1

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Annual Evaluation Plan

Fiscal Year 2025

In Accordance with the 

Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018
2

Contents

About the U.S. Department of Agriculture.........................................................................4

Mission, Vision, and Core Values...........................................................................................4

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................4

Background ............................................................................................................................4

Stakeholder Engagement.......................................................................................................5

Significant Evaluations......................................................................................................6

Goal 1. Combat Climate Change to Support America’s Working Lands, Natural Resources, 

and Communities...................................................................................................................6

Evaluation of Rural Development Programs and Climate Impacts (RD) ...........................6

Goal 2. Ensure America’s Agricultural System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous........7

Evaluation of Rural Development’s Investments in Food Supply Chains (RD) ..................7

Goal 3: Foster an Equitable and Competitive Marketplace for All Agricultural Producers...9

Impact of AMS’ Local and Regional Food System Programs on Producers and Markets 

(AMS)..................................................................................................................................9

Effectiveness of Farm Service Agency’s Credit Assistance (FSA).....................................10

Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole, Local and Regional Procurement, and International 

Food Assistance (FAS) ......................................................................................................11

Goal 4: Make Safe, Nutritious Food Available to All Americans..........................................12

Assessment of Mobile Technologies for Using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) Benefits (FNS)........................................................................................12

Understanding the Relationship Between Poverty, Well-Being, and Food Security (FNS)

..........................................................................................................................................13

WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Study 2024 and 2026 (FNS).....................14

WIC Health Opportunities and Participant Experience (HOPE) Longitudinal Study (FNS)

..........................................................................................................................................15

Summer Meals Study (FNS) .............................................................................................16

Evaluation of the Use of Third-Party Income Databases in SNAP (FNS)..........................17

Evaluation of Selected SNAP Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) Interventions (FNS) .........18

School Nutrition Meal Cost and School Food Purchase Study (FNS)...............................19

Goal 5: Expand Opportunities for Economic Development and Improve Quality of Life in 

Rural and Tribal Communities .............................................................................................20

Evaluation of the Broadband Programs (RD)...................................................................20

How Different Combination of RD Programs Concurrently Improve Well-being of rural 

America? (RD) ..................................................................................................................21
3

USDA RD Community Facilities Program and Impact on Educational Attainment and 

Equitable Educational Facilities (RD) ...............................................................................22

USDA RD Investment in Persistent Poverty Counties and Distressed Communities and 

its Impact (RD)..................................................................................................................23

Goal 6: Attract, Inspire, and Retain an Engaged and Motivated Workforce that is Proud to 

Represent USDA...................................................................................................................25

Changes in USDA’s Performance Management and Awards System (OHRM)................25

AMS’ Implementation of USDA’s Equity Recommendations, the Performance of 

Agricultural Marketing Services’ (AMS) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility 

(DEIA) Council, and Improved Relationships and Support of Underserved Communities

..........................................................................................................................................25

From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and 

Agriculture Professionals Program (NextGen) (NIFA)......................................................27

Civil Rights Impact Analyses (CRIAs) (OASCR)..................................................................28

Appendix: Significant Evidence-Building Activities...........................................................30

Goal 1: Combat Climate Change to Support America’s Working Lands, Natural Resources, 

and Communities.................................................................................................................30

Data Quality and Impacts to Wildfire Crisis Strategy Implementation (FS) ....................30

Survey of Local Irrigation Systems (NASS) .......................................................................30

Conservation Data Series (NASS).....................................................................................31

Greenhouse Gas Conservation Practices: Cross Agency Data Series Team (NASS) ........31

USDA Climate Adaptation Progress Report for USDA Facility Operations (OPEM).........32

National Program Assessments (Agricultural Research Service (ARS)) ...........................33

Goal 2. Ensure America’s Agricultural System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous......33

National Program Assessments (ARS)..............................................................................33

Data Modernization (FSA)................................................................................................34

Goal 4. Make Safe, Nutritious Food Available to All Americans..........................................35

Food Safety Capacity- and Evidence-Building (FSIS)........................................................35

Acronyms.......................................................................................................................37
4

About the U.S. Department of Agriculture

On May 15, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed legislation to establish the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA or the Department). Two and a half years later in his final 

message to Congress, Lincoln called USDA “The People’s Department.” At that time, about half of 

all Americans lived on farms, compared with about two percent today. But through its work on 

food, agriculture, economic development, science, natural resource conservation, and a host of 

other issues, USDA continues to fulfill Lincoln's vision—serving millions of Americans every day. 

The agriculture and food industry contributes $1.1 trillion to the U.S. domestic product and 

represents nearly 11% of total U.S. employment. Furthermore, USDA over the years has gained 

more authorities to expand its support not only in agriculture but the support infrastructure that 

give all producers better access to market and its surrounding communities and natural resources 

to also thrive.

Today, USDA is comprised of 29 agencies organized under eight Mission Areas and 16 Staff Offices. 

The department employs nearly 100,000 persons who serve the American people at more than 

6,000 locations across the country and abroad (see USDA Organization Chart).

Mission, Vision, and Core Values 

USDA Mission: To serve all Americans by providing effective, innovative, science-based public 

policy leadership in agriculture, food and nutrition, natural resource protection and management, 

rural development, and related issues with a commitment to deliverable equitable and climatesmart opportunities that inspire and help America thrive.

USDA Vision: An equitable and climate-smart food and agriculture economy that protects and 

improves the health, nutrition, and quality of life of all Americans; yields healthy land, forests, and 

clean water; helps rural America thrive; and feeds the world. 

USDA Core Values

• Respect and Dignity: We treat all people with courtesy and respect, and we value the 

inherent dignity of every individual. 

• Equity and Inclusion: We seek to end discrimination in all forms, wherever it exists, and 

expand services and opportunities to underserved people and communities across America, 

starting with our workforce.

• Trust and Integrity: We act in a manner that is deserving of the public’s trust and with the 

utmost integrity in everything we do as public servants. 

• Service and Results: We listen to our internal and external customers and actively 

incorporate their ideas on how to best reach our diverse customers and deliver service that 

significantly and positively impacts the lives of all Americans. 

• Science Leadership: We base our decisions and policy on science and data that are reliable, 

timely, relevant, and free from political interference.

Executive Summary

Background

In accordance with the Foundations or Evidence-Based Policymaking Act (Evidence Act of 2018), 

the Department is pleased to present USDA’s FY 2025 Annual Evaluation Plan. This Plan includes 

our most significant program evaluations that will be active in FY 2025. It also includes, for the first 

time, a sample of other evidence-building efforts that contribute to the department’s ability to 

use evidence in decision making. 
5

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) leads USDA in Performance, Evaluation, 

Evidence, and Risk Management and chairs the USDA Performance, Evidence, Evaluation, and Risk 

Committee. All Mission Areas and Departmental Administration are represented on the 

committee, as well as other key evaluation partners. The broad representation facilitates buy-in 

across the Department, augments technical expertise, and creates a greater diversity of 

perspectives. Additionally, OBPA has a close partnership with the Chief Data Officer and Statistical 

Official, which provides insight and advisement on data access, data quality, and statistical 

methods. 

Stakeholder Engagement

OBPA engages its internal evidence and evaluation stakeholders on a continuous basis, including 

to inform the development of the FY 2025 Evaluation Plan. USDA’s internal stakeholders are 

organized into the following standard hierarchy to ensure that all levels are appropriately engaged 

and to provide clarity around roles and responsibilities:

• Strategic Direction: Responsible for setting the Department’s strategic direction 

(Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Sub-Cabinet officials);

• Departmental Operations: Responsible for supporting strategic implementation efforts in 

alignment with the Department’s Goals and objectives (staff offices such as OBPA, Human 

Resources, Office of the Chief Information Officer, etc.); and

• Mission Delivery and Performance: Responsible for aligning Agency strategic directions 

and resources with the Department-wide strategic directions and for delivering statutorily 

required missions, functions, programs, projects, etc. (all USDA Mission Areas and 

Agencies).

OBPA engages stakeholders through the Performance, Evidence, Evaluation, and Risk (PEER) 

Committee and a subgroup, the Evidence and Evaluation Working Group. The PEER includes 

representation from across USDA Mission Areas and Agencies and engages in dynamic dialogue of 

planning, performance, evidence, and data, including identifying “significant” planned evaluations. 

In addition to building a strong community of practice, the PEER serves as a conduit between 

OBPA and Mission Area and Agency leadership. The PEER Committee and the working group are 

spaces where staff from the mission areas and staff offices share their evidence and evaluation 

work. OBPA’s weekly office hours are an opportunity for members of the community to ask 

questions of and provide feedback to OBPA staff on how it can improve its planning and execution 

processes. 
6

Significant Evaluations

Goal 1. Combat Climate Change to Support America’s Working Lands, Natural Resources, 

and Communities

Evaluation of Rural Development Programs and Climate Impacts (RD) 

• To what extent do RD programs help reduce the risks of climate impacts for rural 

communities? 

• How do RD programs increase the resilience, adaptation, and mitigation of rural 

communities to climate impacts?

Background and 

Rationale

Rural and Tribal communities are disproportionately impacted by the 

effects of climate change. RD is committed to increasing rural 

community resilience to climate change, securing environmental 

justice, and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged 

communities that have been historically marginalized, overburdened 

by pollution, and have experienced underinvestment in essential 

services. 

Completion Date FY 2026

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

These evaluations will focus on the collective benefits of RD 

programs, including the funding provided by the Inflation Reduction 

Act to expand the Rural Energy for America Program, Higher Blends 

Infrastructure Incentive Program, and the two new electric 

programs, Powering Affordable Clean Energy program and 

Empowering Rural America program. We will assess mitigation and 

resilience of rural communities against climate change as the specific 

programs pertain to climate mitigation and adaptation goals. 

Administrative data on climate mitigation and adaptation set asides 

and projects will be used to measure RD support. For outcome 

variables, data such as measures of household capacity for

renewable energy production and consumption, risk index for 

natural hazards will be used. These evaluations will utilize multiple 

regression and instrumental variable analysis.

Data Sources Administrative data on major RD programs will be used in 

combination with other external data available from the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Climate and Economic Justice 

Screening Tool, Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National 

Risk Index for Natural Hazards, Bureau of the Census, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and ERS. The various 

datasets will be combined by community geography.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

The biggest challenge will be to identify all outcomes variables and 

associated covariates at the community geography level without 

disclosure issues. Ensuring climate impact metrics accurately 

represent the environmental hazards experienced by rural 

communities and the resulting barriers to equity and environmental 

justice.
7

Use and Dissemination The findings will be shared throughout the RD Mission Area and 

wider USDA community, and larger federal community through the 

dissemination of reports and presentations. The findings will be 

delivered in a manner that is most appropriate for the audience.

In addition to sharing the findings internally, the evaluation studies 

will be used to generate peer-reviewed and outreach publications 

and conference presentations.

Goal 2. Ensure America’s Agricultural System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous

Evaluation of Rural Development’s Investments in Food Supply Chains (RD) 

• How much has RD invested in food supply chains over the past five years and through 

which mechanisms (loans, grants, and technical assistance), including investments made 

during the COVID-19 pandemic? 

• To what extent have these programs met their goals and objectives and contributed to 

each stage of the supply chain? 

• What types and magnitude of outcomes and benefits did the programs generate for 

producers, processors, aggregators and distributors, and consumers? What types and 

magnitude of benefits were realized by socially disadvantaged farmers and female, Tribal, 

and Veteran farmers.

• To what extent can observed changes in the relevant food supply chains be attributed to 

RD’s investments?

Background and 

Rationale

USDA has long invested in local and regional food systems, however 

the pandemic made clear that more needs to be done to withstand 

future pandemics, cyberattacks, and other threats that have hobbled 

portions of the food supply system in recent years. As a response, in 

2022, USDA launched the Food Transformation Initiative to create a 

more distributed and fair food system with fewer steps from farm to 

fork, provide options for small- and medium-sized producers to 

create value-added products to sell locally and regionally, and 

support new economic opportunities and job creation in rural 

communities.

The U.S. food and agricultural system is highly concentrated, both 

geographically and commercially. Most food consumed by Americans 

is grown on large farms and aggregated, processed, and distributed 

by a few multinational companies. While the U.S. food system is a 

highly efficient one, COVID-19 exposed the risks of a centralized 

system. Several preliminary studies have found the crippling effects 

of the COVID-19 pandemic on food supply chains across the United 

States and the world exposed the risks of a highly concentrated food 

system that has worked to the detriment of the small- and mediumsized farmers who serve local and regional food systems. (Voss 2020 

https://uca.edu/business/2020/04/28/is-the-food-supply-chainbreaking-down/ , Hendrickson 2020 

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-020-10092-y , 

https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov).
8

Since 2022, RD has invested $1.15 billion to transform the American 

food supply chain through the Food Supply Chain Guaranteed Loan 

Program, the Healthy Food Financing Initiative, the Meat and Poultry 

Processing Expansion Program and the Meat and Poultry 

Intermediary Lending Program.

The overall purpose of this evaluation is to provide an evidence-based 

assessment of the impact of RD’s programs on local and regional food 

supply chains. This review will include a combination of formative, 

performance, and impact evaluation methods depending on the 

availability of data and the age of the program.

Completion Date FY 2027

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Rural Development is awarding $750,000 through a cooperative 

agreement to University of Kentucky Research Foundation. Through 

this agreement, the Community and Economic Development of 

Initiative of Kentucky and the Food Connection within the MartinGatton College of Agriculture, Food, and Environment will assess

USDA Rural Development programs, including the four programs 

listed above. They will focus on how well the programs are creating 

market opportunities for small- and mid-sized farmers and 

independent agricultural businesses throughout the food supply 

chain. Through this partnership, USDA will identify the extent to 

which the investments support local and regional food supply chains 

have: 

• Created a more resilient, diverse, and secure food system. 

• Resulted in more fair and accessible food systems with more and 

better market opportunities.

• Led to more economically viable farm and food businesses and 

healthy rural communities.

The research team will deploy a mixed methods approach to conduct 

a comprehensive evaluation that captures both formative and 

performance measures that will allow RD to both accurately tell the 

story of the impact of its investments as well as better understand 

the factors that contribute to grantees meeting program goals. The 

research team will utilize quantitative and qualitative data from 

historical project reports integrated with key informant interviews 

with project leaders, up to five focus groups with producers, and a 

supplemental grantee survey with a view toward addressing the 

research questions above.

Data Sources Data collected by RD’s program offices, field surveys, research 

studies, and other USDA survey data related to local and regional 

markets and small- and medium-sized farmers and Bureau of the 

Census, and Economic Research Services (ERS)
9

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Comparative studies, such as this one, depend on the availability of a 

body of valid and consistent data across multiple programs. This 

study will tap into the research and expertise of the agricultural 

research community, centered largely in the land-grant university 

system to compile a valid and reliable body of evidence. 

Use and Dissemination This evaluation will provide USDA an evidence-based understanding 

of how and to what extent these programs have achieved their goal 

of a more resilient food supply chain and created market 

opportunities for small- and mid-size farmers and independent 

agricultural businesses up and down the food supply chain. The body 

of evidence and findings produced through this evaluation will guide 

the department as it takes these programs into the future. 

Goal 3: Foster an Equitable and Competitive Marketplace for All Agricultural Producers 

Impact of AMS’ Local and Regional Food System Programs on Producers and Markets (AMS) 

• How and to what extent does the Local Agriculture Market Programs (LAMP) affect the 

economic viability of small- and mid-scale producers and local and regional markets?

Background and 

Rationale

While efficient, supply chain shocks revealed that the U.S. food 

system is highly concentrated, both geographically and commercially. 

In response, USDA made significant investments through the 2018 

Farm Bill, annual appropriations, Consolidated Appropriations Act of 

2021, and American Rescue Plan funds to reinvigorate local- and 

regional food systems by creating market opportunities for small- and 

mid-size farmers and independent agricultural businesses up and 

down the food supply chain. 

This evaluation will provide USDA an evidence-based understanding 

of how investments in LAMP were most effective in fostering viable 

agricultural businesses that operate in underserved, rural and urban, 

local, and regional markets. The objective of LAMP is to maximize 

opportunities for economic growth and ingenuity in local and regional 

food systems.

LAMP is an umbrella program that encompasses the Farmers Market 

Promotion Program, Local Food Promotion Program, Regional Food 

Systems Partnerships Program, and Value-Added Producer Grants 

Program. AMS administers the first three programs and RD administers 

the Value-Added program. This evaluation will focus on the three 

programs administered by AMS; RD is currently conducting a study that 

includes the Value-Added program, the results of which will also 

contribute to this evaluation. 

Expected Completion 

date

FY 2028
10

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

This evaluation will use a combination of quantitative and qualitative 

methodology, including a review of program documents, survey 

instruments, and a financial/economic analysis and audit. Measures of 

effectiveness include: (i) number of small and mid-size farmers and 

independent agricultural businesses served by LAMP, and (ii) number of 

jobs created (to improve income and economic opportunities for 

producers and food businesses).

Data Sources Data sources include grantee demographics; local and regional 

agricultural business demographics; local and regional market data, 

and financial data.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Challenges to this evaluation are the scale of data and the data 

cleaning process for accurate data analytics. Employment of agile 

evaluation products and data analytics processes will mitigate these 

challenges.

Use and Dissemination This evaluation will provide USDA an evidence-based understanding 

of how and to what extent LAMP has achieved its goal of enhanced 

local and regional market opportunities for small- and mid-size 

farmers and independent agricultural businesses. The body of 

evidence and findings produced through this evaluation will guide the 

department as it takes similar programs into the future and designs 

new and more agile programs.

Effectiveness of Farm Service Agency’s Credit Assistance (FSA) 

• To what extent do FSA’s loan activities contribute toward a farmer’s financial success, such 

as timely debt repayments, profitability, and solvency?

Background and 

Rationale

Farm Loan Programs (FLP) provide credit to loan applicants who 

cannot obtain credit from commercial lenders. An initial assessment 

and ongoing analysis of the effectiveness of FLP’s credit assistance 

will inform policies to result in a higher proportion of direct 

borrowers sustaining and growing the financial success of their 

operations.

Completion date 2026

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The evaluation will model and analyze the impact of credit and servicing 

activities on the probability of favorable borrower outcomes reflected 

through improved financial indicators for select time periods (5, 10, and 

20 years). Examples of indicators include profitability, solvency, and the 

ability to meet future financial obligations in a timely manner. Loan 

servicing activities include loan modifications such as flexible payments 

terms, payment deferrals, extending terms, and reducing interest rates.
11

Standard statistical and econometric techniques for credit risk analysis

will be used to identify factors more likely to impact a borrower’s 

progress.

Randomized trials, focus groups, and surveys may be conducted if 

resources for this work are available.

Data Sources

FLP-specific data and other internal data from USDA sources (e.g., the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Economic Research Service); 

University and commercial lender studies; Survey data from borrowers; 

and Documentation related to data governance, validation, and 

assessments for all data systems to identify areas and levels of impact.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Ongoing efforts to modernize and de-silo Farm Loan program 

Information Technology applications will help mitigate the data 

challenges experienced to date.

Use and Dissemination

Insights gleaned from this study will inform delivery of the Farm Loan 

Program and can be disseminated throughout USDA to identify best 

practices in program delivery.

Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole, Local and Regional Procurement, and International Food 

Assistance (FAS) 

• Assess the extent to which the following food assistance programs are achieving their goals 

and objectives: 

• McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program

• Food for Progress Program

• Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Program

Background and 

Rationale

Each year, USDA is mandated to provide four annual reports to 

Congress: one each for Food for Progress, McGovern-Dole, and Local 

and Regional Procurement, and an International Food Assistance 

Report that serves as a consolidated summary of the entirety of our 

food assistance programs. The content of these reports is driven by 

requirements set forth in the Farm Bill and touches upon dollars 

spent, commodities programmed, and beneficiaries reached.

Completion date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Each of the four congressional reports is authored by the 

International Food Assistance Division, assisted by monitoring and 

evaluation staff, and each reflects a programmatic summary of the 

program(s) for the previous fiscal year. Each report includes financial 

information, commodity information, and select aggregate or projectspecific performance data.

Data Sources Each congressional program report is based on project-level reports 

submitted by implementers to USDA during the year. These reports 

include semi-annual performance reports, semi-annual financial 
12

reports, and other required and ad hoc reporting by implementers.

For example, all implementers submit data on the performance 

indicators in their agreements to USDA, which USDA then aggregates

annually and includes for select indicators in each congressional 

report. 

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

The Food Aid Information System, the only system where 

performance data for international food assistance programs is 

stored, does not allow queries and data pulls to meet annual 

reporting data requirements. FAS mitigates this challenge with a 

heavy investment of staff time and effort to manually pull and 

aggregate performance data. Modernizing this system, developing, or 

procuring a new performance management system, or investing in 

more staff would each help further mitigate or eliminate the 

challenge. 

Use and Dissemination The primary audience for these reports is the U.S. Congress. They also 

help FAS monitor progress and inform decisions about future 

programming. 

Goal 4: Make Safe, Nutritious Food Available to All Americans

Assessment of Mobile Technologies for Using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) Benefits (FNS)

• How effective are FNS’ strategies in eliminating barriers to access to nutrition assistance 

programs?

Background and 

Rationale

The Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 authorizes the use of 

mobile technologies for the purpose of accessing SNAP benefits. This 

allows SNAP participants to input their Electronic Benefit Transfer 

(EBT) cards into a mobile technology, such as Apple Pay or Google 

Pay, and make SNAP purchases at the point-of-sale without the 

presence of the EBT card. The Act requires that the FNS approve no 

more than five projects to pilot the use of this technology and 

subsequently determine if mobile technology should be authorized 

nationwide. This study will assess the pilots in the areas of participant 

access, ease of use, and program integrity to facilitate the decisionmaking around the broad authorization of the use of mobile 

technologies.

Completion Date FY 2026

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

This study will assess the pilot projects in the areas of participant 

access, ease of use, and program integrity to facilitate the 

determination of whether to broadly authorize the use of mobile 

technologies. Process and outcome evaluations will be conducted in 

up to five States that participate in the pilot program.
13

Data Sources Data collection will include interviews with stakeholders and 

document review from each pilot project. Analysts will also utilize 

SNAP administrative data from State agencies and retailer 

characteristics data.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Obtaining the needed data from EBT processors and SNAP State 

agencies poses a challenge as well as delays in implementation of 

mobile technologies. FNS will work closely with the pilot operations to 

assist with integration of mobile technology.

Use and Dissemination FNS will use the findings of the evaluation to determine the successes 

of the Mobile Payment Pilot and inform future regulations and policy 

related to the use of mobile technology for EBT payments. The final 

report will be posted publicly on the USDA website.

Understanding the Relationship Between Poverty, Well-Being, and Food Security (FNS)

• How effective are FNS’ programs in improving nutrition security through access to nutritious 

foods?

Background and 

Rationale

Research has shown that the economic and demographic 

circumstances of households are closely correlated with food security 

status. However, not all households with similar circumstances 

experience the same food security status. This evaluation will identify 

measures of poverty and well-being associated with household food 

security status among SNAP-eligible participants and non-participants 

in persistent-poverty counties, defined as counties where 20% or 

more of their population lived in poverty in the last four decennial 

Censuses. 

Moving beyond household income, many dimensions of well-being 

and material deprivation may affect food security status and SNAP 

participation, such as mental health, depression, health-related 

quality of life, disablement, medical expenditures, alcohol or opioid 

addiction, place of residence, and within-household sharing of 

resources. Collecting representative, qualitative, and quantitative 

data at the county level will enable improved estimates of countylevel food security status, as official data at this granular level are 

unavailable. These data are unavailable because the USDA has a 

partnership with Census to develop one nationwide food security rate 

once per year, as such, there is no official federal rate or data 

collection at anything lower than that national rate.

Completion Date FY 2027

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Analysts will conduct county-level representative surveys of 

household food security, well-being, and material hardship measures 

in at least six persistent-poverty counties to help identify factors 

other than income that impact food security status. The analysts will 

also conduct in-depth interviews with a subsample of households in 
14

these counties to provide additional context for the survey findings. 

Counties will represent a variety of spatial types (urban, suburban, 

and rural) and other policy-relevant characteristics. 

Data Sources Data sources will consist of county-level representative surveys of 

household food security, well-being, and material hardship measures 

in at least six persistent-poverty counties, and in-depth interviews 

with a subsample of households in six counties.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Sampling of SNAP non-participants is difficult given there is no 

predetermined list of non-participants. This contrasts with SNAP 

participants who will be sampled from State administrative data. To 

mitigate this, the study will use address-based sampling that will 

cover all primary sampling units in each county, providing a 

representative sample of households in each county. Furthermore, 

collecting survey data among most population groups is difficult in an 

era of declining response rates. To mitigate this, the study will collect 

both survey data via the internet and telephone and follow-up with a 

subsample of non-respondents via infield locating (e.g., knocking on 

doors).

Use and Dissemination Examining food insecurity and poverty in these persistent-poverty 

counties will help FNS better understand the association between 

SNAP, other USDA-administered programs, and community-based 

assistance with well-being and the food environment. This 

information is crucial for designing interventions that address longstanding disparities in food insecurity and poverty not only in these 

counties, but the hundreds of other persistent-poverty counties 

across the nation. The final report will be posted publicly on the USDA 

website.

WIC Participant and Program Characteristics Study 2024 and 2026 (FNS) 

• What demographic, income, and health-related characteristics are associated with WIC 

(women, infant, and children) participation in 2024 and 2026? 

• At what rate are WIC participants using their food package benefits?

• What are the actual costs of food package benefits by participant category? 

• What are the rates of retention among participants?

Background and 

Rationale

For every two years since 1998, FNS has conducted the WIC 

Participant and Program Characteristics Study (WIC PC). Per 7 CFR § 

246.25(b)(3)(i)), this study collects demographic, income, and WICrelated health characteristics and behaviors of all WIC participants in 

the 89 State agencies and their WIC benefits. This study will also pilot 

the collection of longitudinal WIC data, including food package 

redemption data.

Completion Date FY 2028

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Administrative data will be collected during two time periods, 2024 

and 2026, from the WIC state agencies. At a minimum, we will collect 
15

demographic, income, and WIC-related behavior and outcome 

information on a census of WIC participants enrolled as of April of

each year. We also anticipate collecting the same information over a 

two-year "look back" period to create a longitudinal dataset of a 

census of WIC participants. Finally, we will collect longitudinal food 

redemption data (electronic benefit transfer information) from EBT 

processors for every State agency.

Data Sources Administrative data from a census of WIC agencies, including 

longitudinal Management Information System and EBT redemption 

data. 

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

One challenge will be collecting uniform longitudinal data from as 

many State agencies as possible in a timely manner. We plan to 

mitigate this challenge by providing ample technical assistance to 

State agencies during data collection and having a clear and robust 

data cleaning plan.

Use and Dissemination Data will be used to evaluate programmatic changes to WIC, evaluate 

targeted interventions among WIC participants, and estimate 

program budgets. Study findings will be disseminated through short 

and topic-specific reports, infographics, journal articles, 

presentations, briefings, as well as longer reports.

WIC Health Opportunities and Participant Experience (HOPE) Longitudinal Study (FNS) 

• Update the feeding practice and the nutrition-related outcomes findings from WIC Infant 

and Toddler Feeding Practices Longitudinal Study (ITFPS-2)

• Assess maternal diet, birth, and health outcomes from pregnancy and postpartum periods. 

• Examine the independent association between duration of WIC participation and diet, 

health, and nutrition security outcomes. 

• Describe WIC participant’s experience engaging with different aspects of WIC such as clinic 

experience, technology use, and benefit use.

Background and 

Rationale

It has now been more than a decade since the launch of WIC ITFPS-2, 

the predecessor longitudinal study to WIC HOPE. In that time, WIC 

has undergone programmatic changes and public health goals and 

priorities have progressed. The updated study objectives and 

methods in WIC HOPE will facilitate a continued comprehensive 

understanding of how participation in WIC affects participants and 

their health over time. The new objectives and methods align with 

emerging public health concerns and the most recent maternal and 

child health recommendations.

Completion date FY 2031
16

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

This is a longitudinal study that will follow a cohort of caregivers and 

infants enrolled in WIC prenatally or in the first 3 months of the 

infant’s life. Surveys and dietary recalls among infants/children and 

their caregiver will be conducted periodically over the course of five 

years. Case studies and qualitative data will also be collected at 

various time-points among participants as well as State or local 

agency staff.

Data Sources Primary survey, interview, and 24-hour recall data collection as well 

as some administrative data.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Maintaining a low attrition rate will be the biggest challenge of this 

study. Tailored and frequent engagement with participants as well as 

robust incentives will be used to limit attrition.

Use and Dissemination Study findings will be disseminated through short and topic-specific 

reports, infographics, journal articles, presentations, briefings, as well 

as longer age-specific reports.

Summer Meals Study (FNS) 

• How do Summer Food programs work together to improve nutrition and reduce food 

insecurity?

Background and 

Rationale

The first Summer Meals Study, conducted in 2018, provided a 

comprehensive, nationally representative assessment of the two 

summer meal programs operated by USDA – the Summer Food Service 

Program and the National School Lunch Program Seamless Summer 

Option. The study examined the characteristics of participating and 

nonparticipating children, including socio-demographic characteristics, 

household food security status, reasons for participation or 

nonparticipation, and satisfaction with the meals served to children. 

Since that time USDA has implemented a new and permanent Summer 

Electronic Benefit Transfer program, as well as a change to allow 

summer sites in rural areas to provide meals in a non-congregate 

setting. FNS’ new study will provide an updated assessment of summer 

meal programs to include these new options and provide a broad 

overview of how these programs work together to improve nutrition 

and reduce food insecurity among children during summer months 

when school is not in session. 

Completion date FY 2029

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Data will be collected using a mixed-methods approach and will likely 

include surveys of a nationally representative sample of sponsor and 

program staff, participants and caregivers, and collection of 

administrative data.
17

Data Sources Surveys and administrative data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

This complex study will require collecting data from a variety of 

sources, including participating households, local program operators 

and sponsors, and state agencies. The main challenge is likely to be 

low response rates as collecting survey data is becoming more and 

more challenging. To mitigate these challenges FNS will consider 

collecting data in less-burdensome ways, providing robust incentives 

to participants, and providing informational resources and technical 

assistance to address any data collection concerns or challenges.

Use and Dissemination Findings from this study will be used by FNS to assess how the 

available summer feeding options work together to provide nutrition 

support to children during summer months when school is closed and 

to identify service gaps or areas for improvement. The study findings 

will be disseminated publicly through a final report and/or other 

dissemination materials. 

Evaluation of the Use of Third-Party Income Databases in SNAP (FNS) 

• How can FNS assist State and local agencies and program operators to further improve 

integrity, accountability, and customer service when administering nutrition assistance 

programs?

Background and 

Rationale

In recent years, most State agencies have independently contracted 

with commercial vendors to obtain automated verification of 

individuals’ employment and income status via a third-party income 

database (TPID) of employer-reported payroll data. FNS plans to 

implement a national contract for matching with TPID, which States 

will have the option to use, to achieve economy of scale and lower 

contracting costs across all SNAP agencies. This evaluation will assess 

the extent to which TPID reveals undeclared income at certification 

or recertification, relative costs savings achieved from national TPID 

implementation (if any), and correlative factors related to undeclared 

income, including the effect of casework interviews in eliciting 

relevant income declarations. Data will come from a selection of 

States from each region, with a sample of SNAP households pulled 

from administrative data matched against TPID search records. 

Completion date FY 2028

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies Match TPID to State administrative data and conduct analysis

Data Sources Third party income data and State administrative data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Signing Data Use Agreements and getting administrative data from 

State agencies is always a challenge. FNS will remind the States of the
18

importance of confirming the value of using TPID if the national

contract for the services to continue.

Use and Dissemination Study findings will be disseminated publicly through a final report 

and/or other dissemination materials.

Evaluation of Selected SNAP Nutrition Education (SNAP-Ed) Interventions (FNS)

• When developing and implementing nutrition education for FNS program participants and 

the public, what strategies can most effectively communicate messages that reflect the 

latest nutrition science, incorporate healthier foods, promote the use of culturally relevant 

foods, and reach diverse populations to help reduce racial inequities and mitigate dietrelated health disparities?

Background and 

Rationale

States may choose from many interventions in the SNAP-Ed toolkit as 

well as other evidence-based interventions and deliver nutrition 

education and obesity prevention services through a combination of 

educational approaches. However, clear evidence on the 

effectiveness of SNAP-Ed is lacking. For this study, States will be 

invited to submit projects for the evaluation. The study will select 

and evaluate four promising projects that combine direct nutrition 

education with comprehensive multi-level interventions or 

community and public health approaches to improve nutrition and 

obesity prevention. Results will provide models for both 

implementation and evaluation of nutrition education interventions 

and contribute to the SNAP-Ed evidence-base. 

Completion Date FY 2029

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Design will depend on the interventions chosen but will likely be 

either a randomized control trial or quasi experimental design.

Data Sources New data collection from SNAP-Ed Implementing Agencies or SNAPEd program participants.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Designing the evaluations to properly assess the impacts of the 

interventions will be a challenge. In addition, obtaining PRA clearance

from OMB in a timely manner is also a challenge. FNS will seek to

select interventions which lend themselves to a rigorous evaluation

design.

Use and Dissemination Study findings will be disseminated publicly through a final report 

and/or other dissemination materials.
19

School Nutrition Meal Cost and School Food Purchase Study (FNS) 

• What is the food and nutrient content of school meals and afterschool snacks and what is 

the overall nutritional quality of meals served through school meal programs? How do the 

diets of children who participate in school meals compare to the diets of nonparticipants?

What is the cost to produce school meals and what foods do districts purchase for their 

meal programs? How do these outcomes vary across school district characteristics?

Background and 

Rationale

The School Nutrition and Meal Cost components of this study will 

examine the nutritional content and quality of the meals offered and 

purchased at school, plate waste, the school nutrition environment, 

school food service operations, cost to produce school meals, as well 

as student participation, characteristics, satisfaction, and attitudes 

towards the school lunch and breakfast programs. The School Food 

Purchase components will provide national estimates of the type, 

quantity, dollar value and unit price of food acquisitions as well as 

overall changes in the composition of the entire school food market 

basket including food purchases for a la carte sales and the relative 

importance of donated USDA Foods. It will also examine the 

relationship between district characteristics, purchasing practices, 

and food costs. This study will also develop estimates of the cost of 

school meals for the outlying areas of Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin 

Islands, Alaska, and Hawaii. Funding this fiscal year will support data 

analysis and/or dissemination of study findings.

Completion Date FY 2028

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Data will be collected from a representative sample of SFAs, schools, 

and children using a mixed methods approach.

Data Sources Surveys of school and SFA staff, participants, and caretakers; analysis 

of menu data; 24-hour dietary intake recall; direct observation; and 

administrative data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

This complex study will require collecting data from a variety of 

sources, including administrative data, surveys of program operators 

and participating families, and dietary recall data. The main 

challenge is likely to be low response rates as collecting survey data is 

becoming more and more challenging. To mitigate these challenges 

FNS will consider collecting data in less-burdensome ways, providing 

robust incentives to participants, and providing informational 

resources and technical assistance to address any data collection 

concerns or challenges. In addition, the sample will be stratified in 

such a way as to minimize response burden on any respondent

group.

Use and Dissemination Study findings will be disseminated publicly through a final report 

and/or other dissemination materials.
20

Goal 5: Expand Opportunities for Economic Development and Improve Quality of Life in 

Rural and Tribal Communities

Evaluation of the Broadband Programs (RD) 

• What are the impacts of RD broadband programs on broadband availability and use, as well 

as on economic (property values, household income, and employment) and social 

(population growth, healthcare access and availability, and telemedicine) outcomes?

Background and 

Rationale

This evaluation includes a portfolio of studies that cover the 

following programs: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan 

Guarantee Program, Community Connect Grants, Distance Learning 

and Telemedicine Grants and Loans, Broadband Initiatives Program, 

and ReConnect Program. These programs are designed to promote 

access to broadband in rural areas. E-connectivity is fundamental to 

economic development, innovation, technological advancement, 

workforce readiness, and the improvement of quality of life in rural 

and Tribal communities.

Completion Date FY 2026

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The in-depth evaluation of these programs will utilize rigorous quasiexperimental methods. These methods include matching, matching 

with regression, difference-in-difference analysis, synthetic 

matching, instrumental variable analysis, and regression 

discontinuity. Due to complexity of geography of service areas and 

data availability in rural areas, one of the best methodologies that 

minimizes the standard errors will be reported while others provide 

robustness of the results. The in-depth evaluation will also use the 

input-output analysis toolkit, IMPLAN, to estimate the short-run 

impacts of building out broadband infrastructure in rural areas. In 

using this framework, the project analysts will use detailed data as 

inputs to simulation models to obtain estimates on employment and 

output for a specific regional economy. The IMPLAN software and 

database will serve as the modeling platform for this impact analysis. 

These evaluation projects will be conducted by six trained 

economists and social scientists at the Innovation Center who have 

experience in both ex-ante and ex-post evaluation approaches. Some 

of the projects will be conducted in collaboration with the USDA 

Economic Research Service (ERS). The Innovation Center is working 

collaboratively with program areas to obtain administrative data.

Data Sources Administrative data available from the USDA Rural Utilities Service 

(RUS) will be used in combination with other external data available 

from the Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau 

of Labor Statistics, ERS, and Federal Communications Commission. 

Proprietary datasets such as the National Establishment Time Series 

and Zillow's Assessor and Real Estate Database will also be used. The 

various datasets will be combined using program service area 

information, such as service area boundaries available from program 
21

shapefiles, census blocks, census tracts, and Federal Information 

Processing Standard County and sub-County codes. For the inputoutput analysis of the ReConnect Program, data from published 

engineering cost and economic impact studies will be used in 

addition to detailed program data. Project cost data housed in the 

RUS represent a new type of data that are not normally stored in the 

National Rural Development database but are essential for 

developing model simulation scenarios.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

RD has several programs that fund broadband access and the data 

available for analysis under these programs varies. For new 

programs, e.g., ReConnect, service area shapefiles are available for 

more precise analysis and attribution of impacts. In addition, linking 

program data to external data sources and the lack of publicly 

available data to measure certain outcomes can be a challenge that 

limits analysis and evaluation.

Use and Dissemination The findings will be shared throughout the RD Mission Area, the 

wider USDA community, and the Office and Management and 

Budget through the dissemination of reports and presentations. RD 

is currently working on the creation of a public-facing website to 

disseminate findings from evaluations and other analyses. 

Additionally, projects are published in peer reviewed journals and 

presented across various conferences.

How Different Combination of RD Programs Concurrently Improve Well-being of rural 

America? (RD) 

• Which combination of RD programs does most to improve well-being of rural America?

Background and 

Rationale

In FY22-FY23, RD has explored the collective impact of all RD 

programs on well-being of rural America using its administrative data 

and Distressed Community measures at the county level. From that 

study, we have found counties that decreased in distressed 

community measures have different combinations of funding 

awarded for FY2020-FY2019. Thus, we intend to explore this 

question further and see which combinations contribute the most to 

improve the lives of rural population. We expect this study to be one 

of the first studies to inform the policy makers how combination of 

investments or collective efforts of different aspects in community 

development is necessary and what could be the best approach.

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

At the Census Tract level, the evaluation will utilize rigorous quasiexperimental methods. These methods include difference-indifference analysis and the matching method to isolate groups as 

untreated (no funding) and treated (funding).
22

Data Sources Administrative data on major RD programs will be used in 

combination with other external data available from Distressed 

Community Index (Economic Innovation Group), RD calculated 

distressed community scores at the Census Tract level; US Census 

Bureau for socio-economic data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

At the macro level, the lack of shapefiles for program data to 

delineate service areas forces the analysis to be at the county level 

or city and town level. Linking program data to external data sources 

and the lack of publicly available data to measure certain outcomes 

can also be challenges. We plan to mitigate these challenges by 

looking at the investment data at the Census Tract level, the smallest 

geography level that would allow some quasi-experimental design of 

impact evaluation

Use and Dissemination The findings will be shared throughout the Rural Development 

Mission Area, the wider USDA community, and the Office and 

Management and Budget through the dissemination of reports and 

presentations. Rural Development is currently working on the 

creation of a public-facing website to disseminate findings from 

evaluations and other analyses. Additionally, projects are published 

in peer reviewed journals and presented across various conferences. 

The findings will be delivered in a manner that is most appropriate 

for the audience. In addition to sharing the findings internally, the 

evaluation studies will be used to generate peer-reviewed and 

outreach publications and conference presentations.

USDA RD Community Facilities Program and Impact on Educational Attainment and 

Equitable Educational Facilities (RD) 

• To what extent has the USDA RD Community Facilities Program, through development of 

educational facilities, contributed to increased educational attainment and expanded

equitable learning opportunities?

Alignment with USDA 

Goal(s)

Goal 5: Expand Opportunities for Economic Development and 

Improve Quality of Life in Rural and Tribal Communities

Background and 

Rationale

Community Facilities (CF) program goal is to ensure rural areas to 

have the same equitable basic quality of life and services as those in 

urban areas. Through support in school facilities and services, we 

expect there is positive impact of CF programs in education 

outcomes. No prior analysis of CF program on education outcomes 

has been performed, and with this impact evaluation analysis, 

support in more investment in education-related services and 

facilities will be garnered. 

Completion Date FY 2027
23

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The evaluation will utilize rigorous quasi-experimental methods. 

These methods include difference-in-difference analysis and the 

matching method to isolate groups as untreated (no funding) and 

treated (funding). Equity will be operationalized by the Child 

Opportunity Index. The Child Opportunity Index measures and maps 

the quality of resources and conditions that matter for children to 

develop in a healthy way in the neighborhoods where they live.

Data Sources

Administrative data from the Community Facilities program; 

Performance K-12 data for the school years (2019-2020 and 2020-

2021); Child Opportunity Index 2010 and 2015 data at the Census 

Tract level; Census Bureau American Community Survey data for 

school enrollment; Department of Education's High School 

graduation data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Challenges of this project include collecting the necessary data and 

linking the program data to external data of interests. We plan to 

mitigate these challenges by limiting the period of study, assuming 

the effect of school funding will have short-term effect on students' 

educational outcomes. 

Use and Dissemination

The findings will be shared throughout the Rural Development 

Mission Area, the wider USDA community, and the Office and 

Management and Budget through the dissemination of reports and 

presentations. Rural Development is currently working on the 

creation of a public-facing website to disseminate findings from 

evaluations and other analyses. Additionally, projects are published 

in peer reviewed journals and presented across various conferences. 

The findings will be delivered in a manner that is most appropriate 

for the audience. In addition to sharing the findings internally, the 

evaluation studies will be used to generate peer-reviewed and 

outreach publications and conference presentations.

USDA RD Investment in Persistent Poverty Counties and Distressed Communities and its 

Impact (RD)

• How much does the targeted assistance to persistent poverty counties and distressed 

communities help RD increase investment in underserved, vulnerable rural areas? To what 

extent are these targeted investments effective in helping economically underdeveloped 

areas and alleviating economic hardships?

Background and 

Rationale

Rural Development provides targeted assistance to persistent 

poverty counties to the maximum extent possible by utilizing a 

variety of outreach tools such as social media, events, success 

stories, and collaborating with affordable housing partners 

(packagers, intermediaries, self-help grantees). Per requested by the 

Congressional Committee as well as performance and impact 

evaluation purposes, RD is interested in finding out whether this 

targeted assistance is "successful," in short-term outcome of 
24

increase in investment and in long-term outcome of betterment of 

persistently poor or distressed communities. 

Completion Date FY2025

Technical Approach 

and Methodologies

The evaluation will utilize rigorous qualitative and quantitative 

methods. Rigorous case studies and descriptive analysis will 

accompany quasi-experimental methods. These methods include 

difference-in-difference analysis and the matching method to isolate 

groups as untreated (no funding) and treated (funding).

Data Sources

Administrative data on major RD programs will be used in 

combination with other external data available from Census Bureau 

poverty data from the American Community Survey data, persistent 

poverty Census tract lists and Distressed Communities Index from 

the Economic Innovation Group, and Socially Vulnerable 

Communities Index from the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

At the macro level, the lack of shapefiles for program data to 

delineate service areas forces the analysis to be at the county level 

or city and town level. Linking program data to external data sources 

and the lack of publicly available data to measure certain outcomes 

can also be challenges. We plan to mitigate these challenges by 

looking at the investment data at the Census Tract level for 

Distressed communities, the smallest geography level that would 

allow some quasi-experimental design of impact evaluation, along 

with at the County level for Persistent Poverty Counties.

Use and 

Dissemination

The findings will be shared throughout the Rural Development 

Mission Area, the wider USDA community, and the Office and 

Management and Budget through the dissemination of reports and 

presentations. Rural Development is currently working on the 

creation of a public-facing website to disseminate findings from 

evaluations and other analyses. Additionally, projects are published 

in peer reviewed journals and presented across various conferences. 

The findings will be delivered in a manner that is most appropriate 

for the audience. In addition to sharing the findings internally, the 

evaluation studies will be used to generate peer-reviewed and 

outreach publications and conference presentations.
25

Goal 6: Attract, Inspire, and Retain an Engaged and Motivated Workforce that is Proud to 

Represent USDA

Changes in USDA’s Performance Management and Awards System (OHRM) 

• What effects did USDA’s shift from a five-tier performance management system to a twotier system have on employee performance and engagement, and the ability of managers 

to distribute performance awards equitably?

Background and 

Rationale

USDA moved from a five-tier performance management system to a 

two-level (i.e., pass/fail) management system and separated 

monetary and time off awards from annual summary performance 

ratings. In response to feedback from USDA staff, supervisors, and 

managers, USDA seeks to understand how, if any, effects these 

changes have had on performance, employee engagement, and the 

distribution of awards. 

Completion Date September 30, 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Procure funding and contract support to conduct an evaluation and 

assessment of the change to a two-level performance management 

system, which compares relevant pre- and post-implementation data 

and feedback from stakeholders.

Data Sources

Examples of data sources include data capturing aggregate 

performance ratings issued, demonstration of opportunities 

administered (including results and disposition), distribution of 

monetary and time off awards recognizing accomplishments by 

amount and fiscal quarter; Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey; 

Future of Work Survey results. 

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Data availability and privacy issues may pose challenges. OHRM will 

work with the Office of Chief Information Officer and USDA’s Privacy 

Officer to use aggregated and masked data. 

Use and Dissemination USDA will use the findings to understand the effects of the policy 

change and decide if additional changes are needed. 

AMS’ Implementation of USDA’s Equity Recommendations, the Performance of Agricultural 

Marketing Services’ (AMS) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) Council, and 

Improved Relationships and Support of Underserved Communities 

• How, and to what extent, have AMS DEIA council activities, outreach to underserved 

populations, and enhanced engagement with and support to underserved communities, 

addressed AMS’ and thereby USDA's equity recommendations and DEIA goals and 

objectives?

Background and 

Rationale

Beginning in 2021, AMS took a proactive stance to assess and further 

employee engagement across the DEIA space through establishment 

of a DEIA council, strategic plan and in FY23, establishment of the 
26

AMS Office of the Chief Diversity Officer. AMS has also been 

implementing its Equity Action Plan to address Departmental equity 

objectives, with three areas of focus: (1) increase targeted 

investments, (2) reduce barriers to AMS programs, and (3) advance 

equity in procurement. With all activities working in FY23 and FY24, 

it is reasonable to evaluate progress and next steps to ensure 

fulfillment of the Agency goals in accordance with the Department 

and Administrations goals for enhanced engagement with and 

support of AMS work with underserved communities to advance 

their inclusion and market share.

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The evaluation will employ quantitative and qualitative methodology 

(i.e., demographic analysis, economic measures, surveys, structured 

interviews, etc.) to assess investment in DEIA strategies and program 

performance. Analyze policy/program effects on underserved 

communities, and detail outcomes of the programs after they are 

fully implemented. The near-term outputs and mid-term outcomes 

indicating movement in the desired direction include:

DEIA

(1) conducting DEIA training to expand employees’ knowledge, 

awareness, understanding and application of DEIA in the 

workforce to promote an inclusive work environment,

(2) creating the AMS Hiring and Recruitment Resource Library, a 

database of policies and recruitment tools, and

Equity

(3) increased participation of underserved communities in 

AMS programs, specifically in grants and procurement.

Data Sources

The evaluation data sources will include: i) human resource data 

(hiring, diversity metrics, retention, promotion); ii) program policies 

and performance data; iv) economic; and v) other sources as needed.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Given the growth time needed to create an equitable profile at the 

highest levels, we may not fully realize the hiring-to-promotion 

profile and employee engagement in the early years of this 

evaluation. The time factor may be mitigated through comparative 

analysis against similar groups and across the labor market.

Use and Dissemination

These data will drive future USDA DEIA investments in employees 

and underserved populations in the agriculture space, ensure best 

use of Congressional investment and increase trust of the public. The 

data will also inform AMS on future actions to ensure our programs 

and services are accessible, especially to underserved communities. 
27

From Learning to Leading: Cultivating the Next Generation of Diverse Food and Agriculture 

Professionals Program (NextGen) (NIFA) 

• To what extent did this program succeed in generating the next generation of food and 

agriculture professionals?

• Which aspects of the program (e.g., fellowships, job opportunities, etc.) have the greatest 

effect on recruiting and retaining young people into food and agricultural sciences as a 

career path?

Background and 

Rationale

The NextGen program aims to build the next generation of the food, 

agriculture, natural resources, and human sciences workforce, 

including the future USDA workforce, through providing student 

scholarships, meaningful paid internships and fellowships, and 

matching participants to job opportunities, particularly jobs in the 

federal sector. 

The demand for trained personnel in food, agriculture, renewable 

natural resources, and the environment remains high. Employment 

opportunities for new college graduates is estimated to grow by 

59,400 annually through 2025. USDA, for example, faces critical staff 

shortages across the department with many experienced employees 

poised to retire. For example, approximately 15 percent of the 

Federal workforce are currently eligible to retire and in the next five 

years this proportion will grow to 30 percent. Only 61% of those jobs, 

however, will be filled by people who were trained in these fields. 

Crafting the future of farming hinges on nurturing new leaders and 

building a more diverse workforce.

The NextGen program aims to address these gaps by raising

awareness and interest and ultimately preparing students with the 

skills and degrees required to strengthen and fill the pipeline of 

workers, including positions at USDA, industry, and other sectors. 

The evaluation will help to identify which pathways are effective in 

bringing about these outcomes and why. 

Completion date FY 2028

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The evaluation will use quantitative and qualitative methods to capture 

both formative and performance (outcome) measures to enable NIFA 

to assess the extent to which the program helped to mitigate shortages 

in critical areas and create pathways to science careers among 

historically under- represented groups. Specifically, to (i) measure the 

efforts of individual grantees to identify early indicators that the 

projects are achieving their objectives; and (ii) assess the extent to 

which the program is building a new generation of food and 

agricultural scientists, creating pathways to science careers among 

historically under-represented groups, and mitigating shortages in 

critical areas.

Data Sources

The evaluation will draw from the following data sources, as a start:

• Survey responses from project directors and students

• Site visits
28

• Virtual Communities of Practice

• Focus groups

NIFA may also draw from the National Student Clearinghouse

(www.studentclearinghouse.org) and the Food and Agricultural 

Education Information System (https://faeis.cals.vt.edu). 

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Building the next generation of food, agriculture, natural resources, 

and human services professionals is a medium- to long-term 

investment. NIFA will work with the evaluation team and awardees 

to establish a method for tracking the longitudinal outcomes of 

participants in accordance with privacy laws. NIFA has experience 

tracking participants after the period of performance is completed to 

determine if the longer-term objectives of the program were 

achieved.

Participants will need to be tracked for several years to determine if 

their involvement in the program’s activities influenced them to 

pursue an education and career in food and agriculture. This 

evaluation builds and expands on previously funded assessments of 

Hispanic Serving Institution programs. Similar indicators were used in 

the past and have been updated and expanded to account for the 

diversity of institutions, projects, and students participating. Funding 

is not allocated to support long-term tracking after the award 

completion date (2028).

Use and Dissemination

This evaluation will yield greater understanding on how USDA can 

facilitate the formation of a new cadre of professionals from which it 

may hire or collaborate with in the field. Findings, including 

indicators and conditions of success, will be shared widely across 

USDA as multiple agencies are exploring ways to recruit and retain a 

diversified workforce. 

Civil Rights Impact Analyses (CRIAs) (OASCR) 

• How and to what extent does the CRIA process effectively protect USDA employees from 

adverse and disproportionate impacts from changes to USDA’s policies, actions, and 

decisions?

• Under what conditions is the CRIA process effective at mitigating the potential for adverse 

effects?
29

Background and 

Rationale

USDA's Mission Areas, Agencies, and Staff Offices conduct CRIAs to 

protect USDA employees and program beneficiaries from 

disproportionate and adverse impacts that may result from policies, 

actions, or decisions proposed by the Department. CRIAs ensure 

every policy, action, rule, or decision are conducted in accordance 

with Federal civil rights laws. 

A CRIA identifies the effects of: (1) proposed employment actions; (2) 

eligibility criteria for USDA benefits; (3) methods of implementation, (4) 

underrepresentation or lack of diversity within its programs; or (5) any 

other Mission Area/Agency-imposed requirements that may adversely 

and/or disproportionately impact employees or program beneficiaries 

based on their membership in a protected group. Proper follow-up 

actions based on CRIA findings can lessen, eliminate, or substantially 

alleviate these potential or anticipated impacts on protected groups. 

Completion date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Qualitative, Quantitative, Disproportionate and Adverse Impact 

Analysis 

Data Sources Available Data, Departmental Regulation 4300-004, Civil Rights 

Impact Analysis; OASCR Strategic Plan; CRIA Guidebook

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Staffing Capacity, Timelines for Completion, Data Availability, and 

Funding Availability 

Use and Dissemination Agencywide
30

Appendix: Significant Evidence-Building Activities

Goal 1: Combat Climate Change to Support America’s Working Lands, Natural Resources, 

and Communities

Data Quality and Impacts to Wildfire Crisis Strategy Implementation (FS) 

• The purpose of this evidence-building effort is to create a reliable and accurate set of 

administrative and programmatic data in support of wildfire-related modeling, decision 

making, and accomplishment tracking. The Forest Service protects life, property, and 

natural resources on National Forest System lands, other Federal lands, and an additional 

20 million acres of non-Federal lands under protection agreements. Within the Wildfire 

Crisis Strategy (WCS), Forest Service has proposed a significant increase in the number of 

acres treated. Measuring progress toward the goals and objectives in the WCS depend on 

having reliable and accurate data. See Wildfire Crisis Strategy Implementation Plan.

Completion Date FY 2027

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

We will use advanced analytics to review the multiple administrative

and programmatic data most critical to wildfire-related modeling,

decision-making, and accomplishment tracking. This risk-based

approach will focus on identifying data quality improvements where

they are most needed to improve evidence building related to the

wildfire crisis. The Forest Service Chief Data Office will be responsible

for this activity and will coordinate appropriately with agency data

stewards (within Forest Service as well as at other USDA agencies) as

appropriate.

Data Sources As part of this effort, the agency will create an inventory and catalog 

priority enterprise datasets related to strategic goals and the WCS as 

often hazardous fuels treatments and other land management 

activities have related benefits and outcomes. These activities will 

include documenting critical metadata and developing processes to 

determine how these data could better integrate with the USDA 

Enterprise Data Catalog and where data gaps may exist.

Use and Dissemination The findings will be shared throughout the NRE Mission Area and 

wider USDA community through the dissemination of reports and 

presentations. The findings will be delivered in a manner that is most 

appropriate for the audience.

Survey of Local Irrigation Systems (NASS) 

• How and to what extent do local irrigation decisions have an impact on drought resilience?

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Survey conducted by NASS under the guidance of USDA’s Economic 

Research Service is intended to provide a nationally representative 

assessment of irrigation water-delivery entities and groundwater 
31

management districts serving the U.S. irrigated sector. The dataset 

will include information on organization structure, irrigation 

infrastructure and system management practices, and water use by 

source, with a special emphasis on institutional measures and 

conservation initiatives that enhance drought resilience and longterm water-supply management.

Data Sources Survey findings and related research; Local Irrigation Commissions

Use and Dissemination The final report will be available to the public. The information will 

help USDA officials and external stakeholders make informed 

decisions regarding irrigation. 

Conservation Data Series (NASS) 

• To what extent do agricultural conservation practices contribute to a reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions?

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

The Conservation Practice Adoption Motivations Survey (CPAMS) is a 

joint project between the National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) and the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) 

aimed at assessing the adoption rates of different conservation 

practices. Four different conservation categories are surveyed: crop 

practices, grazing practices, confined livestock practices, and forestry 

practices. Each category will have a questionnaire designed to gather 

information specific to the practices involved in each category.

Data Sources CPAMS Surveys, Irrigation and Water Management Survey, NASS 

Agricultural Resource Management Surveys

Use and Dissemination The final report will be available to the public. The information will 

help USDA officials and external stakeholders understand the 

capacity of conservation practices to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. 

Greenhouse Gas Conservation Practices: Cross Agency Data Series Team (NASS)

• Align staffing and data collections related to greenhouse gas conservation practices.

• Fill critical data gaps as no consolidated data series exists

Completion Date Ongoing data collection to produce longitudinal data

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

USDA-wide working groups. The primary goal is to produce an annual 

data series of conservation practices, to be jointly produced by NASS, 

ERS, ARS, and NRCS and to be published by ERS. The series will draw 
32

on existing methodologies used by NASS, NRCS, and ERS for aggregate 

statistics at the state or regional level, drawing on survey and 

administrative data – but the exact methodologies will be determined 

over the course of FY24 and FY25 depending on the data sources 

employed for each statistic.

Data Sources

NASS, ERS, ARS, and NRCS, publicly funded research such as research 

conducted at Land-Grant Universities. 

Use and Dissemination Public report, will be used by USDA, external stakeholders, and 

policy/decisions makers

USDA Climate Adaptation Progress Report for USDA Facility Operations (OPEM) 

• How and to what extent have USDA agencies and staff offices identified and mitigated

climate change threats to their facility operations? 

• Assess the relationship between climate adaptation activities and outcomes for USDA 

facility operations.

Background and 

Rationale

Executive Order 14008 and the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality require Federal agencies to conduct climate 

vulnerability assessments, identify actions to address climate change 

impact to missions and operations, and conduct annual progress 

reporting on status and accomplishments. 

Completion Date FY 2026

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Conduct data calls and workgroup meetings. Develop Climate 

Hazardous Exposure and Resilience Assessments tools to identify and 

mitigate climate risks.

Data Sources

Data sources include property data from the Federal Real Property 

Profile Management System and USDA’s Corporate Property 

Automated Information System, Geo-spatial climate risk data, and 

reporting from USDA agencies and offices.

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

The lack of funding and dedicated staff resources are the most 

significant challenges. The Office of Property and Environmental 

Management continues to request funds and leverage the 

knowledge and resources of other federal agencies. 

Use and Dissemination

Assessments are available through USDA’s SharePoint system to 

staff, managers, and leadership [and shared with the Office and 

Management and Budget]. These assessments facilitate collaboration 

across the department and can inform the development of 

performance metrics and program direction. 
33

National Program Assessments (Agricultural Research Service (ARS)) 

• Water Availability and Watershed Management

• Soil and Air

• To what extent did this national program accomplish its goals and objectives as specified in 

the national program action plan?

Background and 

Rationale

The national program assessments are conducted every five years 

and play a key role in both retrospective evaluation and prospective 

priority setting for ARS. Based on feedback from external experts 

(from academia, stakeholders, and government), the national 

program assessment ensures that research is being conducted as 

indicated in the national program action plan; and serves to capture 

insights regarding the future direction of the national program.

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Program assessments include 3 phases: 

1. Conduct in-house program assessment to identify research 

accomplishments and progress toward goals. 

2. Convene a panel of external reviewers to assess the research’s 

relevance, quality, and impact.

3. Inform ARS leadership of evaluation findings and 

recommendations. 

Data Sources Internal ARS systems, outreach to ARS scientists, ARS stakeholders 

and collaborators. 

Use and Dissemination Retrospective review reports are available on the national program 

Web page at https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/ and are 

used to inform decision-makers. 

The evaluations are a key component of the ARS 5-year National 

Program Cycle

Goal 2. Ensure America’s Agricultural System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous

National Program Assessments (ARS) 

• Animal Health

• Plant Diseases

• To what extent did this national program accomplish its goals and objectives as specified in 

the national program action plan?
34

Background and 

Rationale

The national program assessments are conducted every five years 

and play a key role in both retrospective evaluation and prospective 

priority setting for ARS. Based on feedback from external experts 

(from academia, stakeholders, and government), the national 

program assessment ensures that research is being conducted as 

indicated in the national program action plan; and serves to capture 

insights regarding the future direction of the national program.

Completion Date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Program assessments include 3 phases: 

1. Conduct in-house program assessment to identify research 

accomplishments and progress toward goals. 

2. Convene a panel of external reviewers to assess the research’s 

relevance, quality, and impact.

3. Inform ARS leadership and the Office of Management and Budget

of evaluation findings and recommendations. 

Data Sources Internal ARS systems, outreach to ARS scientists, ARS stakeholders 

and collaborators. 

Use and Dissemination Retrospective review reports are available on the national program 

Web page at https://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/ and are 

used to inform decision-makers. 

The evaluations are a key component of the ARS 5-year National 

Program Cycle.

Goal 3. Foster an Equitable and Competitive Marketplace for All Agricultural Producers

Data Modernization (FSA) 

• Modernize FSA’s data management systems to enable new analytic capabilities 

communicated in the FSA Data Strategy.

Background and 

Rationale

FSA requires data analytics environment modernization to address 

business continuity risks presented by in-place systems reaching end 

of life. FSA's Data Analytics Modernization efforts will be a multi-year 

endeavor that is broken into manageable work packages to achieve 

FSA data analytics vision. FSA will implement our solution with 

Amazon Web Services (AWS) in the USDA Enterprise Data Analytics 

Platform and Toolset (EDAPT) for policy and tool alignment with the 

whole of USDA.

To be more aligned with USDA’s goal of accelerating data-driven 

decision-making capabilities, FSA is in middle of a multi-year project 

of migrating the Enterprise Data Warehouse from an on-premise

system at OCIO-Digital Infrastructure Services Center to the 

modernized data analytics platform in the EDAPT Cloud. FSA is also 

sending new sources of data directly to this EDAPT environment. 
35

This will allow FSA to use advanced toolsets through a platform 

based ‘data science’ virtual machine environment to support 

research into common farm program, farm loan, and field office 

questions including acreage reporting status and payments by crop 

and producer. This will also support delivery of data-driven 

analytics reports developed by staff and partners to answer 

congressional inquiries.

Completion Date 2025

Goal 4. Make Safe, Nutritious Food Available to All Americans

Food Safety Capacity- and Evidence-Building (FSIS) 

Background and 

Rationale

FSIS is collaborating with ARS to provide evidence to support policy 

making related to the Salmonella framework for poultry and other 

food safety issues.

Completion date FY 2025

Technical Approach and 

Methodologies

Develop virulence-based detection methods for pathogens to allow 

for more rapid identification of strains that are public health 

relevant. 

• Evaluate detection and enumeration methods for Salmonella, to 

determine which samples are more highly contaminated or 

contaminated with Salmonella strains that are more likely to 

cause illness. 

• Evaluate the use of antimicrobial interventions in processing 

plants to reduce Salmonella in poultry to provide optimal 

guidance to small and very small establishments. 

• Identify improved methods for sampling turkey carcasses to 

optimize FSIS' approach for finding Salmonella in turkeys.

• Develop a method to detect Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia 

coli based on genetic factors, including virulence. 

FSIS identified scientific data gaps in guidance documents for small 

and very small establishments regarding how to produce safe food 

and meets regulatory requirements. FSIS is working with ARS to 

provide evidence to fill these gaps. 

• Safe production methods for baked goods that contain raw 

meat and poultry and for low moisture products like country 

cured hams and smoked meats to ensure that Salmonella is 

destroyed. 

• Determine conditions under which bacteria can grow and 

produce toxins in egg products.
36

Data Sources

Virulence-based detection methods for pathogens: 

• FSIS laboratory data

• ARS laboratory data 

Scientific data gaps:

• ARS laboratory data

Challenges and 

Mitigation Strategies

Virulence-based detection methods for pathogens:

• Challenges –Many samples need to be analyzed to generate 

the data needed to scientifically support the development of 

new detection methods. 

• Mitigation Strategies – FSIS sent known positive samples to 

ARS for analysis, which reduced the time needed to identify 

positive samples, and facilitated the research. 

Scientific data gaps:

• Challenges – Resources for small and very small 

establishments to obtain the data are limited.

• Mitigation Strategies – FSIS is providing resources to generate 

the data.

Use and Dissemination

Virulence-based detection methods for pathogens:

• A new method will allow FSIS to detect products 

contaminated with pathogen strains that are of public health 

significance relevant. This will enable FSIS to target the 

riskiest products and improve food safety. 

Scientific data gaps:

• ARS will publish the data in peer reviewed literature. FSIS will 

use the data to update guidance documents used by small 

and very small establishments to set their cooking times and 

temperatures for ready-to-eat products, to ensure that they 

are safe for consumption.
37

Acronyms

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service

ARS Agricultural Research Service

CF Community Facilities

CPAMS Conservation Practice Adoption Motivations Survey

CRIA Civil Rights Impact Analyses

DEIA Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility

EBT Electronic Benefit Transfer

EDAPT Enterprise Data Analytics Platform and Toolset

ERS Economic Research Service

Evidence Act Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service

FDPIR Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

FIPS Federal Information Processing Standard

FLP Farm Loan Program

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

FSA Farm Service Agency

FSIS Food Safety and Inspection Service

FY Fiscal Year

ITFPS WIC Infant and Toddler Feeding Practices Longitudinal Study

LAMP Local Agriculture Market Programs

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
38

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

OASCR Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

OBPA Office of Budget and Program Analysis

OHRM Office of Human Resources Management

OPEM Office of Property and Environmental Management

PEER Performance, Evidence, Evaluation, and Risk Committee

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act

RD Rural Development

RUS Rural Utilities Service

SFA School Food Authority 

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SNAP-Ed SNAP Nutrition Education

TPID Third-Party Income Databases

WCS Wildfire Crisis Strategy (Forest Service)

WIC Women, Infant, and Children

WIC HOPE WIC Health Opportunities and Participant Experience

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture