LEARNING 

AGENDA

U.S. Department of 

Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction................................................................................................................................................. 1

Stakeholder Engagement.................................................................................................................................. 1

Rural Development................................................................................................................................... 3

Rural Development Priority Question #1.................................................................................................. 4

Rural Development Priority Question #2.................................................................................................. 6

Rural Development Priority Question #3.................................................................................................. 8

Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Rural Development 

Priority Questions............................................................................................................................................. 10

Food and Nutrition ................................................................................................................................. 11

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #1................................................................................................ 12

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #2................................................................................................ 13

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #3 ................................................................................................15 

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #4................................................................................................ 17

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #5................................................................................................ 20

Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition 

Priority Questions............................................................................................................................................. 21

Farm Production and Conservation ................................................................................................. 23

Farm Production and Conservation Priority Question #1 .............................................................. 23

Farm Production and Conservation Priority Question #2 .............................................................. 25

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 27
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

1

Introduction

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) oversees and facilitates the performance and 

strategic management activities of the Department, including development of the USDA Strategic 

Plan, Agency Priority Goals, the deliverables required under the Foundations for Evidence-Based 

Policymaking Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), and Enterprise Risk Management. OBPA is led by the 

USDA Chief Evaluation Officer. OBPA also chairs the USDA Performance, Evaluation, and Evidence 

Committee and the Enterprise Risk Management Committee, both of which are comprised of 

representation from Mission Areas and Departmental Administration, as well as key partners, 

including the Chief Data Officer and the Statistical Official. These individuals bring diverse 

perspectives and broad technical expertise to inform OBPA’s initiatives and facilitate buy-in among 

stakeholders across the Department. Partnership with the Chief Data Officer and Statistical 

Official provides valued insights and advisement on data access, data quality, and statistical 

methods.

Under the Evidence Act, USDA is required to produce a Learning Agenda, which describes the plans 

for identifying and addressing priority questions related to the programs, policies, and regulations 

of the Department. In accordance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum M19-23, the Learning Agenda includes: 

• Priority questions to be answered; 

• Activities that the Department will engage in to address priority questions; 

• The timing of learning activities; 

• Potential data, tools, methods, and analytic approaches to be used to answer priority 

questions; and

• Anticipated Department-specific challenges and proposed solutions to developing evidence 

to support leadership priorities.

The Department chose to focus on priority questions related to Rural Development, Food and 

Nutrition Services (FNS), and Farm Production and Conservation (FPAC). This approach was taken 

due to the high level of evidence-building maturity of the Agencies in this space and the degree of 

stakeholder engagement that has already been undertaken to develop the priority questions.

Stakeholder Engagement

Throughout FY 2021, OBPA conducted several stakeholder engagement activities to inform the 

development of the Learning Agenda. USDA’s internal stakeholders were organized into the 

following standard hierarchy to ensure that all levels were 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 strategic goals and objectives (staff offices such as OBPA, 

Human Resources, Office of the Chief Information Officer, etc.); and
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

2

• 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 convened the Evidence Act Working 

Group (EAWG) to collaborate on the 

Learning Agenda and other Evidence Act 

deliverables. The EAWG was a crossfunctional team that included 

representation from across USDA Mission 

Areas and Agencies and serves as the 

conduit between Mission Area and Agency leadership and OBPA. EAWG members were expected 

to inform their Mission Area and Agency leadership of the potential future impact on resources to 

ensure that necessary funding requests related to evidence building aligned to the priority 

questions were reflected in the FY 2023 budget. OBPA regularly engaged with the EAWG through 

a series of interactive workshops to appropriately scope the Learning Agenda and solicit feedback 

on draft materials. 

EAWG members acted as the subject matter experts representing their Mission Areas and 

Agencies to ensure both internal and external stakeholders learning priorities and areas of 

concerns were represented in the development of the USDA Learning Agenda. Stakeholder 

feedback was leveraged as research and assisted in the development final questions. Throughout 

the development of priority questions, external stakeholder feedback was collected on 

administrative priorities captured through various listening sessions, requests for information, and 

surveys.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

3

Rural Development 

The following priority questions were developed by the Rural Development Mission Area to guide 

the evidence activities needed to support mission delivery. These questions align to the Expand 

Opportunities for Economic Development and Improve Quality of Life in Rural and Tribal Communities in 

the USDA FY 2022 – 2026 Strategic Plan and are intended to address key learning gaps and 

highlight critical evidence needs for Rural Development.

Rural Development is committed to improving the economy and quality of life in all of rural America 

through financial assistance programs that support and advance inclusive prosperity. The unique 

mission, programs, and set of economic and development tools of Rural Development help finance 

the following:

• Construction of critical community facilities that include schools, libraries, hospitals, and 

public safety buildings; 

• Modernization and expansion of electricity and broadband connectivity; 

• Distance learning and telemedicine equipment that connects underserved communities 

with educational opportunities and health professionals; and 

• Development of clean, renewable energy and biobased manufacturing. 

Rural Development promotes economic development by providing loans to businesses through 

banks and community-managed lending pools, while also providing communities with opportunities 

to participate in community empowerment programs. In addition, Rural Development provides 

capacity building to help underserved communities become thriving communities and is wellpositioned to be a driving force for racial and spatial equity, reaching underserved communities and 

ensuring that rural communities have the same tools, resources, and access as urban communities. 

When rural Americans share the same level of infrastructure services as the country’s urban areas, 

rural communities can make even greater economic contributions with healthy businesses and 

families.

These priority questions were the result of extensive internal stakeholder engagement across Rural 

Development, including a webinar on developing a Learning Agenda and multiple surveys across 

the organization. The Department plans to prioritize external stakeholder engagement when 

making annual updates to the Learning Agenda.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

4

Rural Development Priority Question #1

Priority Question

What are the short- and long-term economic and social impacts of Rural Development programs, 

including indirect and spillover effects?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

USDA promotes rural prosperity and economic development by financing investments in rural 

utilities, housing, and businesses. This question aides the Department in understanding the 

benefits of its programs to rural communities both economically and socially and ensuring that 

finite resources available to invest in rural economic development are being utilized for the 

greatest impact. Evidence collected under this priority question falls mainly under program 

evaluation. In-depth evaluations will utilize rigorous quasi-experimental methods, including 

matching, matching with regression, difference-in-difference analysis, synthetic matching, 

instrumental variable analysis, and regression discontinuity. These evaluations will also use the 

input-output analysis toolkit to estimate ex ante direct and indirect impacts of Rural 

Development investments on area output and employment. In 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.

1. Evaluation of USDA broadband programs: This evaluation will study the impacts of the 

Rural Development broadband programs on broadband availability and use, as well as on 

economic (e.g., property values, household income, employment) and social (e.g., 

population growth, healthcare access and availability, and telemedicine) outcomes. The 

impacts of the Broadband Initiatives Program on property values are currently being 

investigated, and the impact evaluation of the same program on other outcomes will 

begin in FY 2022 and continue through FY 2023. The evaluation measuring the impacts 

of the Broadband Loan Program on property values will begin in FY 2022, and the 

evaluation of impacts of the same program on other outcomes are expected to begin in 

FY 2023. The evaluation of the impact of the Community Connect Program on school 

quality will begin in FY 2023.

2. Evaluation of USDA Water and Environment Program: This evaluation will examine the 

impacts of the Rural Development Water and Environment Program on changes in 

economic, demographic, and social outcomes in program recipient communities. The 

study of the impacts on income growth has begun and is expected to end within FY 2022. 

The study of impacts on population migration patterns will begin in FY 2022 and is 

expected to be finalized in FY 2023. Studies on the impacts on social outcomes will begin 

in FY 2023.

3. Evaluation of USDA Community Facilities Program: This evaluation will examine the impacts 

of the Rural Development Community Facilities Program on rural health and education 

outcomes. The evaluation of impacts of community facilities on rural hospital closure has 

begun and is expected to end in FY 2022. Studies on the impacts on education outcomes 

will begin in FY 2023.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

5

4. Evaluation of Rural Development housing programs: These evaluations will examine the 

impacts of Rural Development housing programs on measures of housing affordability 

and stability in recipient communities and of recipient home values. This work is 

expected to begin in FY 2022 and will continue through FY 2023 and beyond.

5. Overall impacts of Rural Development programs on socioeconomic outcomes: These

evaluations will examine the overall impacts of Rural Development programs on selected 

socioeconomic outcomes (to be determined). This work will be completed in FY 2022 and 

generate additional projects that will be pursued in upcoming years.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

Program administrative data from Rural Development will be used in combination with other 

external data available from the Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, USDA Economic Research Service, and Federal Communications Commission. 

In addition, Rural Development will utilize proprietary data sets, such as the National 

Establishment Time Series and Zillow's Assessor and Real Estate Database. These various 

datasets will be combined with program service area information, such as service area 

boundaries available from program shapefiles, census tracts, and county and sub-county Federal 

Information Processing Standard codes. For the input-output analysis, data from published 

engineering cost and economic impact studies will be used along with detailed program data. 

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Rural Development Priority 

Questions below for all other challenges and mitigation strategies.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

6

Rural Development Priority Question #2

Priority Question

How effective are existing Rural Development initiatives (e.g., eliminating unnecessary 

paperwork, improving stakeholder outreach, providing technical assistance to applicants, etc.) 

in improving equitable program access to historically disadvantaged and underserved 

communities?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

For USDA to fully promote rural prosperity, it must reach communities of need with its technical 

assistance, grants, and loan programs. USDA must employ place-based approaches to identify 

what works in these communities and what their capacity is to receive investments. The type of 

evidence gathered under this question can be categorized largely as program performance 

measurement and foundational fact-finding. To answer the question, analysts will use 

descriptive data analysis, regression analysis, geospatial analysis, qualitative analysis, survey 

analysis, focus groups, and data visualization platforms, such as Tableau dashboards, mapping in 

geographic information systems, and infographics.

1. Conduct equity assessments to determine the extent to which equity exists in the 

incidence and distribution of Rural Development programs (e.g., Equity Action Plan, 

Equity Program Assessments, and Equity Key Performance Indicator). 

2. Study the distribution of RD programs to high-poverty/persistent poverty, highdistressed, high-outmigration, and socially vulnerable rural areas.

3. Conduct an analysis of the demand for Rural Development programs and workforce 

need assessments for the distribution of RD programs. 

4. Identify and assess new and innovative approaches to outreach and technical 

assistance to underserved communities (initiatives are currently being developed that 

will be rolled out in FY 2022). 

5. Improve stakeholder engagement to gather feedback on current initiatives and 

determine opportunities for refinement or development of new strategies.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

Administrative RD data will be used in combination with other external data available from the 

Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Economic 

Innovation Group Distressed Communities Index, Centers for Disease Control Social 

Vulnerability Index, Economic Research Service, and Federal Communications Commission. 

New indices and frameworks to inform this work and analysis include: 

• Re-Envisioning Rural America – Rural Community Typologies and Capacity Assessment: Rural 

communities have diverse assets, capacities, and needs. Understanding various social 

and economic trends in rural communities can provide critical information on their 

capacities to absorb public- and private-sector investments, and where institution 

building may need to precede larger-scale investments. Policymakers and practitioners 
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

7

can leverage this information to better strategize the best approaches for maximizing 

rural communities’ existing assets. The Rural Community Typologies and Capacity 

Assessment will use the Community Capitals Framework (natural, cultural, human, 

social, political, financial, and built) to create a typology of rural communities. Along with 

this typology, Rural Development will identify existing institutional and organizational 

capacities across all Community Capitals. This project is being conducted in 

collaboration with the Urban Institute and Federal Reserve Board of Governors and is 

funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

• Urban Institute’s Spatial Equity Data Tool: The Spatial Equity Data Tool aims to answer the 

question “How can communities ensure that resources are equitably distributed to all 

residents?” It uses data from the five-year (2014 through 2018) American Community 

Survey to enable policymakers and decision makers to assess spatial and demographic 

disparities in their data. The tool allows users to upload their own data and geocodes the 

dataset to a U.S. city to compare the distribution of the uploaded data with the 

distribution of baseline variables from the American Community Survey.

• Aspen Institute – THRIVE RURAL Theory of Change Working Group: THRIVE RURAL is an 

effort of the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group in partnership with the 

University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and with support from the Robert 

Wood Johnson Foundation. This working group is focused on creating a theory of change 

to answer the question “What will it take to create dynamic sustainable rural 

communities where all people can realize their full potential?” It aims to create a shared 

vision and understanding about what it will take for communities and Tribal Nations 

across the rural United States to become healthy places for everyone.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Rural Development Priority 

Questions below for all other challenges and mitigation strategies.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

8

Rural Development Priority Question #3

Priority Question

How can Rural Development more effectively partner and leverage its resources to increase 

investments in rural communities from other government entities, the private sector, and 

philanthropies?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

This priority question will help facilitate more investments in rural America through better 

understanding of how to best facilitate partnerships with the public, private, and philanthropic 

sectors. The type of evidence gathered under this question can be categorized generally as 

performance measurement and foundational fact-finding. To answer the question, analysts will 

use descriptive data analysis, regression analysis, geospatial analysis, qualitative analysis, survey 

analysis, focus groups, and data visualization platforms, such as Tableau dashboards, mapping in 

geographic information systems, and infographics.

• Develop performance indicators: Rural Development will develop performance indicators 

to measure the extent to which USDA leverages funds, stimulates public-private 

partnerships, and engages in collaboration to build rural infrastructure, including 

broadband, community facilities, safe and affordable housing, and health services and 

facilities.

• Create the Rural Workforce Innovation Network: This is a forum for public and private 

partners to help increase access to workforce opportunities across rural America. This 

network provides foundational information for Rural Development to consider in 

serving rural businesses and improving program delivery.

• Implement the Rural Partners Network: The Rural Partners Network creates a new 

collaboration of federal agencies to enhance access to federal resources. These agencies 

are dedicating specific staff to serve as key points of contact for rural communities, 

providing more focus on rural strategies, and enabling greater visibility and attention to 

rural issues. The Rural Partners Network will also put federal staff on the ground to 

support specific, economically challenged rural communities. Known as Community 

Liaisons, these federal employees will provide local leaders and residents with the 

technical expertise needed to navigate federal programs that turn local vision into 

actionable projects. They will broker relationships and help identify other partnerships 

and resources needed to get the job done. As this work progresses, the lessons learned 

will inform future federal rural policy development and investment strategies and tools.

• Conduct analyses of philanthropic investments made in rural America: One such potential 

analysis includes continuing and building off a study conducted in 2015 by the Economic 

Research Service on foundation grants to rural areas. This is a study update utilizing 

current data from philanthropy 990 forms, which are required by the Internal Revenue 

Service annually. The findings will be used to inform Rural Development’s strategy in 

philanthropy partnerships to increase funding in rural communities.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

9

• Develop a placemaking guide for rural communities: The guide will provide an asset 

approach to community economic development that is focused on the unique 

characteristics of rural America. Placemaking is the process of creating quality places 

where people want to live, work, and play. Ultimately, the goal is to create greater social 

and cultural vitality in rural communities aimed at improving people’s social, physical, 

and economic well-being. Placemaking invites greater interactions among people and 

helps foster communities that are more socially, physically, and economically viable. The 

guide builds off the work under the Rural Development grant program known as the 

Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge (RPIC). The RPIC is a technical assistance and 

planning process for qualified entities to support rural community leaders to create 

places where people want to live, work, and play. This initiative is intended to provide 

planning support, technical assistance, and training to communities to foster 

placemaking activities in rural communities. The RPIC operates under the following 

concepts:

o Creating livable communities is important for community developers and 

practitioners who implement these strategies in rural communities and areas. 

Placemaking practices include both innovative and adaptive strategies, as well as 

established technical processes and solutions;

o Partnerships are a key element of the RPIC and must be developed with public, 

private, and philanthropic organizations to establish new collaborative 

approaches, learn together, and bring those learned strategies into rural 

communities; and

o Placemaking contributes to long-term investment and therefore supports a 

community’s resiliency, social stability, and collective identity.

The guide is in the planning phase and additional work is planned for FY 2022 – 2023. 

The RPIC is currently in its second year of funding. The guide will help inform both 

program implementation and other ongoing outreach and technical assistance provided 

by Rural Development.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

Administrative data available from Rural Development will be used in combination with other 

external data available from the Bureau of the Census, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Foundation Center, and other sources of community-level data. 

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Barriers to funding alignment or administrative constraints with potential partners may pose a 

challenge for this evidence-building work. It is critical that USDA identify and cultivate 

relationships with potential partners across multiple sectors and facilitate a network with a 

shared vision for rural prosperity and equitable community development to address this 

challenge. Rural Development is working to build these relationships through a variety of 

channels, including stakeholder engagement, creation of networks, and cross-Agency 

workgroups (e.g., USDA Equity Commission, Tribal Listening Session, Justice40, etc.).
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

10

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Rural Development Priority 

Questions below for additional information.

Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Rural Development 

Priority Questions

• Accessing administrative data: Accessing the necessary administrative data is a critical challenge 

to any analysis or evaluation work. Significant investment is needed in IT modernization, data 

warehouse reconfiguration, data cataloging, development of a data dictionary, and additional

mechanisms to facilitate better access to data. 

• Linking program data to external data sources: In some cases, there is a lack of publicly available 

data to measure individual characteristics of program recipients to be studied. Analysis can be 

done with publicly available geographic area data, such as counties, tracts, and zip codes with 

administrative program data. More refined analysis may be possible with access to confidential 

Census microdata. USDA could collaborate with the Census Bureau to develop a process for 

using Census microdata.

• Lack of shapefiles for program data: A shapefile is a geospatial data format that stores the 

geometric location with specific boundaries and information on attributes of that location. The 

lack of shapefiles needed to delineate service areas for certain programs is a challenge. Service 

area analysis of projects is critical to the measurement and analysis of benefits derived from 

infrastructure projects. It is also an important component of Rural Development’s place-based 

analysis and equity assessment. The solution to this problem is to create shapefiles 

retroactively for the RD-funded projects that currently do not have shapefiles. Having more 

robust service area geospatial data will allow for better attribution of programmatic impacts.

• Agency and Mission Area silos: Successful evidence building at the mission level requires buy-in 

from programs. To break down silos which hinder Agencies and Mission Areas across the 

Department, USDA will promote collaboration among Rural Development program areas and 

improve communication to field staff.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

11

Food and Nutrition

The following priority questions were developed by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) under the 

Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services (FNCS) Mission Area. These questions align to the Make 

Safe, Nutritious Food Available to All Americans strategic goal in the USDA FY 2022 – 2026 Strategic 

Plan. The questions also support the FNS’s FY 2021 Research and Evaluation Plan, as well as the 

priorities of the Secretary and the Administration.

FNCS works to harness the Nation’s agricultural abundance to end hunger and improve health in 

the United States. It administers Federal domestic nutrition assistance programs while linking 

scientific research to the nutrition needs of consumers through science-based dietary guidance, 

nutrition policy coordination, and nutrition education. The priority questions below are intended to 

address key learning gaps and highlight critical evidence needs for FNS.

In all cases, the priority questions and related activities and studies were the result of collaboration 

and engagement with a variety of stakeholders across the FNCS Mission Area. The policy team and 

program partners, including the Office of Policy Support, collaborated on designing the FNS Agency 

Priority Plan, which establishes the Agency’s priorities for the coming fiscal year. The Office of 

Policy Support then worked with program partners to develop an Annual Research and Evaluation 

Plan, with input from the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area. 

In May through June of 2021, FNS conducted a series of 27 listening sessions to inform the 

investment of WIC funds received through the American Rescue Plan Act. Data gathered from 

these listening sessions were used to prioritize investment strategies and determine strategies for 

reducing health-related disparities and for improving equity in the delivery of WIC and WIC 

Farmers Market Nutrition Program. Furthermore, FNS also published a Request for Information in 

November 2021 to inform the development of a Center for WIC Modernization and Delivery.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

12

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #1

Priority Question

How effective are FNS programs in addressing the food hardship crisis caused by COVID-19 

and supporting the transition to post-pandemic nutrition program operations?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

FNS will conduct program evaluations, as well as data analyses and policy analyses, to examine 

whether the temporary pandemic-related program changes implemented in the last two years

1) have resulted in improved responses to pandemic hardships over the core programs, and 2) 

support a transition that will improve crisis response and mission accomplishment in a postpandemic environment.

The Agency will deploy child nutrition programs that support return to school, school food 

finances in uncertain environments, expanded participation, and healthy eating, including 

Emergency Operational Costs reimbursement programs. 

The Agency will conduct studies in support of its programs. These research efforts include the 

Child Nutrition Waiver Study and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for 

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Waiver Study.

FNS will utilize funding from the American Rescue Plan Act to support post-pandemic nutrition 

program operations, including the WIC 390 Fund, the Emergency Food Assistance Program 

Reach and Resiliency Grants, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Electronic 

Benefit Transfer (EBT) modernization, and Pandemic-EBT.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

FNS’s work will employ a number of data collection strategies, including using extant data and 

engaging in primary data collection. Extant data may include program administrative data or 

other Federal and non-Federal Agencies’ data collections, such as the Census Bureau’s PULSE 

survey, the American Community Survey, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

(HHS) National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition Priority 

Questions below.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

13

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #2

Priority Question

To what extent is racial equity incorporated into internal FNS operations and the design and 

administration of Federal nutrition assistance programs?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

FNS will conduct foundational fact-finding, program evaluations, data analyses, and policy 

analyses to examine whether programs are designed in ways that perpetuate or alleviate racial 

disparities, particularly in access to nutrition assistance programs and nutrition education.

• Evaluation of WIC 390 Fund innovations: The American Rescue Plan Act provides $390 

million for FY 2021, to remain available through FY 2024, to carry out outreach, 

innovation, and program modernization efforts, including appropriate waivers and 

flexibility, to increase participation and redemption of benefits. The Act is applicable to 

both WIC and the WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program, both of which are 

authorized under Section 17 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (PL 89-642) (42 USC 

1786), as amended. Of note, the waiver authority provided under the Act does not apply 

to the content of the WIC food packages or regulatory nondiscrimination requirements. 

The Department is eager to move forward with an unparalleled initiative in support of 

the Act to benefit WIC State and local Agencies and, most critically, participants.

FNS is currently developing plans to manage WIC and WIC Farmers’ Market Nutrition 

Program outreach, innovation, and modernization efforts. Furthermore, FNS is working 

to set forth overarching priorities for the use of the funds. The Supplemental Nutrition 

and Safety Programs and the Office of Policy Support are collaborating closely to ensure 

that key innovations are evaluated for impacts and desired outcomes. The FNS FY22 

Research and Evaluation Plan includes projects focused on the evaluation of activities 

funded through the outreach, innovation, and modernization initiative. One project will 

summarize information and key measures reported to FNS by contractors and grantees 

implementing the innovations. Another project will implement and evaluate WIC, SNAP, 

and/or Medicaid data matching efforts.

• Serving SNAP applicants and participants with limited English proficiency: SNAP State 

Agencies are required to translate materials related to all aspects of program 

administration (e.g., applications, notices, charge letters, informational documents) into 

languages other than English to serve the needs of their clients with limited English 

proficiency (LEP). States also may provide LEP services through their SNAP Education 

and Training (E&T) programs. FNS has limited information on the breadth (i.e., which 

languages) and depth (i.e., what types of documents) of how State Agencies serve their 

clients with LEP, or whether they offer LEP services through their SNAP E&T programs. 

This study will survey all 53 SNAP State Agencies to catalog which languages State 

Agencies offer for which types of documents, and whether they offer LEP services 

through their SNAP E&T program. The study will ask States how they determine which 

languages should be offered and how they manage the translation process; it will also ask 

if they offer any SNAP E&T LEP services and, if so, what services they offer.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

14

• Strategies used by food distribution programs to reach underserved populations: Congress 

directed the USDA to conduct a study on the challenges that the Food Distribution 

Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), as well as other food distribution programs 

administered by the Secretary, face in reaching underserved populations, emphasizing 

homebound and elderly individuals unable to travel to a distribution location. The 

purpose of this study is to conduct a quick-response survey of all Indian Tribal 

Organizations and State Agencies administering FDPIR to determine strategies and 

flexibilities used to distribute food to underserved individuals who are eligible for FDPIR, 

specifically homebound and elderly individuals. The study will also examine the use of 

proxies to reach participants, challenges encountered in distributing food, and potential 

improvements to the program.

• Stakeholder meeting on WIC participation and maternal mortality: Congress directed the 

USDA Secretary to conduct a review of existing evidence and develop a plan to build new 

evidence on the impact of the WIC Program on reducing maternal mortality among 

specific populations with the highest maternal mortality rates in the U.S., which include 

African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and Indigenous (i.e., American 

Indian and Alaskan Native) mothers. Emphasis will be placed on the needs of 

disadvantaged communities of color. Through a FY 2020 interagency agreement with 

the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, FNS is currently conducting a 

systematic review examining associations between WIC participation and maternal 

health outcomes, including maternal mortality. FNS will plan and hold a stakeholder 

meeting to discuss the results of the review and plan future studies and actions. 

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

FNS’s work will employ several data collection strategies, including using extant data and 

engaging in primary data collection. Extant data may include program administrative data or 

other Federal and non-Federal Agencies’ data collections, such as the Census Bureau’s PULSE 

survey, the American Community Survey, or HHS’s NHANES.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition Priority 

Questions below.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

15

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #3

Priority Question

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

programs?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

FNS will conduct foundational fact-finding, program evaluations, data analyses, and policy 

analyses to examine whether programs are designed in ways that improve participants’ access 

to nutrition assistance programs. FNS will also assess changes to programs to determine if they 

are achieving their goals related to program access. These evidence-building activities are 

expected to support the following initiatives:

• Reducing the time, cost, and administrative burden of participating in nutrition

assistance programs, including the Summer Food Service Program Streamlining and

Integrity Rule and the WIC 390 Fund;

• Modernizing benefit distribution through Pandemic-EBT, SNAP EBT modernization,

SNAP Online Purchasing, the WIC Online rule, and FDPIR Self-Determination

Demonstration Projects; and

• Expanding cross-enrollment of participants between Federal benefit programs,

including Direct Certification with Medicaid demonstrations in 19 States and a

partnership with Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services.

Specific activities to address this priority question include:

• Using robotic process automation or related technology in SNAP eligibility processes: Several

States have piloted the use of robotic process automation, also known as bots, for certain 

tasks in their SNAP eligibility process. Robotic process automation is a new technological 

initiative in the human services sector and involves business process automation that

allows computers to automate and complete certain simple repetitive processes or tasks. 

This can increase efficiency, streamline processes, and improve service delivery by

completing tasks that would require caseworker time. This study will assess the efficacy

of using this technology to assist in application processing in up to three States by

assessing the impacts on caseworker time, accuracy of tasks completed by the computer, 

and administrative costs, as well as documenting the benefits and challenges to SNAP

Agencies.

• Assessment of mobile technologies for using SNAP: The Agricultural Act of 2018 authorizes

the use of mobile technologies for the purpose of accessing SNAP benefits. This allows

SNAP participants to input their EBT card 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 FNS approve not more than five projects to pilot the use

of this technology and then 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 determination of whether to broadly

authorize the use of mobile technologies.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

16

• Literature review on subsidized employment and work-based learning: The Agricultural Act 

of 2018 permitted subsidized employment and work-based learning as allowable 

components of SNAP E&T. Under subsidized employment, SNAP E&T funds can be used 

to pay a portion of the E&T participants’ wages, thereby reducing the cost to employers. 

Work-based learning provides E&T participants with work experiences where they can 

develop their skills and enhance their employability. There is considerable research on 

these two areas in other contexts, mainly Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and 

Department of Labor programs, but less is known about how they may be implemented 

in the context of SNAP E&T. For example, the SNAP E&T programs would need to be 

designed so that the income earned from subsidized employment or work-based learning 

does not make the E&T participants ineligible for SNAP. This study will conduct a 

literature review on subsidized employment and work-based learning, summarize the 

findings, and suggest ways that they could be applied to SNAP E&T. This information will 

also be used to inform the rulemaking process to implement these components in SNAP 

E&T.

• School Meals Operations Study, School Year 2023 – 2024: FNS conducts an annual study to 

collect and analyze data on select operational aspects of the child nutrition programs. 

This includes a wide range of descriptive information from the State and school district 

levels, as well as data on special topics of current interest, such as the level of State and 

local subsidies beyond Federal reimbursements, nutrition education and promotion in 

schools, policies regarding unpaid meal balances, professional standards and training 

requirements, and compliance with the Buy American provision. Results are used to 

inform child nutrition programs management and policy development.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

FNS’s work will employ a number of data collection strategies, including using extant data and 

engaging in primary data collection, as applicable to the research questions. Extant data may 

include program administrative data or other Federal and non-Federal Agencies’ data 

collections, such as the Census Bureau’s PULSE survey, the American Community Survey, or 

HHS’s NHANES. Primary data collection may occur through listening sessions with stakeholder 

groups, survey data collection, case studies, interviews, or other data collection methods, as 

applicable to the research questions under consideration.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition Priority 

Questions below.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

17

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #4

Priority Question

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

foods?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

FNS will conduct foundational fact-finding, program evaluations, data analyses, and policy 

analyses to examine whether programs are designed in ways that improve participants’ access 

to nutrition assistance programs. FNS will also assess changes to programs to determine if they 

are achieving their goals related to program access. These evidence-building activities are 

expected to support the following initiatives:

• Thrifty Food Plan: FNS reevaluated the Thrifty Food Plan and will continue to collect 

evidence to determine the cost of a nutritious, cost-conscious diet;

• WIC Food Package rule: FNS will be updating the rule detailing requirements for WIC food 

packages, guided by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine and 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans;

• Child Nutrition Meal Standards rules: FNS will publish a rule on meal standards for the 

National School Lunch and National School Breakfast Programs;

• SNAP Nutrition Education: FNS will establish a long-term vision that significantly 

enhances the use of public health approaches and strengthens nutrition security for lowincome people;

• Team Nutrition: FNS will collaborate with school food authorities, child and adult care 

providers, and other child nutrition program operators to provide resources that 

help school districts purchase, prepare, and serve meals that align with school meal 

standards and are appealing to students;

• WIC nutrition education and referrals: FNS will provide nutrition counseling through WIC 

clinics, both online and in person, to help participants use their food prescriptions to 

supplement a healthy diet; and

• Food distribution programs: The FDPIR Food Package Review Work Group will continue 

to meet quarterly to identify modifications to the FDPIR food package.

Specific activities to address the priority question include:

• Understanding the Relationship between Poverty, Well-Being, and Food Security: Research 

has shown that the economic circumstances and geographic location of households are 

closely correlated with food security status. However, not all households with similar 

circumstances experience the same food security status; other factors can be important 

determinants. This study will identify measures of poverty and well-being associated 

with household food security status among SNAP-eligible participants and nonparticipants 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, policy-actionable elements of well-being and material deprivation 
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

18

such as mental health, depression, health-related quality of life, disablement, medical 

expenditures, alcohol or opioid addiction, place of residence, and unequal sharing of 

resources within the household may impact food security status and SNAP participation. 

This project 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 study will 

also conduct in-depth interviews with a subsample in six counties to provide additional 

context for the survey findings. Counties will represent a variety of spatial types (i.e., 

urban, suburban, and rural) and other policy-relevant characteristics. Collecting 

representative data at the county level will also enable improved estimates of countylevel food security status, since official data at this granular level is unavailable. 

• Farm-to-School Census: Farm-to-School activities aim to strengthen knowledge about 

agriculture, food, and nutrition through hands-on learning; increase the availability of 

local foods in the child nutrition programs; increase opportunities for farmers and other 

food producers; and support local and regional economic development. This census and 

data analysis will provide information on the magnitude of local sourcing procurement 

and the prevalence of other farm-to-school activities during SY 2022 to 2023. The study 

will also examine disparities in access to local foods and participation in other farm-toschool activities, as well as the barriers causing such disparities. Data collection will take 

place in SY 2023 to 2024.

• 2021 Summer EBT for Children: This study will document how the Summer EBT expansion 

projects awarded in FY 2021 are implemented and administered from 2021 through 

2023 by four experienced grantees: Cherokee (food package model), Connecticut (debit 

card model), Missouri (debit card), and Oregon (debit card). The study will also describe 

the experiences of EBT processors, participants, and retailers with Summer EBT in these 

States and Indian Tribal Organizations. The study will collect and analyze EBT data from 

the grantees in order to describe and assess participant benefit use across the three 

summers. The study will also describe how the introduction of Pandemic-EBT impacted 

the implementation and administration of Summer EBT. Receipt and use of PandemicEBT will be explored through focus groups with recipients of Summer EBT.

• WIC Breastfeeding Policy Inventory II: Since its establishment, USDA has supported 

breastfeeding within the WIC Program through a number of legislative and 

programmatic initiatives, such as providing State and local WIC Agencies tools and 

training resources to support breastfeeding and funds to establish and support 

breastfeeding peer counseling activities. This overall project will provide an update to 

the first WIC Breastfeeding Policy Inventory, published in 2015, yielding a 

comprehensive description of breastfeeding statistics, policies, procedures, and 

practices at the State and local WIC Agency levels, including the implementation of peer 

counseling programs, staff training on breastfeeding, utilization of the National 

breastfeeding campaign, and best practices to improve breastfeeding initiation and 

duration rates and reduce disparities. The study will also examine equity in the 

availability of breastfeeding supports and explore methods for routine collection of 

information on the number of WIC breastfeeding peer counselors. The project 

deliverables will support the development of a comprehensive sampling plan, the 

development and pretesting of survey instruments, and other required supporting 

materials.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

19

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

FNS’s work will employ a number of data collection strategies, including using extant data and 

engaging in primary data collection, as applicable to the research questions. Extant data may 

include program administrative data or other Federal and non-Federal Agencies’ data 

collections, such as the Census Bureau’s PULSE survey, the American Community Survey, or 

HHS’s NHANES. Primary data collection may occur through listening sessions with stakeholder 

groups, survey data collection, case studies, interviews, or other data collection methods, as 

applicable to the research questions under consideration.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition Priority 

Questions below.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

20

Food and Nutrition Priority Question #5

Priority Question

What program innovations are most effective in strengthening Federal oversight and 

management of Federal nutrition assistance programs to further improve integrity, 

accountability, and customer service?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

FNS will conduct foundational fact-finding, program evaluations, data analyses, and policy 

analyses to build evidence to strengthen controls over improper payments and financial 

management within all Agency programs. Initiatives include updating the Child Nutrition 

Program Integrity rule, providing SNAP payment accuracy technical assistance to State 

Agencies, improving regional data analysis capacity, awarding grants to States to implement the 

SNAP Fraud Framework to bolster efforts around recipient integrity, and conducting retailer 

compliance activities. Specific activities to address the priority question include:

• 2021 Child and Adult Care Food Program Meal Claims Feasibility Study: To comply with the 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, this study will 

test an alternative method for calculating meal claiming error for meals that are claimed 

but not served in Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and family day care homes 

(FDCHs). It will look to identify and test proxy measures for actual FDCH meal counts on 

particular days and for particular meal services. Data collected from sampled FDCHs will 

be used to identify the best proxy for the day of observation meal counts, the 

measurement error introduced by using such a proxy that accounts for the natural dayto-day variation in participation, and whether the proxy can be used to determine a 

reliable National rate of FDCH meal claiming error. If the alternative measures are 

reliable proxies for observation day meal counts, they can be compared to the meal 

claims submitted to the State. This will allow for the estimate of National meal claiming 

error and the dollar amount associated with the error.

• 2021 CACFP Assessment of Sponsor Tiering Determination: This study will assess and report 

on the assignment of CACFP FDHCs to incorrect meal compensation tiers and the dollar 

value of those errors. The methodology will be similar to the CACFP tiering assessments 

conducted by FNS from 2005 to 2015.These assessments quantified the number and the 

total value of improper payments due to CACFP homes paid at the Tier 1 (higher 

reimbursement) rate when eligible for the Tier 2 (lower) rate or, conversely, homes paid 

at the Tier 2 rate when eligible for Tier 1. The study relies on multiple data sources, 

including provider income documentation, census block/tract data, and school boundary 

information to verify eligibility for the classification of FDCHs into Tier 1 or 2 

reimbursement rates.

• Challenges for SNAP State Agencies in Implementing Corrective Action Plans: SNAP State 

Agencies are required to develop Corrective Action Plans (CAP) if the State’s payment 

accuracy or timeliness measures do not meet certain thresholds compared to other 

States. States also must develop CAPs in response to audit or Management Evaluation 

findings. CAPs are step-by-step roadmaps of State activities and initiatives to improve 
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

21

the measures or resolve issues identified in findings. This study seeks to understand the 

challenges and barriers that State Agencies face when trying to develop and implement 

CAPs by conducting case studies in nine States to identify common themes. The study 

will provide best practices or guidance for implementing CAPs that could be shared with 

State Agencies.

• WIC Certification Error Estimates – Aging for Reporting for the Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Improvement Act: This project conducts the annual aging of data on WIC 

certification errors needed for USDA financial reports, and to fulfill the requirements of 

the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act. Data from the most 

recent National survey of WIC participants are adjusted annually using data from the 

census of WIC participant administrative records contained in Participant and Program 

Characteristics reports, as well as other WIC administrative data.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

FNS’s work will employ several data collection strategies, including using extant data and 

engaging in primary data collection, as applicable to the research questions. Extant data may 

include program administrative data or other Federal and non-Federal Agencies’ data 

collections, such as the Census Bureau’s PULSE survey, the American Community Survey, or 

HHS’s NHANES. Primary data collection may occur through listening sessions with stakeholder 

groups, survey data collection, case studies, interviews, or other data collection methods, as 

applicable to the research questions under consideration.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

See Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition Priority 

Questions below.

Common Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies Across Food and Nutrition 

Priority Questions

• Paperwork Reduction Act-related delays: One challenge for FNS to gathering, building, and using 

evidence within the time period needed to make influential policy decisions in response to 

changing social and economic conditions is internal delays due to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) clearance process. The review process within the Department is a rate-limiting step and 

can often add more than 12 months to the start-up process for a study. These delays, in turn, 

cost the Department hundreds of thousands of dollars. A mitigation strategy would be 

collaborating on a Department-wide process-improvement endeavor in partnership with OMB 

to examine where the primary delays occur and use that information to develop a tool that 

facilitates and streamlines the preparation of the information clearance request (ICR) package

to reduce common errors. FNS is currently at the brainstorming stage of developing a 

“TurboTax for Information Collections” for use within the Agency. Expanding such a tool for use 

at the Departmental clearance stages could be mutually beneficial, ensuring that ICRs include 

information that is accurate and appropriate for the purpose of the information collection to 
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

22

reduce clearance time and provide substantial cost savings across the Department and 

potentially across the Federal government. 

• Contracting-related guidance: Because most evaluation efforts engage outside contractors, they 

are often hindered by contracting processes that are not tailored to the specific needs of 

program evaluation. Strategies to continue to build the competency and capacity of acquisition 

professionals to address the complexity of research contracting needs include the following: 

o Continuing to leverage an interagency agreement with the Department of the Interior 

Acquisitions Services Directorate; 

o Developing research acquisition knowledge assessment questions that might be 

considered as part of the occupational questionnaire when vacancies occur; and 

o Identifying training courses as part of the required annual professional development of 

contracting specialists.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

23

Farm Production and Conservation

The following priority questions were developed by FPAC and align to the Combat Climate Change 

to Support America’s Working Lands, Natural Resources, and Communities, Ensure America’s Agricultural 

System is Equitable, Resilient, and Prosperous, and Foster an Equitable and Competitive Marketplace for 

All Agricultural Producers strategic goals in the USDA FY 2022 – 2026 Strategic Plan. FPAC is the 

Department’s focal point for the Nation’s farmers, ranchers, and other stewards of private 

agricultural lands and non-industrial private forest lands. FPAC Agencies implement programs 

designed to mitigate the significant risks of farming through crop insurance, conservation 

programs, farm safety net programs, lending programs, and disaster programs. The priority 

questions below are intended to address key learning gaps and highlight critical evidence needs for 

FPAC.

Farm Production and Conservation Priority Question #1

Priority Question

At the borrower level, what economic factors impact Farm Loan Program demand, 

delinquencies, and other risks?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

The Farm Loan Program (FLP) provides credit to loan applicants who cannot obtain credit from 

commercial lenders. An initial assessment and ongoing analysis of the effectiveness of FLP’s 

credit activities will help FPAC develop specific credit actions that results in the greatest 

probability of success for borrowers to sustain and grow their operations and potentially 

graduate to commercial credit. This analysis will also assist Agency employees in prioritizing 

their activities during periods of high workload to most benefit customers. This analysis will 

include the following:

• Determining measures of success, with an emphasis on how other leaders in the 

agriculture industry, including FLP guaranteed lenders, measure success in this space;

• Reviewing internal USDA data, including current and historical FLP loan activity; 

participating in acreage reporting; participating in FPAC, Rural Development, and 

Natural Resources Conservation Service programs; and reviewing macroeconomic data 

from the Economic Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the 

FPAC’s Economic and Policy Analysis Division; and 

• Surveying customers. 

Specific activities over the next three fiscal years to answer this priority question include the 

following: 

• Design a study that will identify advanced analytical techniques and how they can be 

deployed to manage portfolio and borrower-level risks, with an emphasis on 

underserved farmers and ranchers (FY 2022);

• Conduct data analysis and develop operational and policy change recommendations (FY 

2023); and
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

24

• Implement recommendations and continue ongoing analysis to improve program 

efficacy. Results of the study are expected to lead to a better customer experience for 

program participants and improved FLP program outcomes (FY 2024).

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

The data needs for this study are significant and include the following:

• FLP-specific data and other internal data from USDA sources (e.g., Economic Research 

Service, the Economic and Policy Analysis Division, the National Agricultural Statistics 

Service, and the Office of the Chief Economist);

• 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.

Standard econometric techniques for credit risk analysis, such as proportional hazards modeling 

and survival analysis, will be used to identify delinquency risk factors. A randomized trial 

intervention for delinquency risk factors will then be deployed to assess potential effectiveness. 

FPAC may also hold focus groups or add targeted questions to existing USDA survey vehicles to 

collect additional qualitative data.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

• Data availability: Insufficient access to robust data may hinder the success of these 

analyses, particularly with respect to borrower responses to surveys.

• Data quality: FLP’s large data sets are spread across multiple systems, some of which are 

not fully integrated. Such fragmented and static data sets can make it difficult to 

synthesize data and detect patterns and trends. The FLP Business Process 

Reengineering and Information Technology Modernization plans for FY 2021 through 

FY 2026 are intended to retire, integrate, and update systems, which will enable 

additional data collection and analyses to determine the efficacy of credit activities.

• External factors: External factors impacting the agriculture industry and the U.S. and 

global economies can influence the success or failure of a farm operation, regardless of 

the supervised credit tools utilized. 

• Staff capacity: These analyses will require increased internal or contracted staff capacity 

with the appropriate skill sets.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

25

Farm Production and Conservation Priority Question #2

Priority Question

What conservation practices are most effective in delivering climate benefits?

Activities to Address the Question and Timing

The primary goal of this effort is to continue the work on conservation practice effectiveness 

from the FY22 Evaluation Plan focused on the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 

practices by expanding the evaluation into the portfolio of Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) monitoring, assessment, and evaluation projects. The goal of the CRP evaluation is to

monitor, measure, verify, and report on the level of carbon sequestration in soil associated with 

land rolled in the CRP. Additional data development is ongoing with NRCS in partnership with 

FSA on practice costs and benefits that will support continued work on both the NRCS and CRP 

conservation practice effectiveness evaluations. For FY23, this additional data development 

with the CRP evaluation will be used to calibrate, validate, and further improve the climate 

impact quantification methodologies used by USDA. The funded projects will survey, field 

sample, and measure over time the climate benefits of land across the U.S. enrolled in the 

following CRP practice types: perennial grass; trees; and wetlands, including both mineral and 

organic soils and both floodplain and non-floodplain wetlands. This effort will allow USDA to

understand the climate benefits of CRP and to target CRP enrollment to maximize climate 

outcomes.

The information gathered through this initiative will expand awareness of the conservation 

outcomes within USDA and assist the Department in prioritizing conservation practices that 

have the highest impact on delivering climate benefits and addressing other critical resource 

concerns of private lands that affect agricultural business sustainability and the users of those 

resources once they leave private agriculture ground. Additional benefits could include 

information to make better decisions about staffing specialty needs to ensure that USDA’s

Agencies have the right technical specialists to provide critical services to internal and external 

customers.

USDA released a Request for Proposals in May 2021 and received 16 submissions. After a 

rigorous panel review, three projects were chosen:

• Michigan State: $3.4 million in funding. The project considers the continental U.S., with 

emphasis on CRP hotspots of the Great Plains and the Midwest. Its sample consists of 

600 fields, with each field sampled two times over a five-year project period; 

• Ducks Unlimited: $3.2 million in funding. The project focuses on wetland practices only,

and it encompasses a 15-State region in the central U.S. that includes over 80% of CRP 

wetland acres. It has a sample of 250 fields, with each field sampled two times over a fiveyear project period; and

• Mississippi State: $2.9 million in funding. The project focuses on tree practices only,

namely in the six Major Land Resource Areas in the southern U.S. that include over 50% 

of CRP tree acres. Its sample comprises 144 fields, with each field sampled four times 

over a five-year project period.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

26

The three projects will focus on soil sampling data collection, which will then be used to calibrate, 

validate, and further improve quantification methodologies to increase the climate benefits 

related to the CRP.

Potential Data, Tools, Methods, or Analytical Approaches

The primary data source is direct soil sampling and measurement. The conservation practice 

data will be designed for integration across USDA in partnership with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS), as NRCS was lead on conservation practice effectiveness 

Evaluation 5.2 in FY22. There may be additional opportunities to partner with NRCS on data 

integration and to calibrate the results of the soil sampling with the results of their evaluations 

as well as the existing Conservation Effects Assessment Project data, additional NRCS

conservation practice effectiveness data, land grant university studies, USDA Agricultural 

Research Agency data, and other private sources. Data planning will be done to ensure data 

integration across all data sets that includes a transparent iterative improvement cycle. Data 

governance and validation will be required throughout the process to ensure that data is FAIR 

(Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). A variety of analyses will be completed to 

compare outcome data and economic data and inform resource allocation decisions to improve 

effective delivery of service and maximize benefits to stakeholders. Data analysis will be 

ongoing, as external customer demand and field work is conducted year-round. The seasonal 

fluctuation of demand would dictate that most data collection be done in the late spring through 

early fall. FPAC staff and contractors are in the process of obtaining internal data. Additional 

coordination with other USDA Mission Areas and external partners will be required to support 

this priority question.

The study areas and sample sizes were selected by the project investigators to improve the 

methodologies and models used to estimate climate mitigation impacts in a manner broadly 

applicable to CRP grass, tree, and wetland enrollments. The three projects will follow the same 

soil carbon sampling protocol, and additional data will be collected by the wetlands and tree 

projects in recognition of the specific climate mitigation impacts of these land covers.

Anticipated Challenges and Mitigation Strategies

Challenges could include regional and localized differences in impact based on conditions such 

as soil type, wildlife species, water supply, and water chemistry. The design of the study, which 

will likely be completed in FY 2022, can account for these differences. Additionally, coordination 

of information between partners and entities could be difficult, based on the goal of the study; 

however, the USDA project lead and project points of contact will be in close contact to ensure 

that sampling protocols and results are consistently applied. Study design must account for goals 

and adjust to make comparisons on equal merit. 

The challenge of data integration across FPAC programs that includes cost-benefit data on 

conservation practices is being mitigated on multiple fronts, including an effort with the Office 

of the Chief Economist and the Office of the Chief Information Officer on the Greenhouse Gas

Working Group dashboards, which will continue to support FAIR (findable, accessible, 

interoperable, and reusable) data designs for additional data sets. It is expected that the FY 2022 

evaluation and the Greenhouse Gas Working Group efforts will continue to align and support a 

robust cost-benefit analysis that has integrated data across USDA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture – Learning Agenda 

27

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CACFP Child and Adult Care Food Program

CAP Corrective Action Plans

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

E&T SNAP Education and Training

EAWG Evidence Act Working Group

Evidence Act Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018

FDCH Family Day Care Homes

FDPIR Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations

FLP Farm Loan Program

FNCS Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

FPAC Farm Production and Conservation

FY Fiscal year

HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

LEP Limited English Proficiency

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

OBPA Office of Budget and Program Analysis

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RPIC Rural Placemaking Innovation Challenge

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

SY School year

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal 

or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not 

all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay 

Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other 

than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or 

write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. 

To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to 

USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.

intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Issued March 2022