42]
About this Collection | Farm Security Administration/Office of War ...
The photographs of the Farm Security Administration - Office of War Information Photograph Collection form an extensive pictorial record of American life ...
[43]
The Kept and the Killed - The Public Domain Review
Jan 26, 2022 · Of the 270,000 photographs commissioned by the US Farm Security Administration to document the Great Depression, more than a third were “killed” ...
[44]
The FSA Photographs: Information, or Propaganda? | Writing Program
The FSA photographs were considered propaganda due to political selection and misleading editorial control, though they were a mild form of it.
[45]
How a Hole Punch Shaped Public Perception of the Great Depression
May 9, 2018 · Professionally, Stryker was known for two things: preserving thousands of photographs from being destroyed for political reasons, and for “ ...
[46]
Whitewashing the Great Depression - The Atlantic
Dec 15, 2020 · Yet we've come to imagine the Great Depression as largely a white tragedy. That isn't because the FSA photographers focused only on white ...
[47]
Documentary and Propaganda: The Photographs of the Farm ... - jstor
The Farm Security Administration collection of photographs1 is now most com- monly seen as an attempt by the federal government to provide worthwhile employment ...
[48]
The Plow That Broke the Plains | film by Lorentz [1936] - Britannica
A classic among documentary films, it recounts, with a harmonious blend ... Farm Security Administration, or FSA). The film, which examined the causes ...
[49]
The Plow That Broke the Plains - DocsTeach
Filmaker Pare Lorentz made The Plow That Broke the Plains for the Farm Security Administration. The film presents the social and economic history of the ...
[50]
The River, 1937 | National Archives
Nov 21, 2024 · The River, released in 1937 by the Farm Security Administration ... Motion Pictures. Home > Research Our Records > Moving Image and Sound ...
[51]
Pare Lorentz. The River. 1937 - MoMA
Written and directed by Pare Lorentz for the U.S. Farm Security Administration, The River is a follow-up to Lorentz's groundbreaking documentary of the ...
[52]
Pare Lorenz and the U.S. Film Service Take on America's Problems
Dec 20, 2021 · The Service's inspiration was Pare Lorentz, a pioneer in the production of documentary films. Lorentz, a native of West Virginia, directed the US Film Service ...Missing: unit | Show results with:unit
[53]
Sights and Sounds of the Farm Security Administration - YouTube
Nov 20, 2010 · ... film the deep poverty ravaging the nation, in order to convince the ... Within the FSA was a photography unit headed by economist Roy ...<|separator|>
[54]
[PDF] Using FSA Documentary Films - IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
The Resettlement Administration/Farm Security Administration funded two documentary films,. The Plow That Broke the Plains about the creation of the Dust ...
[55]
First-person Plural: The Voice of the Masses in Farm Security ...
... Farm Security Administration (FSA) documentary films of the Depression, as well as of FSA photographic captioning and commentary. This intra-diegetic ...
[56]
First-Person Plural: The Voice of the Masses in Farm Security ... - jstor
curity Administration (FSA) documentary films ... the Farm Security Administration file. Initially ... The idea that photobooks are comparable to documentary films ...
[57]
Farm Security Administration (FSA) | Encyclopedia.com
The agency also became responsible for farm families displaced by the acquisition of land for defense purposes, and the FSA was assigned to provide ...Missing: scope | Show results with:scope
[58]
[PDF] A chronology of the War Food Administration - AgEcon Search
Agency, the Farm Security Administration, and. the Soil Conservation. " Service became independent agencies within the j/ar: Food Administration*. The Office ...
[59]
Farmers Home Administration | National Archives
Nov 7, 2024 · The FHA provides small farmers with credit to construct or repair homes, improve farming operations, or become farm owners, and gives individual guidance.Missing: details facts
[60]
Farm Security Administration – A New Deal - Legends of America
The FSA and its predecessor, the Resettlement Administration (RA), created in 1935, were New Deal programs designed to assist poor farmers during the Dust Bowl ...
[61]
The American Farm Bureau Federation and Farm Policy: 1933-1945
of the proposal." Bureau opposition to labor assumed still another form ... Opposition to the Farm Security Administration was bitterest in the South ...
[62]
Recovering the Agricultural New Deal: Its Foundations, Legacies ...
Sep 20, 2024 · The 1946 Congress also completely replaced the FSA with the Farmers Home Administration, essentially a federal mortgage agency dedicated ...Missing: influence dissolution
[63]
https://read.dukeupress.edu/agricultural-history/article-abstract/87/3/368/296905/Client-Failures-and-Supervised-Credit-in-the-Farm
[64]
Farm Security Administration (FSA) Sites - Living New Deal
Haywood Farms - Stanton TN. In 1937, when the Resettlement Administration was turned over to the Farm Security Administration, the proposed farmstead ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[65]
MASS PRODUCTION USED FOR HOUSES; Rural Homes Are ...
... Farm Security Administration is now turning out rural homes on a FSA resettlement project near LaForge, Mo., at an average cost of $1,050 each, including ...
[66]
[PDF] Annual report of the Administrator - Wikimedia Commons
Farm Security Administration program. The reasons ... necessary farm equipment at an average cost per family of $80 rather ... resettlement and ...
[67]
[PDF] A Study of One Hundred Farm Security Administration Grant ...
"The Farm Security Admini tration was created to help needy and low-income ... Their credit was nearly gone and they would have been permanently dependent on ...
[68]
[PDF] Migrant Farm Labor
IN 1936 the Farm Security Administration set out to help the. States meet ... About 800,000 families have received such loans; and nearly 150,000 ...
[69]
[PDF] Toward farm security : the problem of rural poverty and the work of ...
Farm Security and Tenant Purchase—FSA and the Homestead. Projects—FSA ... to purchase land, to refinance real estate debts, to improve and repair farm ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[70]
Farmers Head into 2025 with Another Farm Bill Extension, Aid
Jan 2, 2025 · The American Relief Act of 2025 includes $31 billion in natural and economic disaster aid for farmers and ranchers, a second extension of the 2018 farm bill.
[71]
[PDF] Assessing the Impacts of Federal Farm Bill Programs on Rural ...
This report summarizes the impact of federal farm and food programs (commonly referred to as “the farm bill”) on rural communities in the United States. The ...<|separator|>
[72]
This Land Is Your Land: The Great Depression, Migrant Farm ...
Sep 22, 2022 · Joining the farmers escaping the Dust Bowl and unemployed workers from the city were millions of tenant farmers and sharecroppers in the ...
[73]
When the U.S. Successfully Tackled Homelessness - Time Magazine
Nov 2, 2023 · Of the New Deal-era initiatives that sought to uplift unemployed Americans from poverty, the Farm Security Administration ... War on Poverty of ...
[74]
The War on Poverty and the Poor in Sunflower (Chapter 14)
The War on Poverty and Great Society did not ... Despite or because of its effectiveness, in 1937, it was merged with the Farm Security Administration ...
[75]
[PDF] Major Ideas in the History of Agricultural Finance ... - Working Paper
The Farm Security Administration was renamed the Farmers Home Administration in 1946, and ... Today, the moral hazard or adverse incentive effect in credit ...
[76]
New Deal Expenditures in the Western States, 1933-1939 - jstor
Farm Security Administration 370,505,997 3.3 93,651,261 7.3 44,026,349. Rural Electrification Admin. 123,371,450 1.1 18,245,374 1.4 5,862,7. Public Works ...<|separator|>
[77]
How Successful Was the New Deal? The Microeconomic Impact of ...
Farm Security Administration (FSA). Payments to help low-income farmers and tenants. Took over some of responsibilities of FERA. Began in fiscal 1935. 0.9.
[78]
[PDF] The New Deal and Agricultural Investment in Machinery and Work
Once the farmer's standing was improved, the FSA offered loans through a farm tenant purchase program that aided croppers, tenants, and farm laborers in.
[79]
https://oxfordre.com/americanhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-509
[80]
Southern Tenancy, Machines, and Production Scale on the ... - jstor
the Farm Security Administration, by G. T. Barton and J. G. McNeely. Fayetteville,. AR. - (1940) "Farmers face economic and social adjustments." General ...