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.

On April 29, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a 35-25 vote, the fiscal year (FY) 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The markup lasted nearly 6 hours, covering a wide range of issues – from staffing shortages at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), to cuts to conservation programs, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

The House bill sets FY27 USDA spending at $22.5 billion, which is $675 million below FY26 levels. These funding reductions come at the expense of many programs popular among farmers, which are detailed below. In addition, the bill includes harmful policy riders that would prevent implementation of rules designed to promote fair competition for livestock farmers under the Packers and Stockyards Act, as well as any similar rulemaking effort (Section 758). However, the bill includes report language on staffing levels at Farm Service Agency (FSA), Rural Development (RD), and Agriculture Research Service (ARS), noting the need for significant and rapid onboarding of employees to these agencies.

The remainder of this blog post provides a deeper analysis of the FY27 House Agriculture Appropriations bill. 

Conservation, Energy, and Environment

One of the most staggering funding cuts in the bill comes for Conservation Operations (Con Ops). The House funds Conservation Operations at $800 million, roughly $50 million below its current funding level. Included in the $800 million is $636.243 million for Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), a $61.38 million cut, and zero dollars for the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI), an $8 million cut. This is the largest cut to CTA proposed by the House in recent years, and shows cuts above and beyond reductions in Conservation Operations directed at CTA. As in past years, the House continues to attempt to zero out funding for GLCI, despite the growing popularity of grass-based systems among new farmers and ranchers. This all comes after FY26 appropriations levels cemented one of the largest cuts to Con Ops and CTA in the last decade.

Producers across the country depend heavily on the availability of on-the-ground technical assistance to implement effective conservation practices. CTA facilitates the administration of USDA conservation programs by supporting local staff, conservation planning, and the extension of specialized technical assistance to producers. Conservation Operations funding also protects agricultural land and wetlands, supports NRCS soil surveys, snow surveys, water supply forecasting, and plant materials centers. These provide important information and tools to help producers monitor and manage their land more effectively.

Cuts to CTA are especially notable this year, as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the primary agency within USDA that delivers on-the-ground conservation assistance to farmers, ranchers, and landowners, is facing record-low staffing levels. CTA funds are flexible in that they allow NRCS to support both its own staff and TA providers at third-party organizations. This is perhaps one of the most important accounts fully funded in order to ensure producers can access conservation programs going forward.

Sustainable and Organic Research

The FY27 House bill also failed to adequately fund sustainable and organic research. The Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program (SARE) received $40 million in the House proposal, $8 million below its current funding level, and well below the $60 million that NSAC and over 100 farmers, food, and farm organizations requested. SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build on farm resilience. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report From the Field, less than half of eligible Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding from 2024-2025, highlighting the significant lack of funding for farmer-led research. The proposed cut will exacerbate this problem, boxing even more farmers out of the most successful farmer-led USDA research program.

Meanwhile, within organic-focused research, the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) did not receive any discretionary funding on top of its mandatory authorization level of $50 million, continuing a trend seen in recent years. The Organic Transitions Program (ORG) received level funding of $7.5 million, a disappointment in light of repeated calls for increased funding to keep pace with organic market demand. The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) also received level funding of $435 million.

However, the Committee report – which offers guidance to USDA but does not constitute a requirement that the Department has to follow – includes language highlighting the need for more organic research across USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics (REE) Mission Area. Specifically, it addresses:

• “Organic Agriculture Impact Study.—The Committee recognizes that organic producers would greatly benefit from an economic impact study on the effect of organic agriculture on local economies. The Committee directs the Economic Research Service (ERS), in coordination with the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative (ODI), to analyze how organic agriculture affects the labor market, environmental quality, land ownership, social dynamics, and vitality of local economies.”
• Organic Agriculture Research.—The Committee provides no less than the fiscal year 2026 level for organic agriculture research, particularly across the Northern Plains, to address critical producer-identified constraints such as weed management and soil fertility, and to support coordinated research on crops, livestock integration, soil health, and nutrient efficiency to meet demand for organic foods.

Organic groups have long highlighted the need for more resources at USDA directed at Organic, and NSAC is pleased to see the inclusion of this report language in the bill.

Elsewhere within the purview of the USDA-REE Mission Area, the bill does not provide any additional discretionary funding for the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach Grant Program (FOTO), which includes both the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (2501). While FOTO receives $50 million in mandatory funding that is unaffected by annual appropriations, the program received additional discretionary appropriations each year between FY20 and FY23, which National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) members strongly supported to meet the high demand for the program. BFRDP is the only federal program seeking to explicitly train the next generation of farmers, and 2501 has served as the only farm bill program dedicated to addressing the needs of minority farmers.  

Finally, the bill includes some important report language on Regional Cultivar Development Research, the Long Term Agroecosystem Research Network (LTAR), and ARS staffing that NSAC is pleased to see included.

• “The Committee recognizes that matching crop varieties with weather zones increases production and reduces costs and recognizes that farmers need access to seeds and animal breeds adapted to their farming systems, soils and weather.”
• “Long-Term Agroecosystem Research (LTAR) Network.—The Committee is aware of the LTAR network’s work to support sustainable intensification of agricultural production but is concerned about the lack of geographic diversity and the absence of specialty crop work in the program. The Committee provides an increase of $500,000 to include more geographic and crop diversification in the selection of LTAR sites.”
• “The Committee directs USDA to work expeditiously to fill vacancies for ARS scientists and support staff and to brief the Committee on these efforts within 90 days of enactment of this Act.”

NSAC is pleased to see the House recognize the importance of regional breeding programs and the LTAR Network, as well as highlighting the need for better staffing at ARS.

Local and Regional Food Systems

While the number of farms in the US has steadily declined since 2012, according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture, an inverse effect is being seen with the proportion of farms reporting local and regional sales and the revenue generated from these sales. Unfortunately, despite the clear economic opportunity local and regional markets offer farmers and rural communities, the House bill underdelivers on investments in programs that support local and regional farm economies. 

The Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) includes the Value-Added Producer Grant Program (VAPG) and the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP). Combined, these programs support farmers tapping into new markets or diversifying farm revenue, support updates and expansion of farmers markets, and support the establishment of new or scaled local supply chains.

The House bill provides level discretionary funding for FMLFPP at $7.4 million, which brings its total program investment close to $31 million, coupled with its annual mandatory funding. However, the bill makes another cut in direct funding for farmers by only funding VAPG at $6.5 million. This cut is significant considering the dramatic cuts already made to VAPG in previous fiscal years. Since FY24, VAPG has seen consistent cuts, with FY27 representing a record low from its formerly funded level of $13 million. The House bill proposes discretionary program funding that would be half of what it was just 4 years ago. 

The bill makes further cuts to programs that support new local market opportunities by reducing funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP). While OUAIP is relatively new, it has demonstrated the capacity to manage multiple grant programs, a national advisory committee, and coordinate resources across USDA. Since it first received funding in FY2020, it has invested over $78 million in 349 grants and cooperative agreements to support the unique needs of agricultural production and community food security in urban, suburban, and rural communities. 

Currently funded at $5 million, the bill proposes only $2 million for OUAIP in FY27, taken out of the aforementioned Conservation Operations account, meaning the bill not only cuts overall funding for OUAIP and Conservation Operations, but further cuts Conservation Operations by using their already limited funding to fund OUAIP. OUAIP has seen significant funding cuts in recent years, dropping from $8.5 million to $7 million in FY24 and from $7.5 million to $5 million in FY26. Despite these cuts, the program remains incredibly popular, resulting in many eligible projects going unfunded. In fact, since its origination, the Office has considered over 2,500 eligible applicants and funded roughly 345 projects, or ~14% of requests.

In addition, for the second year, the House bill proposes a 50% matching requirement for OUAIP grantees. This steep matching requirement would considerably limit even further the types of organizations able to apply for grants, therefore limiting the efforts of farmers, gardeners, citizens, schools, cities, tribes, and other stakeholders trying to address food access, increase food production, provide training and education, and support beginning farmer infrastructure needs. 

The final cut to local and regional food economies impacts not only farmers, but also low-income mothers and their children to readily access fresh, nutritious foods from their local farmers markets. Prior to FY2024, the Farmers Market Nutrition Program for participants in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) was well funded at $26 million annually. Unfortunately, since then, the program has not received more than $10 million annually. These cuts have led states, including Colorado and Alabama, to opt out of the program due to insufficient funding.

NSAC recommends that the Senate address these significant cuts by returning these impactful and popular local food program funding to its historical levels, and to do so without new matching requirements and without diverting funding from other accounts.

What’s Next

Given that the House Appropriations Committee was able to pass the FY27 Agriculture Appropriations bill nearly two months earlier than they did last year, all eyes now turn toward the Senate. As of posting, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to release a FY27 USDA funding proposal, though one is expected in the coming weeks. In the past several years, the Senate has skipped a subcommittee markup, moving instead straight to a full Committee markup. 

Once the Senate Appropriations Committee passes its FY27 Agriculture bill, the next step will be floor consideration of both bills in each respective chamber. Congress has not passed an Appropriations Bill by the end of the fiscal year, September 30, in recent memory. A continuing resolution – which would continue government funding at FY26 levels and prevent another government shutdown– seems likely, though not certain, before the September 30, 2026, deadline.

For detailed information about appropriations, visit NSAC’s Agriculture Appropriations Chart. 

The post Inside the House’s FY27 Agriculture Spending Bill appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Release: Senate Bill Aims to Strengthen USDA Support for Urban and Innovative Farmers

Washington, DC, May 4, 2026 – Late last week, 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 provides programmatic improvements and resources for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production to address the growing program demand and equip the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Centers with tools to support the unique needs of urban and innovative operations. Specifically, it would promote the delivery of conservation planning and business technical assistance, enable subawards in existing grants to deliver more resources to farmers, and direct a national data collection initiative to accurately quantify the prevalence of innovative production. 

“In just a few years, the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production has proven the effectiveness of pairing grants with hands-on technical assistance from trusted regional partners. We’ve seen new partnerships form and hundreds of projects launched that support incubator farms, training, and youth development initiatives nationwide. The Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act would provide a permanent pathway to replicate this approach while providing the necessary funding to fully implement it,” commented Hannah Quigley, NSAC Policy Specialist. 

“Investing in cooperative agreements between USDA and community technical assistance providers is not only effective for amplifying USDA resources; it is critical in a time where USDA staffing levels are at their lowest and needs among farmers are still high,” added Quigley.

The Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act would enable the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production to: 

• Address the unique conservation and business-planning needs of urban and small-scale farmers;
• Enter into formal partnerships with community organizations and technical assistance providers that can more readily reach farmers; 
• Enable subawards so that farmer training and education can be paired with a modest influx of capital to have a great on-farm impact; and
• Secure reliable, mandatory funding to continue its essential operations. 

The bill will also ensure sufficient research and evaluation so that farmers continue to have access to innovative and efficient production techniques that protect natural resources and are represented in the agricultural census. 

“For decades, CAFF has stood alongside family farmers wherever they grow — including in California’s cities. The Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act of 2025 gives urban and innovative producers the institutional support they deserve: help navigating regulations, access to competitive grants, and recognition within federal agriculture programs. This is the kind of investment that keeps farming alive and thriving while decreasing food miles for consumers,” stated Keely Cervantes, Policy & Organizing Manager, Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), an NSAC Member. 

“Through the production of fresh, healthy, culturally appropriate food, urban farms are actively fighting against food apartheid in their communities. But growing food is just one component of their significance; urban farms serve as important job training sites for the next generation of growers, provide stormwater infiltration, cool entire neighborhoods from the urban heat island effect, sequester carbon, divert waste from landfills, create spaces where kids can breathe easier, and where the supply chain is a walk around the block. The investment in urban agriculture proposed in the Supporting Urban and Innovative Farming Act of 2026 acknowledges and celebrates the critical role urban farms play in our food systems,” said Hannah Kinney Smith, Executive Director of Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, an NSAC Member.

### 

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: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Release: Senate Bill Aims to Strengthen USDA Support for Urban and Innovative Farmers appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

Contact: Laura Zaks

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

press@sustainableagriculture.net

Tel. 347.563.6408

Comment: NSAC Responds to House Farm Bill Passage

Washington, DC, April 30, 2026 – Today, the US House of Representatives approved the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (HR 7567), 224-200. In response, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) released the following comment, attributable to Mike Lavender, NSAC Policy Director.

“NSAC appreciates the House of Representatives’ persistent pursuit of a new bill; a new farm bill, already more than two and a half years delayed, is desperately needed. NSAC thanks Members on both sides of the aisle who fought to make this a better bill for all farmers and stakeholders, including those who supported the removal of a provision that would have limited existing state and local authority to regulate pesticides. Yet, for the countless farmers struggling to make ends meet, the House bill offers only scattered policy improvements, many without the resources to fuel them. Slashes to popular conservation funding, the absence of guaranteed investments in domestic markets for farmers, and a status quo farm safety net are shortcomings that – unless corrected by the Senate – will have a pronounced impact, particularly for small and midsized operations, and beginning, young, and other underserved farmers and ranchers. We now look forward to a robust bipartisan process in the Senate.”

###

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: https://sustainableagriculture.net/

The post Comment: NSAC Responds to House Farm Bill Passage appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.