Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Comment: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential

Washington, DC, June 24, 2026 – The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following statement attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director, in response to the Agricultural Act of 2026 discussion draft released by Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman (R-AR):

“At such a critical moment for farmers and American agriculture, prioritizing investments that ensure the long term success of farmers and their communities is paramount. The Senate discussion draft offers minimal improvements and fails to respond to States’ requests to delay SNAP cost share requirements, all but eliminating a viable path on the Senate floor. Ultimately, the proposal falls well short of tapping its full potential – and in doing so doubles down on a food and farming system that simply isn’t working. 

Farmers are calling for expanded market access right here at home through new investments in proven models that support farmers and help them nourish their communities. Amidst high production costs, unstable markets, and low crop prices, we should re-envision the farm safety net by improving access to risk management tools for farms of all shapes and sizes. Finally, we must prioritize investments in long-term solutions that build resilience into individual farm businesses – from improving access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers, to support for diversified farming systems that work in concert with natural resources.

We appreciate the Committee’s continued push toward reauthorizing a much needed farm bill  and urge Congress to put farmers back in control of their own future by prioritizing meaningful, long-term farm bill investments over short-term band-aids on a broken system. NSAC is eager to work toward a farm bill that bolsters domestic markets with guaranteed investments in local food infrastructure and procurement, expands rather than stifles access to critical on-farm conservation resources, and builds a more fair farm safety net for all.” 

Stay tuned to NSAC’s blog for deeper analysis and coverage of the farm bill reauthorization, including the Agriculture Act of 2026, in the days ahead.

###  

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: Senate Farm Bill Draft Offers Untapped Potential appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

“Farmers have waited far too long for a new farm bill while dealing with rising input costs, market volatility, and shrinking margins,” said Darin Von Ruden, a Wisconsin farmer and president of the state’s Farmers Union chapter. Farmers across the country agree and have been clear with Congress: they need a new farm bill that provides investments and policy solutions that will meaningfully improve not only the immediate crises farmers are facing, but also the long-term resilience and viability of their farms. As the House recently passed its Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 and attention turns to the Senate, this blog post uplifts farmers’ perspectives on how the House bill falls short of what they really need to see from a new farm bill, and what changes are urgently needed in the Senate and any final version. Grounded in comments from small, mid-sized, and diversified producers, these stories reveal what’s at stake for conservation, local and regional food systems, the farm safety net, and the basic capacity of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to serve the people who grow our food. 

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) opposed the House farm bill as it offered only scattered policy improvements without the resources to fuel them. Members of Congress who voted for the bill were quick to point to support from farmers, making the same mistake previous farm bills have made: monolithing farmers and suggesting status quo ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy approaches will benefit all farmers. As focus shifts to the Senate Agriculture Committee, it is important to uplift the perspectives of farmers who believe the House farm bill does not fully address their needs. Right now, Congress is at a crossroads – they could take the quickest possible path, keep things ‘business as usual’ and pass a farm bill filled with short-term bandaids, or they can work towards a pragmatic, comprehensive, and fair farm bill that fosters food system resiliency, improves farmers’ livelihoods, and sets up the next generation of American farmers to thrive.

Farmers Want a Better Farm Bill

While the general public may not closely track the farm bill, farmers with operations of all shapes and sizes certainly do. After the House passed its farm bill proposal, NSAC surveyed its member organizations to hear farmers’ opinions,  with responses ranging from small urban growers to large row crop operations. While perspectives differ based on growing practices, experience with federal programs, and geography, a common thread was the persistent challenge of accessing federal programs that would improve operations and overall viability, exacerbated by limited conservation program funding, understaffing at USDA agencies responsible for program outreach and implementation, or the outright termination of popular, effective programs. 

As the Senate prepares to move forward with its farm bill proposal, these farmers’ stories should be heard, considered, and addressed. The farmers who agreed to provide stories had the choice to be named and quoted in this blog post or to contribute anonymously. Quotes from farmers who chose to remain anonymous are attributed only by geography. 

A Farm Bill that Leaves Many Farmers Behind

Below are some of the most salient points farmers shared with us about the inadequacies of the House’s farm bill. Commentary is organized around four key areas: threats to climate and conservation efforts, local and regional food systems, a fair farm safety net, and USDA’s ability to effectively fulfill its mission of serving American farmers and the public. 

Climate and Conservation

While there were some bright spots in the Conservation title of the House farm bill, farmers were quick to point to an overall lack of new investments needed to address high demand for conservation. Farmers in Iowa and Illinois cited reduced funds for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). One farmer specifically emphasized that these programs are in high demand because they are so accessible and beneficial for small acreage and urban farmers. 

Patrick Brown of Brown Family Farms in North Carolina says it’s in his blood to farm. His grain operation was established in 1865; for generations, his family has weathered storms and taken advantage of opportunities like EQIP to sustain their business. He spoke of the increased competition for these cost-share programs that are likely to occur with less funding available, saying: “up to $600 million has been completely cut from EQIP… making the pot of money that you compete for in the program smaller.” He added that, as currently structured in the House farm bill, it carves out $100 million per year from CSP for state soil health programs. Instead, he suggests soil health programs should be funded through different programs like RCPP, “so that the CSP funding pie does not get smaller for producers like [us],” he said.

Farmers adopting conservation practices that protect the soil, water, and air – by extension improving their neighboring communities’ health and wellbeing – should be supported in their efforts. Instead, the bill siphons off resources from the nation’s most popular conservation programs, increasing competition for limited funding. Coupled with the unresolved staffing crisis at NRCS and USDA as a whole, this is a recipe for reduced access and degraded customer service for all farmers, particularly small farms. Any farm bill that passes this year must both preserve and increase resources for conservation programs and ensure robust staffing levels for NRCS.

Local Food Systems

In Ohio, Shagbark Seed & Mill’s founder, Michelle Ajamian, expressed disappointment at the lack of investment in local food systems. Speaking about the Local Food Purchasing Assistance Program (LFPA), which was terminated two years ahead of its expected run, Ajamian said, “In just two years, we were able to purchase over a half million pounds of black beans from our region’s organic farmers for all 12 Ohio food banks.” She later elaborated that the termination of LFPA pushed the mill into the red, forced them to lay off workers, and bear the news to the farmers who had already planned fields and purchased seed that they would not be able to bring in their beans for the foreseeable future. 

“When the billion-dollar program that purchased crop from farmers in all 50 states was terminated without notice, I had hoped the farm bill would include local buying for food access, but it doesn’t look good. So much for the administration’s promise to ensure more money goes to farmers to feed our citizens,” Ajamain said.

Another farmer in Pennsylvania added that there were not enough funds allocated for SNAP, SNAP-Ed, which saw its funding slashed by last year’s reconciliation bill, or for local food purchasing. When most think of the threats to SNAP, many think of small children, the elderly, and those most vulnerable in our society. Notably absent from these conversations are how farmers and their bottom lines will be impacted. Both SNAP and SNAP-Ed have been demonstrated to be spurs of economic activity, with every dollar spent on SNAP reportedly generating $1.50 in economic activity.

An Illinois farmer noted that the loss in funds for SNAP in the farm bill signaled a massive failure for those accessing locally grown produce. For his part, Brown, in North Carolina, shifted his focus out. “Overall the bill does not include nearly enough of the priorities that regional food systems and small and mid-size farmers need,” shared Brown. In March, NSAC argued that disproportionately investing along the food supply chains could lead to supply without adequate markets available for producers, a point farmers we spoke to inherently understood.

Investing in programs that allow farmers to gain access to a stable local market and meat processing facilities closer to home, while making food more accessible to millions of people who struggle to put food on the table, is a simple way a farm bill can invest in strengthening local and regional food systems and economies while actively creating jobs in rural communities. The House farm bill fell short of the mark in investing in such programs. While it did allow for the creation of a program that would replace LFPA, for example, it did not include funding for that program.

Safety Net for Small and Beginning Farmers

Rising production costs, low crop prices, and unpredictable market conditions are threatening farmer livelihoods. The current economic environment replicates the conditions preceding the 1980s farm crisis, during which farmers were pushed off their land, farm consolidation skyrocketed, and rural communities collapsed, many never to recover. This catastrophic precedent illustrates the critical role the farm safety net plays in maintaining farm viability under the present circumstances. 

The farm safety net provides support through disaster assistance, farm credit, and crop insurance. The current construction of the farm safety net typically tends to function well for most large commodity operations; however, most small, beginning, and diversified farmers report that these systems don’t benefit their operations. As stated by two farmers from Illinois, the farm safety net doesn’t work for them because it is “hard to access for small diversified farm systems.” 

The impacts of an insufficient farm safety net are severe. Without strong support, a large percentage of small, mid-sized, diversified, and beginning farms may be forced into foreclosure, leading to scarcity of local fruits and vegetables, and an increase in expensive imported produce. As demonstrated during the 1980s farm crisis, policy decisions that leave out wide swaths of farmers can decimate rural communities and squander their trust. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, which means the Senate has an opportunity to avert a second farm crisis by supporting the farms that are most vulnerable to external factors through this farm bill. 

Understaffing and Access

In 2025, 20 % of USDA staff left the agency either because they were abruptly laid off through Reduction in Force or through the Deferred Resignation Program in a purported effort to streamline federal services and reduce waste and fraud. This broad and indiscriminate staff reduction left 141 counties across the United States with zero USDA support staff, while 1,197 counties, or 53 percent of counties in the country, had a net staff loss. Understaffed offices limit USDA’s ability to fulfill its mission of serving farmers. “The bill does next to nothing to increase staffing levels at local NRCS and FSA offices, a key concern we’ve heard from many of the farmers…especially after the huge staff losses of last year,” Brown said.

One Illinois farmer expressed her concern about grant funding, explaining that “a lot of small farmers rely on [grant funds] to sustain themselves and continue to help at-risk populations.” She added to the urgency of the matter, noting that “local farmers are important and are becoming obsolete.” A couple of other Illinois farmers likewise highlighted the lack of support for farmers like them in the House farm bill version. “Loss of USDA staff makes access even more difficult,” one remarked. Another explained that adjustments to FSA loan programs were improvements on the surface that could easily go to expanding existing large operations that don’t need government support while leaving small farms with even less access to those loan programs. “Combined with no meaningful increase in total available funding, means that smaller operations will likely lose out at the local FSA office,” he shared.

USDA has been nicknamed the “People’s Department,” but without resources that allow it – and, crucially, its staff – to fulfill its mission, farmers are left scrambling to find someone who can help them when they want to apply for a cost-share program, write a conservation plan, or receive a loan.

A Strong Farm Bill

As the Senate drafts its own version of the farm bill, it must keep in mind everyone who participates in our food and agricultural system, whether they run large, medium, or small operations. It must consider those who grow diverse and specialty crops, who are engaged in localized food production and marketing, and those using conservation practices. While farmers shared the shortcomings of the House version of the farm bill, they also had a clear vision for what a strong farm bill that supported all farmers would look like. 

Von Ruden was quick to point to the need to support small farms. “That means a stronger safety net, meaningful support for conservation, and policies that address consolidation,” Von Ruden said.

One of the farmers in Illinois echoed that sentiment. “A strong farm bill aggressively reduces consolidation in our food and farm system and prioritizes the needs of small and beginning farmers and those who have been historically disadvantaged by prior Farm Bills,” he explained. He pointed to a state program in Illinois called the Local Food Infrastructure Grant program as a model that the federal government could explore. “Federal funding has largely shied away from investment in hard assets due to concerns of fraud or negligence. I would support greater oversight, including direct farm visits and supported audits, if it meant that the USDA was investing more directly in the relocalization of our food system,” he closed.

A farm bill that also supports those who have been traditionally disenfranchised resonated with Swanson, who shared what a strong farm bill meant to her: “Being allowed to stand up for minority populations while supporting small food production.” 

Another farmer in Ohio reinterpreted what is implied in the title of the House bill as “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026,” by saying that to her, a strong farm bill “focuses on homeland security, which means nothing less than supporting Family Farms and the food processors that they work with [who] are committed to growing and distributing healthy food for all while keeping soil and water clean and fertile. Give them the hand up to transition to organic and install on-farm renewable energy systems to ensure we have food for all.” 

As the Senate takes up the responsibility of crafting a meaningfully bipartisan farm bill, these stories offer members of the Senate Agriculture Committee grounding in what is needed to draft a farm bill that can adequately address the needs of all our nation’s farmers. 

The post Farmers React to House Farm Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

This blog post is the third in our series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). While our previous post showed that all USDA agencies lost staff during 2025, losses of direct farmer-support staff at the Farm Service Agency (FSA) are particularly concerning as farmers face an ongoing crisis and struggle to stay on the land. In this post, we examine previously unpublished data on FSA County employees to show a troubling loss of local staff. 

Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, NSAC and our colleagues at Prospect Partners have confirmed that over one-third of FSA local offices experienced a net loss of staff by the end of 2025, with 42 offices ending the year with no FSA County employees. These losses compound cuts previously reported on other locally stationed staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service Agency (FSA) who provide direct support to America’s farmers and ranchers. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize reversing FSA staffing losses, ensuring that the local staff who administer programs passed by Congress to help farmers access the credit and other resources they need to build and grow viable operations are present in every community that needs them.

Farm Service Agency: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Data Reveals Majority of Counties Lost Staff

USDA reduced the number of front-line staff at the US Farm Service Agency (FSA) by 8% in 2025, according to data recently obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Over one-third of FSA local offices lost FSA County employees by year’s end, with 42 offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff. Cuts to FSA County staff were USDA’s largest termination of community presence in over a decade. These findings build on federal data released in March 2026 showing widespread loss of FSA Federal personnel in 2025. 

Figure 1: FSA County Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

FSA’s Heritage of Local Presence and Control

Many federal agencies, including the US Postal Service and US Small Business Administration, maintain local presence in the communities they serve. Among such agencies, the Farm Service Agency has a unique heritage of local presence, with over 2,000 reported offices nationwide in 2025 and a commitment to local input regarding who staffs those offices in each county. 

Every FSA office in the country is required by law to have an advisory board, called a County Committee, made up of local elected farmers and ranchers. Since the 1930’s, County Committees have provided grassroots input on FSA programs and hiring. Historically, approximately two-thirds of the FSA workforce have actually served as employees of these local committees, not the federal government. FSA’s locally employed staff are commonly referred to as FSA County Office (FSACO) employees.

This analysis focuses on changes in headcount among FSACO employees, who have primary responsibility for FSA front-line services and are relied upon by local farmers and ranchers to navigate an array of federal agricultural programs.

Top Findings

US farmers and ranchers ended January 2025 with access to 7,672 FSACO staff stationed across 2,037 offices in 2,012 counties. By the end of January 2026, staffing dropped to 7,022 FSACO staff, an 8% decline, across 2,018 offices in 1,992 counties.

• 89% of the FSA County staff lost between January 2025 and December 2025 were full-time, permanent employees.

• The positions with the steepest losses are County Program Analysts, a direct farmer-facing role where staff helps with “interpreting and explaining procedures, program regulations and forms to producers.” FSA lost 614 County Program Analysts between January 2025 and December 2025, the staff farmers and ranchers rely on most to navigate programs and paperwork. 

• Leadership took a significant hit, as well, with 122 positions lost among County Executive Directors and 47 County Executive Directors in Training between January 2025 and December 2025. These experienced leaders manage county office service centers and provide essential outreach to producers, “working closely with farmers and ranchers to promote environmental and economic growth and sustainability.” Major losses in farmer-facing and leadership positions remove a vital conduit between local communities and federal staff, leaving county offices less equipped to deliver the programs and support that American farmers depend on. 

FSA County Employees: Local Impact of Staffing Reductions 

Net staffing reductions among FSACO employees were widely distributed across rural America. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, federal data shows a net reduction of FSA County employees in 704 (34%) counties in the United States and territories. Staffing was flat in 1,122 (54%) counties, with only 232 (11%) showing a net increase. Among counties that started the year with FSA County staff, 38 (2%) counties ended 2025 with no FSA County staff, including three counties unstaffed in Florida and four in Texas.

FSA County Employees: Regional Highlights

Major agricultural states in the Midwest and Southeast lost the most FSA County staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Illinois (51), Indiana (48), Nebraska (43), North Dakota (41) and Georgia and Texas (39 each). Smaller states saw steeper percentage declines, with the largest in Arizona (31%), Hawaii (25%), Vermont (22%), Wyoming (21%), and Rhode Island (20%). Minnesota lost 7% of its FSA County staff. Two states–Indiana and North Dakota–appear on both lists, meaning they lost both large numbers of staff and a substantial share of their total FSA County workforce. 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with FSA County Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The formerly staffed county offices that ended 2025 with zero FSA County staff are spread widely across the West, Midwest, and Southeast, as seen in the map above. 

FSA Federal Employees: Adding to the Impact of County Staffing Reductions 

USDA has historically staffed local FSA offices with a combination of FSA Federal and FSA County employees, the former being locally stationed staff who are employed directly by the Farm Service Agency. FSA Federal employee data, which the federal government published at data.opm.gov on March 4, 2026, shows that headcount declined among FSA Federal employees at more than double the rate of FSA County employees. Headcount among FSA Federal employees fell by 21% in 2025, compared to 8% for FSA County employees. 

Figure 3: Count of FSA County and FSA Federal Employees (Feb 2016- Jan 2026)

FSA Federal employee staffing levels declined in 45% of counties and were flat in 44% of counties. In that same period, 11% of counties experienced a net increase in FSA Federal staff. Nationwide, 127 counties lost all of their FSA Federal employees in 2025, reducing the number of counties with FSA Federal staff from 932 to 805. 

Figure 4: Net Staffing Change Among FSA Federal Employees in US Counties (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The FOIA data obtained for this analysis make visible what farmers and ranchers across the country have been experiencing firsthand: the front-line staff who help them navigate federal programs, manage paperwork, and access a safety net built over decades are disappearing from their communities. With 42 county offices ending 2025 with no FSA County staff, and FSA Federal staff declining at more than double the rate of county staff, the cumulative impact on local agricultural communities is severe. FSA’s heritage of local presence and community accountability — embodied in the County Committee system — was built precisely because federal agricultural programs work best when administered by people who know the land and the farmers they serve. That heritage is now at risk.

Congress must act urgently to reverse FSA staffing losses at both the county and federal level. America’s farmers are in crisis: trade disruption, volatile markets, and a string of natural disasters have put enormous pressure on farm operations of every kind. FSA County staff are the people farmers call when they need to access the programs designed to help them weather exactly these kinds of challenges — including the Emergency Loan program, Emergency Conservation Program, Farmer Bridge Assistance, and the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program. Every one of these programs requires local FSA staff to administer them. NSAC urges Congress to use the appropriations process and the Farm Bill to mandate and fund the restoration of FSA staffing to levels adequate to deliver these essential programs, and to ensure that no county is left without local FSA presence.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Losses Reduce Local Presence in Communities Nationwide appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) spends roughly $4 billion buying food at the lowest price possible, and American family farmers are locked out due to high volume and complex federal contracting requirements. Yet there is a low-cost policy solution that would unlock this existing funding source for more farmers to compete. 

NSAC members National Farm to School Network, Center for Good Food Purchasing, Food Corps, and National Young Farmers Coalition, in partnership with Friends of the Earth, Chef Ann Foundation, and Scratchworks, have heard demands from school nutritionists, farmers, and local food distributors. Farmers want reliable local markets, and schools want fresh, reliable, nutritious foods to serve to students. A school district in Arkansas noted, Produce purchased through broadline distributors is not as fresh as items grown and sourced locally. 

More than 450 schools, farmers, and nutrition organizations are requesting that Congressional agricultural leaders authorize schools to use their entitlement funding to purchase from their local farmers and ranchers. Read more below in a cross-post from the National Farm to School Network.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 10 – As the Senate prepares to release its Farm Bill text, a group of 450 organizations submitted a letter urging Congress to improve the National School Lunch Program for farmers and schools through a new “Local Food Purchase Option.” This policy solution would create a new pathway in the USDA Foods program that would allow schools to use existing entitlement funding on minimally processed, locally sourced food. School districts, farmers, aggregators, parents, and nonprofits from 43 states and Washington D.C. have signed on in support. Together, they back this commonsense solution to benefit small and mid-sized American farmers and ranchers while improving school meal quality for students.

Red Tape, Rising Costs, and the Case for Change

30 million children benefit from the National School Lunch Program each day. As part of this program, schools receive entitlement funding that they spend on commodity foods purchased by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This accounts for 15-20% of the food on students’ lunch trays, amounting to approximately $1.6 billion each year. However, many schools would prefer having the option to spend this entitlement funding on fresh, local foods, which they are limited by within the current program.

“We are surrounded by cattle farms and produce farms but don’t have the funds to work in partnership with them. Being able to use all or part of our entitlement funds towards a partnership would be a dream” says Janene Hatton of Scott County Schools in Kentucky. “The freshest food is transported within a few miles instead of being processed hundreds or thousands of miles away before reaching the plates—that’s the way it should be!” 

While there is interest, red tape and large volume requirements largely exclude family farms from participating in the USDA Foods programs. “We are a large-scale greenhouse grower of hydroponic lettuce in Central Mississippi and would like the opportunity to supply our schools with fresh, healthy chemical-free lettuce. The current local produce to school program makes it difficult to meet the requirements of supplying the entire state,” says Leigh Bailey of Salad Days, LLC, referring to the USDA DoD Fresh program, one of USDA’s current entitlement programs that allows schools to purchase fresh produce. 

Connecting small and mid-size farmers to schools is more important now than ever. According to the American Farm Bureau Foundation, the farm bankruptcy rate increased by 46% in 2025 compared to 2024. School nutrition programs can provide a lifeline and stable revenue source for these farmers, as was demonstrated by USDA’s COVID-19 era Local Food for Schools (LFS) program. However, the second round slated to bring $660 million over three years directly into the hands of family farmers was terminated in March 2025.

“When the LFS grant program was active, we built a network and strong relationships with schools across the state of Arkansas” says John Wahrmund of Wahrmund Farms in Arkansas, who scaled up his farm after USDA announced the second round of LFS. “We invested in a large walk-in freezer to keep inventory and meet the needs of school nutrition services in a timely manner. We received extremely positive feedback about our beef, and know that programs found our product superior, our service superior, and student participation increased. Schools would love to purchase from us and other local food producers if funding were accessible. These purchases would support our family farm, our local processors, and our schools fueling our local economy. Local food purchasing is a win across the board for farmers, schools, and communities.” 

Rising food costs are making it harder for school nutrition professionals to maintain these connections, keep quality food on the menu, and reduce the use of ultra-processed foods. Like Janene Hatton from Kentucky, many simply want more flexibility in how they can spend the funds they already have.

‍The Opportunity for Action Through the Farm Bill

Signatories of this letter see a clear solution: open a new optional pathway within the existing USDA Foods program for schools to divert a portion of their entitlement funds to spend on local, fresh, and minimally processed foods. States can design their programs to best suit their contexts, whether through subawards to schools, contracts with food hubs, or a statewide solicitation for local food. This concept is modeled after the successful Local Food for Schools program, but without the same price tag, since the funds are already there. 

“Our food hub experienced a loss of $500,000 per year when the Local Food for Schools and Local Food Purchase Assistance programs were canceled,” says Peter Kraus of Iowa Food Hub. “Schools tell us they loved our products, but would not continue to purchase without the incentives. We can grow the food system when there are reliable markets.” 

If just 10% of Iowa’s entitlement funds were diverted through this program, it would direct $1.9 million of existing federal funds to local farms and generate $3.3 million in local economic activity, according to National Farm to School Network’s calculator.

Authors of this letter call on the Senate Agriculture Committee to create this new pathway in their version of the Farm Bill. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) has said that the Committee will be introducing text in June.

“Many of our Network Partners, particularly schools, have wanted this pathway for decades. As we continue to advocate for dedicated funds to support local food purchases, more flexibility with entitlement funds is yet another solution to enhance the school food marketplace for family farmers” says Jessica Gudmundson, Executive Director of the National Farm to School Network. As the letter states, “this is a rare bipartisan opportunity to cut red tape, invest in American family farmers, and give schools the flexibility to build stronger local food economies.” With the Farm Bill window open, now is the time to act.

###

About USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option

You can learn more about the USDA Entitlement Local Purchase Option, read the letter, sign-on in support, and estimate the impacts to your state by visiting the website here: https://www.farmtoschool.org/policy/usda-entitlement-local-food-purchase-option 

About National Farm to School Network

National Farm to School Network is the leading voice for the U.S. farm to school and farm to early care and education movement, working as an information, advocacy and networking hub for communities to bring local food sourcing, gardens, and food and agriculture education into schools and early care and education settings. Learn more at: http://farmtoschool.org.

Media Contact: info@farmtoschool.org

The post 450 Organizations Push Congress to Unlock Local Food Funding for Schools appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

This blog post is the second in a series updating analysis on the widespread staffing crisis across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), focusing on the Natural Resources Conservation Service. While our previous post showed that every USDA agency lost staff during 2025, staff losses in direct farmer- and rancher-serving offices are particularly concerning as America’s farmers grapple with severe and ongoing economic and weather disruptions. 

Staff in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) work directly with farmers, providing technical assistance, financial support, and guidance to navigate the suite of programs offered by the agency. Losses in these direct farmer-serving agencies mean that US farmers, ranchers, and landowners have fewer experts in their communities to turn to for assistance. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff capacity, as farmers facing increasingly unpredictable weather impacts cannot afford to lose the local conservation expertise they depend on to build environmentally and economically resilient operations. 

Conservation Staff Depleted

NRCS lost 23% of its staff between January 2025 and January 2026. NRCS staff work directly with farmers and landowners to identify conservation practices that are well-suited to their needs and local natural resource concerns. They provide vital technical assistance for farmers and landowners and help them apply for and manage contracts with conservation programs that help share the cost of conservation practices. 

The NRCS staff position that experienced the largest losses was Soil Conservationist, with a loss of 711 Soil Conservationists during the time period and an additional 283 Soil Conservation Technicians. Soil Conservationists are the primary field staff who work directly with landowners on conservation planning and implementation, and Technicians provide field-level support for conservation work, often handling site assessments, measurements, and installation oversight alongside Soil Conservationists. 

Examining NRCS staff losses at the county level shows more clearly how many US farmers, ranchers, and landowners now lack access to local NRCS staff in their counties. In January 2025, 2,386 counties across the US had NRCS staff working in their local county office. By January 2026, 141 of those counties had lost 100% of their NRCS staff. This means that farmers and landowners in those counties lost staff with local relationships and local knowledge, and that the remaining NRCS staff are now stretched thin over larger geographic areas. 

The map below shows the NRCS staffing levels for every county and the change from January 2025 to January 2026, using data from the Office of Personnel Management.

Figure 1: County-Level NRCS Staffing Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Major agricultural states in the Midwest and West lost the most NRCS staff during 2025. The largest staffing losses were in Texas (144), Kansas (127), Missouri (105), Wisconsin (100), and Colorado (99). States with smaller starting NRCS staff saw deeper percentage declines, with the largest in Rhode Island (44%), New York (38%), Colorado (36%), and Maine (35%). Kansas, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Florida all lost 34% of their NRCS staff. 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with NRCS Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Loss of Key Conservation Positions

The picture sharpens further when looking specifically at five specific occupations most central to NRCS’s conservation mission: Soil Conservation, Soil Conservation Technicians, Soil Science, Agronomy, and Rangeland Management. Together, these occupations lost 1,178 employees in 2025, nearly one in five positions. One hundred thirty-nine counties with at least one employee in these key roles in January 2025 had none by January 2026. Kansas lost key conservation staff in 15 counties; Indiana and Texas each lost coverage in 10. Georgia, while not among the top states for total job losses, lost all key conservation staff in 9 counties — a pattern of losses spread thinly across many locations rather than concentrated in larger offices, leaving widespread gaps in local coverage across the state. 

Farmers Feel the Impacts of Staffing Loss

The consequences of these staffing losses are already reducing farmer access to conservation programs. According to a recent analysis by NSAC member organization the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), acceptance rates for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) dropped sharply in fiscal year 2025. Only about 24% of EQIP applicants and 37% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts in FY2025 — a steep drop from FY2024, when approximately 43% of EQIP applicants and 54% of CSP applicants received contracts. NRCS staff are essential at every step of that process: they help farmers understand which programs fit their operations, support them through the application, and provide the technical assistance needed to implement and manage contracts. Fewer staff means longer waits, fewer applications processed, and more farmers left without the conservation support they need.

Staff Losses Mean Less Support for Farmers

The loss of nearly a quarter of NRCS staff in a single year, including over 700 Soil Conservationists and Technicians, is not an abstraction. These are the people farmers call when they want to plant a cover crop, design a nutrient management plan, or try to navigate a conservation program contract. Their absence means longer wait times, fewer site visits, and reduced access to the technical assistance that makes conservation programs work. With 141 counties now entirely without local NRCS staff, the support net for America’s farmland has real and growing holes. 

Congress must act to restore NRCS staffing capacity before these losses become permanent. Farmers and ranchers across the country are navigating an era of unprecedented natural disasters, from severe drought to catastrophic flooding, and they need the support of local conservation experts who know their land, their operations, and their communities. NSAC urges Congress to prioritize restoring NRCS field staff, with particular attention to rebuilding the positions that form the backbone of conservation delivery. Every county that loses its last NRCS employee loses irreplaceable local knowledge, and the farmers in that county lose a critical partner in building the resilience their operations depend on.

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Widespread Loss of Conservation Staff appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Editor’s Note: This series draws on analysis the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) conducted in partnership with Bernie Kluger, Managing Partner at Prospect Partners, LLC. 

Bernie has led strategic realignments, crisis recoveries, and major capacity-building initiatives in government, higher education, and the private sector. Prior to joining Prospect Partners, Bernie served as enterprise lead for organizational effectiveness and workforce development at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). At USDA, Bernie tackled complex multi-stakeholder negotiations that delivered results for the public, including a nationwide hiring surge that powered a $40 billion expansion in operational capacity.  Bernie holds a B.S. in Political Economy from Williams College and an M.B.A. from Columbia University.  He lives in Washington, DC.

The past sixteen months have seen an unprecedented staffing crisis unfurl across the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This blog post offers a fresh look at the depth and breadth of the ongoing staffing crisis, as well as updates on previously reported nationwide staff cuts across other USDA agencies. A second post examines the deep losses sustained by the farmer-serving staff of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and a third uses previously unpublished data on Farm Service Agency (FSA) County employees to examine the devastating losses of local county staff. 

Analysis of federal personnel data from the US Office of Personnel Management confirms widespread headcount reductions across all USDA agencies, with the exception of staffing increases in the immediate office of the Agriculture Secretary, which grew by 18% in 2025. NSAC urges Congress to use every available tool to address the USDA staffing crisis and pass a bipartisan farm bill that restores the department’s capacity to serve farmers and rural communities. 

USDA Impact: Staffing Declines Across All Agencies, Staffing Increase in the Immediate Office of the Secretary

Between January 2025 and January 2026, USDA lost approximately 20,000 employees, according to staffing data published by the US Office of Personnel Management. Every USDA agency was affected, and staff losses were spread across the entire nation. Our analysis attributes the majority of staff losses (~15,000) to the so-called Deferred Resignation Program, a program run by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to encourage federal employees to voluntarily leave their positions.

On July 24, 2025 US Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins released a memo (SM-1078-015) announcing a planned reorganization of the department, drafted without consultation with farmers, Congress, or other stakeholders. After stakeholders responded with widespread concern, the Secretary announced an ad hoc, informal opportunity to comment on the reorganization, which generated 46,845 responses. According to USDA’s own analysis, 82% of comments were negative, expressing serious concerns with the reorganization. Major themes of concern included the loss of local oversight and expertise, reduction in personnel and resources, and a desire for adequate staffing in every county. 

Despite these overwhelmingly negative responses and continued concern from stakeholders about local presence, the Secretary has continued to move forward with the reorganization plan that would relocate agency headquarters and leadership. Thus far, reorganization plans have been announced for the Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services agency; Food Safety and Inspection Service; Research, Education, and Economics mission area; and the Forest Service. Reporting on employee reactions to the reorganization plan suggests that relocation will lead to further staff losses, exacerbating the existing USDA staffing crisis with negative consequences for farmer and rancher-facing services. A recent survey by the American Federation of Government Employees, for example, found that 76% of its members do not plan to relocate when required by the reorganization plan and would instead leave their positions. 

Staff Losses Are Nationwide

While Secretary Rollins and other headquarters leadership have attempted to frame the USDA reorganization as moving staff out of DC and closer to farmers, the reality is the vast majority of USDA staff already work outside of DC. In January 2025, just 3.24% of all USDA employees worked in Washington, DC. By January 2026, after massive staff losses, still just 3.56% of all USDA employees worked in DC. In reality, 98% of the USDA staff lost between January 2025 and January 2026 were outside of Washington, DC (19,259 employees). 

The map below shows the percentage and number of USDA staff lost in each state between January 2025 and January 2026. 

Figure 1: USDA Staff Losses January 2025-January 2026

Every state and territory lost USDA staff during this time period. The states that lost the highest number of staff were: Maryland (1,411), California (1,080), Texas (925), Virginia (896), Colorado (850), Oregon (682), New Mexico (640), Kansas (559), Georgia (546), and Missouri (514). 

The relative impact of staffing losses was unevenly spread, with multiple states losing over 20% of staff. The 10 states experiencing the largest percentage staff losses include: Maryland (41%), Rhode Island (41%), Virginia (37%), Maine (29%), Alaska (29%), Kansas (28%), Massachusetts (27%), Vermont (27%), New York (25%), and Florida (24%). 

Figure 2: Top 10 States with USDA Staff Losses (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

Loss of Experienced Staff

USDA also experienced a dramatic loss of highly experienced and skilled staff. Between January 2025 and January 2026, the number of staff with more than ten years of service declined by nearly 7,000 (from 45,247 in 2025 to just 38,291 in 2026). These experienced mid and late-career staff carry irreplaceable institutional knowledge that supports the functioning of the department.

Every USDA Agency Lost Staff

While the overall loss of 1 in 5 USDA employees is already staggering, some departmental agencies had even more significant staffing losses. The Office of Partnerships and Public Engagement (OPPE) lost more than half of its staff (55%), the Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) lost 41%, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 40%, Rural Development (RD) 36%, and National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) 36%. Staff losses at NIFA are particularly troubling, with the Government Accountability Office reporting lingering negative impacts on productivity following a previous relocation in 2019 of the agency to Kansas City, MO.

Table 1: USDA Staff Losses by Agency (Jan 2025-Jan 2026)

The current Administration’s impact on the “People’s Agency” is clear: USDA has lost one in five of its employees in just twelve months, with the overwhelming majority of cuts to staff capacity and expertise happening at the state and county level. The reorganization plan now underway risks transforming a shortfall into a crisis, as the majority of employees subject to relocation requirements have indicated they would leave the agency rather than uproot their lives and families to move. The posts that follow examine in greater detail the losses sustained by two agencies with the most direct farmer-facing roles: the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Farm Service Agency.

Congress must treat the collapse of USDA’s workforce as a crisis that can be averted. With one in five USDA employees gone in a single year and reorganization plans poised to drive further departures, lawmakers must use every available lever to reverse course. America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities are facing serious challenges, and they need a USDA that is fully staffed and fully functional. 

The post USDA Staffing Crisis: Nationwide Losses appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

lzaks@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Comment: USDA Small Processor Plan Highlights Recent Work, Future Opportunities

Washington, DC, June 5, 2026 – Today, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) commends the release of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Small Processors Action Plan by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins. The plan highlights previous and potential future actions by USDA to protect and promote Small and Very Small meat processors. 

In the Action Plan, USDA highlights its work on the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) Overtime and Holiday Fee Reduction Program for Small and Very Small Establishments. The Plan also highlights a small expansion of the state Meat and Poultry Inspection (MPI) program, an NSAC priority. Continued expansion of the program, and the associated Cooperative Interstate Shipment (CIS) should also be invested in as they increase markets for small and very small processors in a fiscally sound way. 

“The success of Small and Very Small processors is critical to the success of our rural communities and agricultural system. NSAC appreciates USDA’s cross agency attention to Small and Very Small plant issues, and encourages the Department to invest in further stakeholder engagement and input. By expanding and refocusing Small Plant Roundtables exclusively on Small & Very Small plants, and implementing recommendations to improve outreach and reduce barriers for these plants, USDA can take critical next steps for improving Small Processors viability. We look forward to engaging with them as they do so,” commented Connor Kippe, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

Some of the next steps FSIS should pursue from the 2020 Report on Outreach to Small and Very Small Processors include studying inspection decisions and enforcement actions across circuits, districts, and inspectors. Similarly, the National Advisory Committee in 2023 and 2024 offered in the Meat & Poultry Inspection Recommendations support continued investment in technical assistance not included in the Action Plan.  

NSAC looks forward to ensuring these reforms become mandatory and continued in perpetuity by the inclusion of all components of the Strengthening Local Processing Act in a new farm bill. 

###  

About the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC)The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities. Learn more and get involved at: https://sustainableagriculture.net

The post Comment: USDA Small Processor Plan Highlights Recent Work, Future Opportunities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Urban farms not only grow food, but they also build community, create green space, and increase access to healthy food. Yet, farmers in urban and suburban areas are not immune to the pressures of higher input costs and competition for resources. These issues simply present in different ways. Farmers in more residentially dense areas feel the pressure of development and competition for land, resulting in tenuous land access or complicated zoning ordinances; access to safe water for irrigation can be extremely costly or entirely reliant on rainwater; the smaller size of their business can make it difficult to benefit from bulk purchases in the same way as traditional farming operations. 

These issues are more common among farms than expected. Analysis of 2022 Agricultural Census data — overlaid with USDA Economic Research Service Rural-Urban Continuum Codes — shows that 839,049 farms are located in metro counties, and another 708,857 operate in non-metro counties adjacent to metro areas. Altogether, more than 1.5 million farms face unique urban and suburban pressures that farmers located outside these areas do not face. 

The 2018 Farm Bill took significant steps to dedicate US Department of Agriculture (USDA) resources to addressing these challenges by creating the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP). Since its creation, OUAIP has quickly implemented programming, grants, and cooperative agreements. These activities have provided vital support to urban farmers while identifying new and ongoing barriers for the upcoming farm bill reauthorization to address. 

USDA Offices Meet Farmers Where They Are 

The creation of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production stole the spotlight of the 2018 Farm Bill, understandably so since it has invested over $85 million through 199 grants and 146 cooperative agreements across 43 states and Puerto Rico since 2020. However, an often overlooked win in the farm bill was the creation of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Urban County Committees and their respective USDA Service Centers.

Local USDA Service Centers are essential for farmers to access resources. Oftentimes, they serve as the primary point of service for farmers seeking support from USDA. In an effort to ensure Centers respond to the unique needs of the geographical regions they serve, farmers also elect their peers to serve on FSA County Committees. These committees ensure farmer representation in local decision-making that affects the delivery of services in the area. This model was authorized in 1935. Today, nearly 2,300 Centers are nestled within farming communities nationwide, and since 2020, USDA has named 27 new FSA Urban County Committees and corresponding service centers to specifically serve farmers in urban and suburban settings. The map below shows the locations of all 27 FSA Urban County Committees.

Partnerships Expedite Implementation and Increase Reach

In an effort to strengthen new Service Centers and Urban County Committees, FSA has partnered with community organizations to provide technical assistance and conduct farmer outreach to promote FSA resources to farmers who have less experience navigating USDA services. In 2023, FSA entered into dozens of new Urban Agriculture Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance cooperative agreements with community-based technical assistance providers. Agreements varied in scope to respond to unique geographic needs, but all maintained key elements: 

• assisting farmers with required FSA annual reporting; 
• providing business planning;
• matching technical assistance with a micro-grant that corresponds with their business growth goals. 

Several National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) members across the country received agreements, including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Farm to Table New Mexico, PASA Sustainable Agriculture, Sprout, Renewing the Countryside, and Cultivate Kansas City, while many more partnered closely with cooperators. The map below shows the location of NSAC members with FSA cooperative agreements to support urban farmers. 

In order to reach farmers, organizations developed curricula, technical guides, and organized services via group settings or 1-1 services. While many USDA Urban Service Centers were slow to open their doors, these local partners scheduled farm visits, hosted community events, and ensured services were accessible to all interested farmers. Organizations offered traditional farm technical assistance such as help filing for a farm number, acreage reporting, and production planning, along with contextual support to navigate local zoning restrictions and access city utilities. 

Due to the distinct challenges of urban settings, farmers are often proactively addressing these concerns. As a result, organizations often found that farmers were more than ready for education and training on topics such as sustainable pest management, urban landscaping, water runoff management, rainwater collection, compost infrastructure and management, and soil health through cover crops and other techniques. 

Partnerships Remove Barriers to Capital Access 

One key element of the Urban Agriculture Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance agreements was the inclusion of subawards in the form of micro-grants to farmers. Capital access for new, beginning, and small farm operations can be difficult due to limited revenue history, lack of collateral, or small initial profit projections. These challenges for urban farmers can be exacerbated by limited land ownership and competitiveness in limited USDA annual funding pools. 

To address these challenges, many organizations allocated a portion of their organizational funding for implementing micro-grant awards to producers. Since these same partners were intimately involved in business development and planning with the farmers, the awards were well timed and led to sizeable impact. 

One Cooperator – Farm to Table New Mexico – shared that their competitive micro-grant application process was designed to support farmers in increasing their production capacity. All the recipients operate with a gross cash income of $250,000 or less annually. They focused on supporting capacity building for a diverse range of small-scale producers in urban communities as an important investment in the state’s food ecosystem that will help deliver locally grown and nutritious products directly to urban communities. Because Farm to Table is deeply engaged with technical assistance for urban producers, they were well equipped to support farmers in the application process and identify which applications would be most impactful.

Farm to Table implemented 3 years of grant cycles, funding 40 projects for a total of $341,961 directly invested in local farming operations. One project included funding for the Williams Family Farm, which operates the region’s only winter tomato production using natural and organic practices. They quickly exceeded their own capacity after they launched winter operations. Grant funds supported the construction of a third winter greenhouse, enabling the farm to supply all San Juan County schools and day care centers through the New Mexico Grown program. 

Similarly, Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF) awarded 52 microgrants across seven California counties valued at $607,500. Microgrant awards were primarily used for production supplies, infrastructure, and associated labor costs. Project examples include refrigeration for farmstand and wholesale operations, irrigation installation and automation for seedlings, compost systems, and more. 85% of farms that received these micro-grants sell their produce in communities with greater need, such as to seniors and low-income families. 

One project that received CAFF funding was Local Ecology and Agriculture Fremont (LEAF), which used their grant to purchase a small, used tractor with a front loader to improve the efficiency of their operation. This purchase facilitated tasks such as mulching, composting, and planting. The tractor greatly expanded their operational footprint from .33 acre to 1.3 acres while supporting their mission of increasing food production for underserved families and fostering community resilience. A before and after funding photo is below.

Farmers from other regions have shared additional details about their individual experience. 

With the micro-grant, I was able to update the irrigation, seed container, tools, and plumbing in the farm. I really enjoyed how simple the application process was, and it was useful for our small farm,” shared a 9th Ward community garden in New Orleans. 

In Kansas City, Ophelia’s Blue Vine Farm was funded to upgrade their greenhouse to increase year-round production capabilities. It is estimated that improvements will increase yield in the greenhouse by 20-30%. These upgrades will improve insulation, extend the growing season, and lower energy costs, creating a more efficient and sustainable system for growing fresh, affordable food in Kansas City’s 18th & Vine District.

The Case for Ongoing Investments in Partnerships 

The Urban Agriculture Outreach, Education, and Technical Assistance agreements have been instrumental in introducing new services and processes for farmers unfamiliar with USDA services. The timing of these agreements led to even greater impact due to the high turnover in local field office staffing in the past fourteen months. FSA lost 21% of its federal staff between January 2025 and January 2026 and an additional 8% of its FSA county staff during the same time period. The loss of these FSA staff makes it even more difficult for urban farmers to get the support they need. Partnership agreements such as these provide continuity of services from trusted partners that can help support farmers and USDA staff alike. 

Relatedly, despite funding for OUAIP, staff turnover in the national office last year interfered with full implementation of Congressionally mandated programs, such as the Urban and Innovative Production Grants. The Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) was withdrawn in February 2025, and there were no grant awards made in Fiscal Year 2025. Unfortunately, we are rapidly approaching the end of Fiscal Year 2026 and have not seen OUAIP post a NOFO for this year’s grants. Community partners, such as the ones highlighted above, have demonstrated their abilities to administer similar grant and training programs, filling a critical gap when USDA’s operations are delayed or otherwise hampered by insufficient staffing. 

A Farm Bill Solution 

Congressional leaders in the Senate recognize the potential of community partnerships and have introduced legislation that could increase capacity to OUAIP while maximizing reach of direct-to-farmer investments.

Last month, Senators John Fetterman (D-PA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tina Smith (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and John Hickenlooper (D-CO) introduced the Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act, S.4470. This bill seeks to strengthen existing OUAIP services and expand the Office’s reach by supporting ongoing outreach, education, and technical assistance partnerships. 

Specifically, the bill would: 

• direct OUAIP to develop resources and engage local and state USDA Service Centers to serve the unique conservation and business-planning needs of urban and small-scale farmers; 
• expand existing grant eligible entities to include farmer cooperatives; 
• direct formal agreements with community organizations and technical assistance providers that can readily reach farmers; 
• enable subawards so that farmer training and education can be paired with a modest influx of capital to strengthen on-farm impact; and
• secure reliable, mandatory funding of $15 million annually to continue its essential operations.

As the Senate Agriculture Committee prepares to introduce legislation reauthorizing the 2018 Farm Bill, it must provide sufficient resources to meet the new and persistent challenges facing farmers nationwide, including the unique challenges of farmers in urban and suburban areas. The Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act provides a clear pathway to do so.

The post USDA Sows Trust and Farm Success in Urban Communities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

After a year of funding freezes, cancellations of programs, and disruptions to grant fund distributions, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has opened applications for several sustainable agriculture grant opportunities. This blog post provides an overview of each funding program currently open, the application deadline, and eligibility criteria. This list serves as a useful reference for family farmers and eligible entities looking to advance sustainable agriculture. Anyone applying for federal funding should review this great resource developed by Farm Commons, that helps grantees navigate new compliance requirements under USDA’s updated Terms and Conditions.

The grant opportunities listed below are sorted into three categories:

• Local Food and Nutrition 
• Education and Business Development
• Specialty Crops

The Requests for Application (RFAs) are organized by category, and then by earliest to latest application deadline. Most deadlines are spread throughout June, with the earliest deadline on June 5, 2026!

Editor’s Note: USDA is now using the term “Notice of Funding Opportunity” or “NOFO” for all grant funding announcements. We continue to use “Request for Application” or “RFA” here out of familiarity but will soon shift toward using NOFO in our postings as well for continuity.

Local Food and Nutrition Programs

Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP)

Deadline: June 5, 2026

The Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) is a competitive grant program through the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) that funds projects meant to promote direct-to-consumer markets. There are a variety of project types that support capacity building, training, technical assistance, and marketing and promotion. There is approximately $13 million available in funding this year. Projects have a 25% match requirement that can be satisfied by in-kind or cash contributions. Apply here.

Eligibility: Agricultural businesses or cooperatives; community supported agriculture (CSA) networks or associations; economic development corporations; food councils; local government; nonprofit corporations; producer networks or associations; public benefit corporations; regional farmers market authorities; tribal governments

Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP)

Deadline: June 5, 2026

The Local Food Promotion Program (LFPP) is an AMS competitive grant program that supports the development of entities that enhance intermediary supply chain activities, more specifically initiatives that help connect agricultural products to local markets. For example, eligible projects include support for processing, aggregation, distribution, and storage of local and regional food products. There is approximately $13 million in funding available this year for planning, implementation, marketing, recruitment, or training projects. All projects require a 25% cash or in-kind contribution. Apply here.

Eligibility: Agricultural businesses or cooperatives; community supported agriculture (CSA) networks or associations; economic development corporations; food councils; local government; nonprofit corporations; producer networks or associations; public benefit corporations; regional farmers market authorities; tribal governments

Regional Food System Partnerships (RFSP)

Deadline: June 5, 2026

The Regional Food System Partnerships (RFSP) program is an AMS grant that provides support for partnerships that bridge public and private resources for the development of local and regional food systems. There is approximately $4.7 million available to fund planning or implementation projects. Each project will require a 25% cash cost share. Apply here.

Eligibility: Community supported agriculture (CSA) networks or associations; economic development associations; farmer or rancher cooperatives; food councils; local governments; majority-controlled producer-based business ventures; nonprofit corporations; producers; producer networks or associations; public benefit corporations; regional farmers market authorities; tribal governments

Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP)

Deadline: June 26, 2026

The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) funds projects administered by government agencies and non-profit organizations that aim to increase fruit and vegetable purchases among SNAP participants through incentives provided at the point of purchase. Projects increase accessibility and affordability of fruit and vegetable purchases by offering discounts or matching funds. NIFA is allocating $36 million to this program, with award amounts ranging from $10,000-$15,000,000 based on the scale of the project. Each project requires a 50% cost share that can be satisfied through cash or in-kind contributions. Apply here.

Eligibility: Government agencies; non-profit organizations 

* Award recipients may sub-award to organizations ineligible to apply if those organizations are necessary for the project

Education and Business Development Programs

Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG)

Deadline: June 15, 2026 (Strategic Economic and Community Development) OR June 30, 2026 for all other applicants

The Rural Business Development Grant (RBDG) provides grant funds to public bodies or government entities, tribes, or nonprofit entities for economic development and job creation projects in rural areas on the outskirts of cities with a population of 50,000 or more. RBDG grants fall into two different categories: business opportunity grants and enterprise grants. 

Eligibility: Public body or government entities; tribes; nonprofits focused on rural service 

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP)

Deadline: June 16, 2026

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) provides support for projects that provide training, education, outreach, or technical assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers. These projects are aimed at helping beginning farmers and ranchers make informed decisions about their operations and enhance their sustainability. This year, NIFA announced the availability of $44 million in grant funds, with award amounts ranging from $49,999-$750,000. 

Eligibility: Land-grant institutions; colleges and universities; foundations maintained by colleges or universities; state cooperative extension services; federal, state, municipal, or tribal agencies; community-based organizations (CBOs); nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); private for-profit organizations

Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP)

Deadline: June 30, 2026

The Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP) provides funding for Business Development Organizations such as nonprofits, federally-recognized tribes and higher education institutions to help small businesses and micro entrepreneurs through training, technical assistance, and microloans. The program will assist the growth and founding of microenterprises in rural areas with a population of less than 50,000 residents. 

Eligibility: Nonprofits; federally-recognized tribes; institutions of higher education

Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPEPP)

Deadline: August 7, 2026

The Meat and Poultry Processing Expansion Program (MPEPP) has $60 million in funds available for capacity-building for very small, small, and intermediate-sized meat and poultry facilities that primarily process cattle, though multi species plants may apply. MPEPP aims to increase competition, sustainable development, and supply chain resilience. Funding will be distributed equally between two applicant pools, one being very small (0-10 FTE) and small (10-500 FTE) processors, and the other being intermediate processors (here defined as 500-3000 FTE). Awards will be given to two types of projects, with $50,000 – $2 million available for processing expansion projects, and $10,000 – $250,000 available for equipment-only projects.

Eligibility: Very small processors; small processors; intermediate processors 

Specialty Crop Programs

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBG)

Deadline: June 8, 2026

The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBG) provides funds for projects undertaken by State departments of agriculture to increase the competitiveness of specialty crops. States have flexibility to focus on a variety of specialty crops, such as fruits and vegetables, tree nuts, and horticultural and nursery crops. Projects are required to benefit a network of growers or the industry broadly and are not intended to serve a single entity. Examples of previously funded projects include field day trainings for organic small fruit production or food safety practice workshops. Funding availability varies by state. More information can be found in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. 

Eligibility: State departments of agriculture

Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI)

Deadline: June 15, 2026

Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) provides funding for research and extension projects on specialty crops that are multidisciplinary, participatory with key stakeholders, and systems-based. Examples of projects that have met SCRI’s priorities in the past are research on managing nematodes or developing IPM solutions to pests found on cucurbits. 

Eligibility: Federal agencies; national laboratories; colleges and universities; research institutions and organizations; private organizations; foundations; or corporations; state agricultural experiment stations; cooperative extension services; individuals

There are a number of exciting funding opportunities currently available. Hopefully this post has helped introduce them! NSAC will continue to monitor funding opportunities, so stay tuned for any updates. 

For more information on these and other federal agricultural policies and programs, please visit the Grassroots Guide to Federal Farm and Food Programs!

The post RFA Roundup: Current Funding Opportunities appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The year was 1988, and in rural Minnesota during the cold of winter, several dozen sustainable agriculture leaders across the Midwest gathered for the first time to build a policy campaign to address the aftermath of the farm crisis and build a more sustainable future for farmers. This first small gathering contained the seeds of what would eventually become the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition of today: over 170 members, a staff of 18, and decades of legislative achievements in Washington.

Those founding organizations of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, NSAC’s predecessor, made one important early structural decision: they built SAC to operate under fiscal sponsorship. Fiscal sponsorship is a nonprofit organizing structure where a project or initiative is housed by a parent nonprofit, which provides administrative support and a pathway to receive funding. Little did those founders know that a decision they made in 1988 would stand for 38 years!

With growth can come a time for change. As part of our continued expansion and evolution, NSAC is proud to announce that as of April 1, 2026, we are now operating as a fully independent 501(c)3 nonprofit. We’re proud to mark this occasion by sharing a bit of the history behind our structure.

Fiscal Sponsorship for a Fledgling Coalition

In its earliest years, SAC was a small, nimble coalition founded by 13 initial organizational members who wanted to organize together to advance support for sustainable agriculture through federal policy reform. Funds were scarce and the coalition operated grant-to-grant, with members co-leading campaigns and funds initially supporting a single on-contract advocate – NSAC’s founding Policy Director Ferd Hoefner – along with a cohort of grassroots organizers based with member organizations. Under this model, members of SAC rotated who would receive a grant and administer funds across the coalition’s members and contractors, with organizations like the Center for Rural Affairs, Kansas Rural Center, Catholic Rural Life, and The Minnesota Project stepping up in rotation.

As SAC established a track record of success – these early years featured some of our very first wins, including the creation of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension (SARE) program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and Beginning Farmer loan programs, among others – members began to feel that this coalition might have some staying power. They had big policy goals to achieve and more organizations interested in joining the fight, both of which would need more funding and more staff. So in 1994, during a summer coalition meeting in Wisconsin, SAC members collectively made a decision that lasted decades: they selected the Center for Rural Affairs, a founding member, to serve as the coalition’s fiscal sponsor. This allowed SAC to hire additional staff and benefit from increased administrative stability, all of which in turn strengthened its member-led campaign work. That fiscal sponsorship relationship lasted for over 30 years.

In the 1990s, as SAC operated steadily under the fiscal sponsorship of the Center, another national network was founded: the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture (learn a bit more about the history of NCSA on our history page). These two organizations operated as partners and peers on federal policy campaigns from 1994 until 2007, a period in which SAC grew from a few dozen to over 45 members and expanded beyond its Midwest origins and the Campaign grew to over 100 affiliated organizations. In 2007, the two partners began a 2-year process to merge into one combined entity: the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, which formally commenced in 2009 and doubled the Coalition’s formal membership to over 80 organizations.

Longtime Partnership with the Center for Rural Affairs

The Coalition’s fiscal sponsorship partnership with the Center carried forward through the merger and into a period of continued growth for NSAC as our staff and membership more than doubled again from 2009 to 2024. Over those years, the Center grew too, from a team of 28 to 60 today, adding an affiliated Community Development Financial Intuition (CDFI) and expanding the geographic reach of its staff and programming. Fiscal sponsorship historically is a role the Center has played for partners – they fiscally sponsored a range of organizations over the years, including the National Campaign’s early years, the National Young Farmers Coalition, and Mississippi River Network, among others. Today the bulk of the Center’s work is focused on policy change, capacity building and capital access for the communities they serve. 

Fiscal sponsorship has worked remarkably well for NSAC: it has allowed us to offer more comprehensive benefits as a small employer and kept our financials audited and sound, which in turn has helped us focus our daily attention on our core campaign advocacy efforts to best serve our members.

Time for Transition

The question of if – or when – to transition out of fiscal sponsorship into independent 501(c)3 status is a big one for any nonprofit. For NSAC and the Center, it was regularly integrated into our 3-year renewal cycles as a matter of intentional, collaborative governance. We knew the time might eventually come, but also hoped to find time to make the transition when we had the resources and capacity to do it smoothly.

In 2024, we came to a mutual understanding: our two growing organizations, both of whom have taken on work of increasing scope, complexity, and specialization in recent years, were ready to begin the separation process. NSAC and CFRA worked closely to set a timeline, and NSAC’s team and Organizational Council charted a process that included incorporating as a DC-based nonprofit, applying for and receiving 501(c)3 status, chartering new member-approved bylaws, transitioning our Organizational Council into a formal Board of Directors, and setting up independent financial, human resources, administrative, and operations systems in-house. It was no small project: planning and executing the spin-off took nearly two years!

NSAC is now proudly its own independent 501(c)3 nonprofit, with all the administrative and organizational systems in place to ensure our continued stability, growth, and strategic flexibility into the future. The Center remains a Represented member of NSAC and a trusted partner in our work, and we are deeply grateful for our decades of collaboration through fiscal sponsorship.

Where do we go from Here?

To the outside world, not much will change! The NSAC you know and trust will continue sharing policy analysis, leading campaigns, and building power for a more sustainable, equitable farm and food system into the future. We took this big step — amidst turbulent times in Washington — to ensure NSAC can continue to serve our members and the larger movement into a future where we are needed more than ever.

As we step into this new chapter as an independent 501(c)(3), we carry forward decades of proven federal policy advocacy on behalf of farmers, ranchers, and local communities nationwide. Our work has always been powered by and for the movement we serve: those who believe in a more resilient, equitable, and sustainable food and farm system.

We are ready to keep building toward the next 30+ years of our work together! This is a moment where your support matters more than ever: can you make a donation to mark this major milestone and help us remain effective, strategic, and future facing? Your support, at any level, helps us ensure family farmers and local advocates have a voice in Washington, DC. We are counting on you to help sustain and grow this work in 2026 and beyond. Donate now: https://secure.everyaction.com/ATKAsUdFNEa6QkTSgXvoqA2

The post NSAC Marks its Transition to an Independent 501(c)3 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.