FMLFPP Performance Measures

Outcome 1: Develop Business Plans and Feasibility Studies

indicator 1.2

Number of the following 

identified through needs 

assessmentor feasibility studies

• 1.2a: New markets

• 1.2b: Unmet consumer needs

• 1.2c: Barriers to local foods

• 1.2d: Unserved populations

• 1.2e: Supply chain gaps

• 1.2f: Partnership opportunities, and/or

• 1.2g: Other identified needs

Data Collection Tip

Data on 1.2a-1.2f can be collected by tracking 

counts of the required data throughout the 

progression of the needs assessment or 

feasibility study.

indicator 1.1

Number of feasibility studies 

conducted

Data Collection Tip

Data on feasibility studies can be collected by 

establishing counts of the number of studies 

conducted within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

 receiving services supported by the grant.

All applicants much identify at least one 

outcome and indicator from the list

 below that will be addressed through 

their grant projects. Applicants will need 

to establish baseline numbers and/or 

estimate realistic target numbers for the 

outcome(s) and indicator(s) they select. 

Below are outcomes and indicators and 

some guidelines on how to collect data 

on the outcomes and indicators.

Page 1
indicator 1.3

Number of projects

• 1.3a: Deemed viable after conducting feasibility 

study

• 1.3b: Deemed not viable after conducting 

feasibility

Data Collection Tip

Data for 1.3a-1.3b can be collected by establishing 

counts of viable/ non-viable projects upon 

conclusion of feasibility studies.

indicator 1.4

Number of Business Development plans 

Created

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of business development plans 

created can be collected by establishing counts 

of plans developed within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant.

Page 2
indicator 2.1

Total Number of partnerships and/or 

collaborations established between 

producers/processors and local/

regional supply networks ___.

• 2.1a: Of those established, the number 

formalized with written agreements (i.e. MOU’s, 

signed contracts, etc.)

• 2.1b: Of those established, the number of 

partnerships with underserved organizations

Data Collection Tip

Data on partnerships established can be 

collected by establishing counts of partnerships 

formed informally (noting in-person handshake 

agreements and partnerships formed via phone, 

email, etc.), and formally (noting number of 

MOU’s or contracts signed). Stakeholders should 

refer to the definition of underserved 

organizations to accurately report counts of 

agreements made with this population.

indicator 2.2

Of the Total number of partnerships 

and collabortations identified in 2.1, 

the number that reported

• 2.2a: Expanded/improved regional food 

systems

• 2.2b: Higher profits

• 2.2c: More efficient transportation

• 2.2d: Improved marketing channels

• 2.2e: And/or other mid-tier value chain 

enhancements

Data Collection Tip

Data on 2.2a-2.2e can be collected from relevant 

partners formed after receiving services 

supported by the grant. Stakeholders should 

establish baselines of the required metrics prior 

to the establishment of the partnership and/or 

collaboration and noting whether an increase or 

decrease of that metric occurred. 2.2b can be 

reported on a per-constituent level (i.e., if two 

partners in one partnership both experience 

higher profits, they can both be counted 

under this sub-indicator). Reporting on 2.2a and 

2.2c-2.2e should be reported on a 

partnership-level (i.e., the resulting improved 

metric is reported on a per-partnership basis, 

rather than each constituent within a partnership 

reporting separately). Improvement can be 

measured by increased volume and/or capacity 

to move volume, increased speed, waste 

reduction, decreased distance between point 

of production and point of sale, decreased time 

spent, higher quality technology/infrastructure, 

etc. Efficiency can be measured by evaluating 

the ratio of inputs (labor, time, resources, etc.) to 

outputs (product).

Outcome 2: Facilitate Regional Food Chain Coordination and 

Increase Capacity of Direct-to-Consumer Entities

Page 3
Page 4

indicator 2.3

Total Number of Stakeholders trained 

on how to develop or sustain a directto-Consumer Enterprise

• 2.3a: Of those trained, the number that are new/ 

beginning producers

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of stakeholders trained can 

be collected by establishing counts of those 

that attended training, technical assistance, or 

educational programs within an organization, 

in collaboration with other organizations, and/

or on behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant. Counts 

of attendees can be collected via sign in sheets, 

online registrations, completion of pre/posteducational surveys, etc. Stakeholders should 

refer to the definition of new/beginning farmers 

to accurately report on this data.

indicator 2.5

Total Number of new direct producerto-consumer market access points 

Established ___. Of those, the number 

that were

• 2.5a: Farmers Markets

• 2.5b: Roadside stands

• 2.5c: Agritourism

• 2.5d: Grocery stores

• 2.5e: Wholesale marekt/buyers

• 2.5f: Restaurants

• 2.5g: Agricultural cooperatives

• 2.5h: Retailers

• 2.5i: Distributors

• 2.5j: Food hubs

• 2.5k: Shared-use kitchens

• 2.5l: School food programs

• 2.5m: Community-supported agriculture (CSAs)

• 2.5n: Other

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of new direct producer-toconsumer market access points can be collected 

by establishing counts within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant.

indicator 2.4

Number of strategic Plans developed 

or updated

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of developed strategic plans 

can be collected by establishing counts of plans 

developed within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant.
indicator 3.1

Number of Stakeholders that gained 

technical knowledge about producing, 

Preparing, procuring, and/or 

accessing local/regional foods. Of 

those, the number that were

• 3.1a: Farmers Markets

• 3.1b: Roadside stands

• 3.1c: Agritourism

• 3.1d: Grocery stores

• 3.1e: Wholesale marekt/buyers

• 3.1f: Restaurants

• 3.1g: Agricultural cooperatives

• 3.1.5h: Retailers

• 3.1i: Distributors

• 3.1j: Food hubs

• 3.1k: Shared-use kitchens

• 3.1l: School food programs

• 3.1m: Community-supported agriculture (CSAs)

• 3.1n: Other

indicator 3.2

Total Number of delivery systems/

market access points that increased 

Engagement with local/regional 

producers ___. Of those, the number 

that were

• 3.2a: Farmers Markets

• 3.2b: Roadside stands

• 3.2c: Agritourism

• 3.2d: Grocery stores

• 3.2e: Wholesale marekt/buyers

• 3.2f: Restaurants

• 3.2g: Agricultural cooperatives

• 3.2h: Retailers

• 3.2i: Distributors

• 3.2j: Food hubs

• 3.2k: Shared-use kitchens

• 3.2l: School food programs

• 3.2m: Community-supported agriculture (CSAs)

• 3.2n: Other

Data Collection Tip

Measuring the number of delivery systems/

market access points who gained knowledge 

about how to procure or access local foods will 

vary depending on recipient activities and types 

of stakeholders engaged. The “Data Collection 

Considerations” section within the Program 

Evaluation Framework outlines methods for 

measuring knowledge gain through surveys, 

separate studies, measuring digital traffic, and 

tracking transactions and/or returning 

customers. Recipients who are required to

collect this data will identify an appropriate 

method for establishing baseline and updated 

knowledge-related data to report on this 

indicator.

Data Collection Tip

Measuring engagement with local/regional 

producers will vary depending on recipient 

activities and types of stakeholders engaged. The 

”Data Collection Considerations” section 

within the Program Evaluation Framework 

outlines methods for measuring increased 

engagement through surveys, separate studies, 

measuring digital traffic, and tracking 

transactions and/or returning customers, etc. 

Recipients who are required to collect this data 

will identify an appropriate method for 

establishing baseline and updated 

engagement-related data to report on this

 indicator.

Outcome 3: Develop the Market for Local/Regional 

Agricultural Products

Page 5
Page 6

indicator 3.3

Number of new tools/technologies 

developed to improve local/regional 

food processing, distribution, 

aggregation, or storage

• 3.3a: Number of stakeholders trained to use 

new tools/technologies

Data Collection Tip

Data on 3.3-3.3a can be collected by establishing 

counts of developed food processing, 

distribution, aggregation, and storage tools/

technologies and stakeholders that completed 

training courses, programs, etc. to use these new 

tools/technologies within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant. 

indicator 3.4

Number of Delivery systems/market 

access points that reported increased 

or imoroved

• 3.4a: Processing

• 3.4b: Distribution

• 3.4a: Storage

• 3.4a: Aggregation of locally/regionally produced 

agricultural products

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of developed strategic plans 

can be collected by establishing counts of plans 

developed within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant.
indicator 3.6

Number of delivery Systems/market 

access points that reported increased 

• 3.6a: Revenue

• 3.6b: Sales, and/or

• 3.6c: Cost savings

Data Collection Tip

Data on 3.6a-3.6c can be collected by 

establishing baselines of the required data at the 

beginning of the grant period and noting if there 

was an increase in any of the metrics within the 

organization, in collaboration with other 

organizations, and/or on behalf of other partner 

organizations after receiving services supported

by the grant. Sales and revenue data can be 

tracked by noting change in dollar amounts, 

percentages, or a combination of volume and 

average price. Stakeholders are not required to 

report a numeric value, so reluctance to share 

financial data should not impact this reporting 

requirement.

indicator 3.5

Total Number of dELIVERY SYSTEMS/ 

market access points that established 

and/or expanded local/regional 

agricultural product or service 

offerings ___. Of those, the number 

that were

• 3.5a: Farmers Markets

• 3.5b: Roadside stands

• 3.5c: Agritourism

• 3.5d: Grocery stores

• 3.5e: Wholesale marekt/buyers

• 3.5f: Restaurants

• 3.5g: Agricultural cooperatives

• 3.5h: Retailers

• 3.5i: Distributors

• 3.5j: Food hubs

• 3.5k: Shared-use kitchens

• 3.5l: School food programs

• 3.5m: Community-supported agriculture (CSAs)

• 3.5n: Other

Data Collection Tip

Data on expanded product or service offerings 

can be collected by establishing baselines of 

product or service line offerings at the beginning 

of the grant period and tracking product line 

expansion within the organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant.

Page 7
indicator 4.1

Number of producers/processors who 

gained knowledge about new market 

opportunities

Data Collection Tip

Measuring the number of producers/

processors who gained knowledge about new 

market opportunities will vary depending on 

recipient activities and types of stakeholders 

engaged. The ”Data Collection Consideration” 

section within the Program Evaluation 

Framework outlines methods for measuring 

knowledge gain through surveys, separate

 studies, measuring digital traffic, and tracking 

transactions and/or returning customers. 

Recipients who are required to collect this data 

will identify an appropriate method for 

establishing baseline and updated knowledgerelated data to report on this indicator.

indicator 4.3

Number of producers/processors that 

implemented new or improved 

operational methods

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of producers/processors that 

implemented new/improved production or 

processing methods can be collected by 

establishing counts within an organization, in 

collaboration with other organizations, and/or on 

behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant. 

Improvement can be measured using: increased 

volume (and/or capacity, increased efficiency 

(evaluating the ratio of inputs (labor, time, 

resources, etc.) to outputs (product), speed, waste 

reduction, decrease time spent, etc.), and other 

relevant metrics.

Outcome 4: Increase Viability of Local/Regional Producers and 

Processors

Page 8

indicator 4.2

Number of producer/processors that 

reported increased engagement with 

new delivery systems or market 

access points

Data Collection Tip

Measuring engagement with delivery systems/

access points will vary depending on recipient 

activities and types of stakeholders engaged. The 

”Data Collection Considerations” section 

within the Program Evaluation Framework 

outlines methods for measuring increased 

engagement through surveys, separate studies, 

measuring digital traffic, and tracking transactions 

and/or returning customers. Recipients who 

are required to collect this data will identify an 

appropriate method for establishing baseline and 

updated engagement-related data to report on 

this indicator.
indicator 4.4

Number of value-added agricultural 

products developed

Data Collection Tip

Data on developed value-added agricultural 

products can be collected by establishing counts 

of developed value-added products within an 

organization, in collaboration with other 

organizations, and/or on behalf of other partner 

organizations after receiving services supported 

by the grant. Data Collection Tip

Data on developing and selling new local/

regional food products and/or new value-added 

products can be collected by noting expansion 

of product lines to include new local/regional 

and value-added products within an organization, 

in collaboration with other organizations, and/

or on behalf of other partner organizations after 

receiving services supported by the grant. 

Page 9

indicator 4.5

Number of producers/processors that 

reported selling new local/regional 

food products

• 4.5a: Number that reported selling new 

value-added products Number of delivery 

systems/market access points that reported 

increased 

indicator 4.6

Number of producers/processors that 

reported a reduction in on-farm food 

waste through new business 

opportunities and marketing

Data Collection Tip

Data on food waste can be collected by 

establishing baselines of on-farm food waste and 

noting whether there was a decrease in waste 

within an organization, in collaboration with other 

organizations, and/or on behalf of other partner 

organizations after receiving services supported 

by the grant.

indicator 4.7

 Number of producers/ processors 

that reported increased 

• 4.7a: Revenue

• 4.7b: Sales, and/or

• 4.7c: Cost savings due to local/regional food, 

operational, and/or value-added prodcut activities

Data Collection Tip

Data on 4.7a-4.7c can be collected by 

establishing baselines of the required data at the 

beginning of the grant period and noting if there 

was an increase in any of the metrics within an 

organization, in collaboration with other 

organizations, and/or on behalf of other partner 

organizations after receiving services 

supported by the grant. Sales and revenue 

data can be tracked by noting change in dollar 

amounts, percentages, or a combination of 

volume and average price. Producers/processors 

are not required to report a numeric value, so 

reluctance to share financial data should not

 impact this reporting requirement.
Page 10

indicator 4.9

Total number of new producers who 

went into local/regional food 

production. Of those, number who are 

• 4.9a beginning farmers/ranchers 

• 4.9b socially disadvantaged farmers/ranchers 

• 4.9c family farmers/ranchers 

• 4.9d veteran farmers/ranchers

Data Collection Tip

Data on new producers who went into local/

regional food production can be collected from 

producers that began offering local/regional 

products after receiving services supported by the 

grant. Recipients should note at the beginning of 

the grant period which non-local/regional food 

producers were targeted to expand their crop 

offerings to include local/regional food. 

indicator 4.8

Number oflocal/regional 

agricultural jobs

• 4.8a: Created or

• 4.8b: Maintained

Data Collection Tip

Data on local/regional agricultural jobs created 

or maintained can be collected by establishing 

baselines of the number of jobs at the beginning 

of the grant period. Growth (or maintenance) 

can be discerned by monitoring local/regional 

agricultural job numbers after receiving services 

supported by the grant. Local/regional 

agricultural jobs should be monitored through 

the organizations’ payroll. Stakeholders should 

refer to the definition of jobs, which discerns 

between “created” and “maintained,” to 

accurately report this data. Recipients can 

determine jobs according to the number of 

full-time employees (FTEs) within an 

organization, in collaboration with other 

organizations, and/or on behalf of other partner 

organizations. FTEs can be calculated based on 

the average number of hours worked by an FTE 

per year or per month, depending on what’s 

most appropriate for a recipients’ project (e.g., if 

a recipient employs mostly seasonal workers or 

has subrecipients that only participate in the 

project or report on project involvement for a 

certain number of months, they may choose to 

calculate FTEs per month). See below for 

suggested calculation options.

Calculating FTEs per year: 

Generally, 2,080 hours per year is standard; 

however, recipients can refer to state/local policy 

codes to approximate standard FTE hours. 

Step 1: Determine number of labor hours 

resulting from project activities for the year. 

Step 2: Divide result of step 1 by the total

standard FTE count of hours per year.

Calculating FTEs per month:

Step 1: Determine the number of FTEs who work 

30+ hours per week per month during the

 measurement period. 

Step 2: Determine the total part-time and 

seasonal hours worked per week per month 

during the previous year and divide by 120. 

Step 3: Add up the subtotal in steps 1 and 2, then 

divide by 12 to determine the number of FTEs.
Page 11

indicator 5.1

Number of stakeholders that gained 

knowledge about prevention, 

detection, control, and/or 

intervention food safety practices, 

including relevant regulations to 

mitigate risk (and to improve their 

ability to comply with the Food Safety 

Modernization Act (FSMA) and/or meet 

the standards for aligned third party 

food safety audits such as Harmonized 

GAP/GHP)

indicator 5.2

Number of stakeholders that 

• 5.2a: Established a food safety plan

• 5.2b: Revised or updated their food safety plan

Data Collection Tip

Measuring the number of stakeholders that 

gained knowledge about prevention detection, 

control, and intervention food safety practices 

will vary depending on recipient activities and 

types of stakeholders engaged. The ”Data 

Collection Considerations” section within the 

Program Evaluation Framework outlines 

methods for measuring knowledge gain through 

surveys, separate studies, measuring digital 

traffic, and tracking transactions and/or returning 

customers. Recipients who are required to 

collect this data will identify an appropriate 

method for establishing baseline and updated 

knowledge-related data to report on this 

indicator. Note that recipients should not 

double-count between those who gained 

knowledge through diverse mediums, those who 

received food safety certifications 

(recommended indicator 5.4), and those formally 

trained (recommended indicator 5.3).

Data Collection Tip

Data on stakeholders that adopted best

 practices, technologies, or innovations can be 

collected by establishing counts of stakeholders 

that incorporated a new best practice,

 technology or innovation within their new or 

existing pest and disease control processes after 

receiving services supported by the grant. 

Outcome 5: Improve Food Safety of Local/Regional 

Agricultural Products
indicator 5.3

Number of specialty crop 

stakeholders who implemented new/

improved prevention, detection, 

control, and intervention practices, 

tools, or technologies to mitigate 

food safety risks (and/or to improve 

their ability to comply with the Food 

Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) and/

or meet the standards for aligned 

third party food safety audits such as 

Harmonized GAP/GHP)

indicator 5.4

Number of prevention, detection, 

control, or intervention practices 

developed or enhanced to mitigate 

food safety risks 

indicator 5.5

Number of stakeholders that used 

these grant funds to

• 5.5a: Purchase

• 5.5b: Upgrade food safety equipment

Data Collection Tip

Data on stakeholders trained in early detection 

and rapid response can be collected by

establishing counts of stakeholders that 

completed training programs, courses, etc. 

within an organization, in collaboration with 

other organizations, and/or on behalf of other 

partner organizations after receiving services 

supported by the grant. Recipients reporting on 

this indicator should not double-count between 

stakeholders who gained knowledge

 (recommended indicator 5.1). Stakeholders 

trained in third-party food safety certifications 

can serve as an appropriate proxy. Data on 

third-party food safety certifications can be 

collected by establishing baseline counts at the 

beginning of the grant period of stakeholder 

food safety certifications and noting whether 

growth or maintenance occurs consistent with 

estimates and grant program activities.

Data Collection Tip

Data on the development of new tools or 

strategies is available directly from stakeholder 

directing development.

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of stakeholders who purchased 

or upgraded food safety equipment can be 

collected by establishing counts of equipment 

purchases and upgrades made by stakeholders 

after receiving services supported by the grant. 

Page 12
indicator 6.1

Total number of consumers who 

gained knowledge about local/

regional agricultural products ___. 

Of those, the number of 

• 6.1a: Adults and

• 6.1b: Children

indicator 6.2

Total number of consumers who 

purchased more local/regional 

agricultural products ___. Of those, 

the number of 

• 6.2a: Adults and

• 6.2b: Children

indicator 6.3

Number of additional local/

regional agricultural product 

customers counted

Data Collection Tip

Measuring the number of consumers who 

gained knowledge about local/regional 

agricultural products will vary depending on 

recipient activities and types of stakeholders 

engaged. The “Data Collection Considerations” 

section within the Program Evaluation 

Framework outlines methods for measuring 

knowledge gain through surveys, separate 

studies, measuring digital traffic, and tracking 

transactions and/or returning customers. 

Recipients who are required to collect this data 

will identify an appropriate method for 

establishing baseline and updated knowledgerelated data to report on this indicator.

Data Collection Tip

Measuring the number of consumers who 

consumed more local/regional agricultural 

products will vary depending on recipient 

activities and types of stakeholders engaged. The 

”Data Collection Considerations” section 

within the Program Evaluation Framework 

outlines methods for measuring consumption 

change through surveys, separate studies, 

measuring digital traffic, and tracking 

transactions and/or returning customers. 

Recipients who are required to collect this data 

will identify an appropriate method for 

establishing baseline and updated 

consumption-related data to report on this 

indicator.

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of additional local/regional 

agricultural product customers can be collected 

by establishing customer “head count” baselines 

at the beginning of the grant period and noting 

whether growth occurs consistent with 

estimates and grant program activities.

Outcome 6: Increase Consumption and Consumer Purchasing of 

Local/Regional Agricultural Products

Page 13
indicator 6.4

Number of additional business 

transactions executed for local/

regional agricultural products 

Data Collection Tip

Data on number of additional local/regional 

agricultural product transactions can be 

collected by establishing transaction count 

baselines at the beginning of the grant period 

and noting whether growth occurs consistent 

with estimates and grant program activities. 

Recipients might also track average price per 

transaction, to ensure that overall consumption 

is increasing, rather than merely more frequent, 

smaller transactions. Business transactions 

encompass both online and in-person 

transactions.

Page 14

indicator 6.5

iNCREASED SALES MEASURED IN

• 6.5a dollars

• 6.5b percent change, or 

• 6.5c combination of volume and average price 

as a result of enhanced marketing activites

Data Collection Tip

Sales data can be tracked by noting change in 

dollar amount, percentage, or a combination of 

volume and average price. Data on increased 

sales can be collected from relevant producers or 

other stakeholders engaged by the grant 

recipient as part of the established project. 

Recipients should compare baseline sales to sales 

data after their marketing campaign is concluded. 

Recipients can encourage producers or other 

stakeholders to share sales data in the following 

ways:

Education: Educate producers on how their data 

is being used, the purpose of the data collection, 

importance of data collection, etc.

Transparency: Increase transparency through 

the use of clear, easy to understand contracts, 

data-use agreements, etc. Ensure producers/

stakeholders fully understand the contract prior to 

signing. 

Trust: Build trust with producers/stakeholders by 

highlighting shared core values, interests, 

commitments to common causes and the 

mutual benefits of sharing information (show 

direct, tangible benefits to producers, such as 

financial sustainability, training, etc.). 

Other Best Practices: If possible, recipients can 

develop privacy policies to keep producer/

stakeholder identities anonymous. AMS should 

work with recipients to facilitate trust building and 

educate recipients on how sales data is used by 

AMS.