Coronavirus Food Assistance Program - Round 2 in Darlington County, South Carolina, 1995-2023
Subsidy Recipients 1 to 20 of 109
Recipients of Coronavirus Food Assistance Program - Round 2 from farms in Darlington County, South Carolina totaled $3,761,000 in from 1995-2023.
Rank | Recipient (* ownership information available) |
Location | Coronavirus Food Assistance Program - Round 2 1995-2023 |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Rogers Brothers Farm | Hartsville, SC 29550 | $404,626 |
2 | Lawson Farms | Darlington, SC 29540 | $184,591 |
3 | Doyle W Oneal | Darlington, SC 29540 | $143,119 |
4 | Abe Lewis | Darlington, SC 29540 | $135,658 |
5 | Thomas G Chaplin | Hartsville, SC 29550 | $109,885 |
6 | Woodard Farms Inc | Darlington, SC 29540 | $109,122 |
7 | Chris J Amerson | Lamar, SC 29069 | $101,437 |
8 | C Kelly Windham | Lamar, SC 29069 | $92,997 |
9 | Les Galloway | Darlington, SC 29532 | $92,482 |
10 | J L Norwood Jr | Darlington, SC 29532 | $92,167 |
11 | M E White Farms LLC | Timmonsville, SC 29161 | $88,666 |
12 | Cody R Windham | Lamar, SC 29069 | $86,872 |
13 | Ryan Galloway | Darlington, SC 29532 | $85,235 |
14 | Richard A Galloway | Darlington, SC 29532 | $84,943 |
15 | Chaplin Brothers Farms LLC | Hartsville, SC 29550 | $78,056 |
16 | Cole Norwood | Darlington, SC 29532 | $73,645 |
17 | James B Johnson Jr | Hartsville, SC 29550 | $72,614 |
18 | Springville Farms LLC | Darlington, SC 29540 | $72,460 |
19 | Robert T Windham | Lamar, SC 29069 | $72,101 |
20 | Oneal Farms | Society Hill, SC 29593 | $71,361 |
* USDA data are not "transparent" for many payments made to recipients through most cooperatives. Recipients of payments made through most cooperatives, and the amounts, have not been made public. To see ownership information, click on the name, then click on the link that is titled Ownership Information.
** EWG has identified this recipient as a bank or lending institution that received the payment because the payment applicant had a loan requiring any subsidy payments go to the lender first. In 2019, the information provided to EWG by USDA began to include the entity that received the payment, rather than the person or entity that applied for it, which was previously provided. This move to shield subsidy recipients from disclosure enables USDA to further evade taxpayer accountability. Six percent of subsidy dollars went to banks, lending institutions, or the Farm Service Agency.”
Next >>