FSA Administrator Designate

  Zach Ducheneaux is from South Dakota and a Native American, the first for FSA. USDA announcement.

Gloria Montano Greene is nominated to be Deputy Undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.  She has been state executive director for Arizona in the Obama administration, while Ducheneaux isn't shown as having any FSA experience.

I wonder--the Trump Administration reorganized USDA--IIRC they moved NRCS and FSA into the same undersecretary's remit, where it had been FAS and FSA together?  Wonder if Vilsack will go back to the old organization or keep the new.  The establishment of the FPAC Business Center to serve admin functions of NRCS and FSA would argue for keeping the new, but I've no idea of how well that is working nor whether there could be any advantage politically to reorganizing.

Farmers Working with FSA and NRCS

Agriculture.com talks about the traffic to FSA (and NRCS) offices, listing six trips required.  But I found these reported farmer interactions on the Agriculture.com talk forum interesting, with my comments in bold:

“There is a visit to the NRCS division to apply for cover crop cost share and then the one later to submit seed receipts for payment. [Can't mail them?}Plus, if you live in a county that doesn’t have an NRCS office, as I do, and you rent farms, you may get to make trips to several different counties to get all of them signed up,” the southern Iowa farmer posted. [NRCS hasn't enabled consolidation as in the last bit below?]
Hobbyfarmer adds, “Got a call literally 10 minutes ago from an FSA employee. He forgot to have me sign some MFP papers. They want me to have to drive 42 miles each way to finish it up, so they can pay me, maybe, sometime in next two weeks.” [Thought FSA had authorized electronic signatures a long time ago.  Maybe employees are still in the hard copy world?]

“Usually, I make two trips per year – one in late winter and another after planting. But with this MFP thing, there was an extra one in late fall and another one yesterday,”  [Wonder why he got away with two before, not the six above?}Rickgthf says.
Rickgthf adds, “I had all my business for the different counties consolidated to one office, so there’s no running around to different counties at all.” [Hmm--that should be great--wonder why NRCS hasn't done the same?]

FSA Offices Closed; NRCS Offices Open

That's the word.  For NRCS here.

BTW, neither agency has updated its "farm bill" page to reflect the signing of the 2018 farm bill.

More Reorganization for USDA

Sec. Perdue has a press release describing further reorganization in USDA.  For my own interests, FSA loses the commodity procurement (used to be DACO), but otherwise isn't touched, yet. However, this section seems to me to imply that Sec. Glickman's proposal of the late 90's to combine NRCS and FSA administrative support may be revived in some form:

Reducing Redundancies
While creating the Farm Production and Conservation mission area, it became apparent that across USDA there are redundancies and inefficiencies in the mission support activities.  Presently some agencies maintain redundant administrative support functions, including human resources, information technology (IT), finance, procurement, and property management.  For example, there are 22 employees in the department that are identified as Chief Information Officers (CIOs).  Having such a large number of CIOs creates redundancies throughout the Department when it comes to leadership on IT activities and services and results in unnecessary layering of leadership and direction.  Therefore, mission support activities will be merged at the mission area level across USDA.  Through these mergers, the mission areas will not only increase operational efficiencies, but also maximize collaboration between agencies that serve similar customers.  This has happened in many of the support activities in mission areas already and is working well.

Given the flack that got from Congress, which killed it, it will be interesting to see what happens now.

USDA Reorganization

A post here on it at ThinkProgress.

The USDA report to Congress on the proposal.

Basically it would move NRCS, RMA, and FSA under one new Undersecretary, leaving FSA and FS each with their own Undersecretary.

This sentence from the USDA post perhaps hints that there will be more attention to the consolidation/cross-agency work that has been going on over the last 26 years:

Locating FSA, RMA, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service under this domestically-oriented undersecretary will provide a simplified one-stop shop for USDA’s primary customers, the men and women farming, ranching, and foresting across America.

 The proposal gives more prominence to the FAS and international trade, which is strongly supported by the ag interest groups, which may be enough to overcome concerns among the conservation types over a possible/perceived downgrading of conservation.

We'll see.

Pearlie Reed Dies

See Vilsack's statement,his obituary,a new story and a personal memory.

Great Work--NRCS

"Agriculture’s “Natural Resources Conversation Service dropped 13 places to rank 25th overall in the 2016 Index – no other agency fell further,” the analysts said"

This is from a Government Executive article on a survey of plain language in government websites.

Not sure how well done this is--the study dings USDA generally, but only NRCS is listed in the detailed results table.

House Ag Appropriations

From the House appropriations ag subcommittee;

Here's the committee report on MIDAS:


"Information Technology Waste

.—GAO and USDA’s OIG have issued reports that highlight poor program performance in the past and uncertainty regarding USDA’s capacity to effectively manage IT acquisitions in the future. Auditors found that the Secretary halted further development on the MIDAS program after spending almost $500 million for nearly a decade on planning and development of this critical system. This investment of time and limited resources has resulted in the delivery of about one-fifth of the functionality intended for twice the projected cost. While the Secretary has highlighted saving hundreds of millions of dollars on IT, the Committee notes that MIDAS is a prime example of government waste and inefficiency. MIDAS is still expected to cost another $330 million over the lifecycle of the project, yet the system will have severely reduced capacity. The total cost will equal almost three times the original projections.

GAO noted that problems with MIDAS were due to the lack of implementation of USDA and Farm Service Agency (FSA) program management policies and best practices covering key disciplines such as requirements for development and management, project planning and monitoring, system testing, and executive-level governance. Following project stoppage, the Department has been exploring other options—at an additional cost to taxpayers and time spent on these modernization efforts—to provide the functionality that USDA had promised Congress and the agricultural community, including a modernized acreage reporting system and an online office for American farmers and ranchers to access. Given the lack of IT leadership demonstrated by the Secretary on the MIDAS investment, the Committee remains concerned as to whether the Department will be any more successful with IT acquisition activities moving forward than it was in the past with MIDAS. The Committee includes statutory language that places spending controls on both MIDAS and other IT acquisitions.

FSA IT.


—FSA’s management of certain IT projects has produced increased costs, bloated budgets, and inaccurate budget estimates. These projects include the MIDAS program and increased or inaccurate charges from the National Information Technology Center, for which costs have tripled since fiscal year 2014. The agreement includes statutory language that allows FSA to release funds for farm program delivery IT projects only after review by the GAO and approval by the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. The roadmap submitted by FSA in fiscal year 2015 was the first step to bringing accountability and guidance to almost a decade of mismanagement. In this regard, the GAO and the OIG are recommending that FSA establish a plan to guide the agency in adopting recognized best practices and in following agency policy. The GAO also recommends that the agency adhere to specific practices within key management disciplines before proceeding with further system development. FSA is directed to continue quarterly briefings in writing for the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate regarding all IT projects and activities related to farm program delivery.

And an "attaboy" for NRCS:

The Committee commends NRCS for its organizational realignment of administrative functions and appreciates the savings this will generate. NRCS has worked to become a more efficient, accountable organization, and the Committee encourages NRCS to work with other agencies within USDA to do the same

The Receipt for Service II

I've got a problem with the Receipt for Service implementation. Just in terms of bureaucracy and system design, county employees are asked to dual-task, do the work to support what the customer wants or needs plus as a separate operation record the history of the encounter. The extra work isnot likely to please the employee and the fact it's separate increases the likelihood it won't get done, undermining the validity of the statistic

A separate problem arises when it's the producer/farmer herself going online to do the work, as for example the new NRCS process.  How are those transactions going to be tracked?

USDA "Receipt for Service" Initiative I

USDA's Office of Advocacy and Outreach published an FR notice of a June meeting on USDA's "Receipt for Service" initiative.

What is the initiative?  Damned if anyone could tell from the notice.  There's no description of what it is, beyond a reference to a paragraph in the 2008 farm bill, and an amendment in the 2014 farm bill.  No links, no nothing.

But I've belatedly discovered that one can highlight a phrase, right click, and get an option to use Google to search for the phrase.  So what did I discover?

Three years after the 2008 farm bill, in 2011, OCIO published a department reg requiring the field agencies to issue AD-2088 when requested.  In January 2012 FSA issued a notice on it, NRCS issued the equivalent, RD apparently didn't issue anything, at least unlike the first two they don't show up on the first page of Google results.  The AD-2088 basically provides blanks for a narrative description of what service the farmer requested, and what happened to the request.  Importantly, the 2008 provision only required the AD-2088 be issued if the farmer requested it. Also important--the Department reg didn't require any reports.  I suspect, without researching it, that reports were never required.

 Exploring further, it seems Congress, in their wisdom, in 2014 amended the 2008 provision to require issuing a receipt in all cases.  As a result, NRCS, FSA, and RD got together and did an on-line app, one which requires a 27-page manual: "Web Receipt for Service (webRFS) User’s Guide".  FSA issued a notice, CM-753, which includes a memo signed by the Food and Agriculture council, to the state directors plus the Q&A's for FSA. [Note to self: how'd I miss it last fall?]

Apparently webRFS is the front-end to a database, which is searchable, and presumably will support statistical reports.

Now, back to the meeting:  the material on the webRFS says that it's "Phase I" and that there will be an evaluation of the webRFS and the need for any additional action.

NRCS e-Site

From NRCS, part of their new site for farmers.

• Learn how to obtain a SCIMS record and eAuthentication Account to access Conservation Client Gateway

	Request technical assistance or advice for your conservation needs. Access technical information, such as the Web Soil Survey, the National Plants Database, and the National Conservation Practice Standards and Specifications to learn more about soils, plants, and conservation practices.
	Apply for conservation program financial assistance. Manage your applications, contracts, conservation plans and the associated documents through Conservation Client Gateway. Report practice completion and installation, and request information and modifications to your conservation plans and contracts.
	View, sign, and submit documents related to your conservation request. View and track the status of your requests for technical and financial assistance. View aerial maps of your property where you have requested technical or financial assistance.
	View and track the status of your financial assistance conservation program payments for completed conservation practices in your existing contracts.

I'm pleased to see the SCIMS and USDA login--one small step on the path to having a universal government login process. But I do wonder about the back end. Are the conservation plans and practices going to be layers in a USDA GIS.  Will the "aerial maps" of your property be displayed from such a GIS?

Improper Payments, FSA, and OIG

From today's Farm Policy, reporting an exchange in a hearing with House Appropriations and OIG:

"[OIG] In some of the other programs, say the RMA and NRCS programs, the improper payment rate is much higher, in the teens, maybe near 20%. There are probably a number of reasons for that. We are paying very close attention to that. And let me just offer the chance to comment to Gil and Ann.
Gil Harden, Assistant Inspector General for Audits: The thing that I would add to that, too, I mean, we are mindful of it, but the FSA percentages for their high risk programs for FSA are lower, some of the lower percentages. But we do keep them on the radar screen.
Ann Coffey, Acting Assistant Inspector General, Investigations: And I’d like to just address the question you had raised about what sorts of resources we’re allocating towards FSA investigative work. Historically, we have focused quite a bit of our resources on the SNAP program, but FSA is an area that we are definitely looking for an increase and expecting to increase our investigative work in those areas. We have had some very good cases within the last recent year with high dollar amounts, and so we do anticipate that within FY16 we will be increasing our work in FSA.

Reinventing Government--How Soon We Forget

Remember Al Gore?  And his reinventing government?  Apparently neither GAO nor USDA do.

A quote from a new GAO report:

In fiscal year 2012, USDA policy on supervisory ratios did not align with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance that states that an analytical approach can help agencies achieve the right balance of supervisory and nonsupervisory positions to support their missions. Instead, USDA's policy stated that all its agencies, regardless of their missions, should aim for a target ratio of one supervisor for at least nine employees (1:9). USDA officials were not able to provide a documented basis for this target ratio. In addition, USDA did not ensure that the service center agencies calculated their supervisory ratios the same way. As a result, USDA did not receive comparable information on supervisory ratios.

 Now I firmly believe that Al's National Performance Review  included an initiative to reduce the number of supervisors (though I don't see it highlighted in the linked document).  I remember because in ASCS what happened was that work units were renamed without much real change in function.  I also remember because my branch ended up growing to 14 or so people, more than I could effectively manage, particularly given my weakness for taking on additional projects.  (Though I can't really blame Al for that growth.)

I haven't read the report, just the summary, but IMHO a fixed supervisor/employee ratio makes no sense.

Blast from the Past: ACP

The old Agricultural Conservation program was in operation when I joined ASCS.  I can remember a trip by a county executive director (Pitt county, NC maybe?) to a sawmill where people were making woven wood garden baskets.  This was fall, I think tobacco harvest was well over, so it was work for after harvest time.  Anyhow, the CED was signing up a couple landowners/part-time farmers to ACP practices.

ACP was a cost-sharing program, the farmer paying part of the cost of "approved conservation practices", ASCS paying the other part.  It was early in the Nixon administration, which didn't believe in the program (thinking it basically enhanced production so should be entirely paid for by the farmer).  They ended up in a battle with Congress over the program, resulting in a number of changes.  Over the years it was reformed again and finally moved to SCS (which had always fought with ASCS over it).

Why do I babble on about it?  This bit from Farm Policy:

"In other policy related news, Mark Peters reported in today’s Wall Street Journal that, “Kevin Hollinger planted radishes and oats last fall in his corn and soybean fields, but he isn’t planning to harvest them. Instead, he is letting the crops die over the winter to improve the soil and keep fertilizer and other nutrients from running into nearby waterways.
“‘I could hardly go to town without someone asking: ‘What’s that in your field?’’ said Mr. Hollinger, a fourth-generation farmer.
“Helping to foot the bill for his experiment is a pilot program set to launch fully next month. Farmers in the Ohio River basin are being paid to make changes—from what they plant to how they handle manure—in an effort to minimize runoff that can cause hypoxia, or low oxygen levels, in waterways.”

 Winter cover  were one set of the conservation practices covered by ACP.  I find my memory is foggy here.  I don't know whether they were dropped, like lime was, and later reinstated into EQIP and CSP or whether they have always survived.

No-Till Farming

 I was going to use a snarky title for this, like urbanites find out about no-till farming, but instead I'll just refer to an article on Wonkblog.  From there a link to a Philpott piece on cover crops and no-till.  I remember when ASCS  offered cost-sharing for cover crops, back in the late 60's, something which was killed by the Nixon administration.  (I'm trying to remember what the CED said--he was aggressively promoting the practices, I think for workload, not specifically for the conservation benefits.

Ding, Ding, Goes GAO on NRCS and RMA

Ah, the joys of schadenfreude.  Some years after GAO dinged FSA for making payments to dead people GAO revisited the subject, but this time looking at NRCS and RMA payments.  The result was praise for FSA (to the extent GAO ever deals in praise, which is to say, not much) and reproofs for NRCS and RMA.  Recommendations: 

To help NRCS prevent improper payments to deceased individuals, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Chief of NRCS to develop and implement procedures to prevent potentially improper payments to deceased individuals, including (1) coordinating roles and responsibilities with FSA to ensure that either FSA or NRCS matches NRCS payment files against SSA's complete death master file and (2) reviewing each payment to a deceased individual to ensure that an improper payment was not made.

To help RMA prevent improper crop insurance subsidies on behalf of deceased individuals and to improve the effectiveness of its data mining, the Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of RMA to develop and implement procedures to prevent potentially improper subsidies on behalf of deceased individuals, including (1) matching RMA's crop insurance records against SSA's complete death master file and (2) reviewing each subsidy provided on behalf of a deceased individual to ensure that an improper subsidy was not provided.

 Seems to me there's an argument here for administrative consolidation within USDA.  Actually, in the long run if I were dictator I'd modify the E-Verify process so it could be used to check the status of people.  And finally, while SSA is a well-run bureaucracy as far as I know, I'm a little uncomfortable with their death master file--what sort of incentives to report accurately and timely do the people have who do the initial input into the state systems which feed the file?  And what sort of oversight?

Sharing Versus Centralized Data

The VA and DOD have been working off and on to setup one centralized healthcare record for military personnel.  It makes sense: someone starts as a GI under DOD's control and, after retirement or separation, moves to be under VA's control. 

In the hearing I linked to it seems that Congress still wants that one record to rule them all, while DOD and VA are leaning more to sharing data.  I assume the idea is that if the VA can pull data from DOD records and display them to VA personnel, that's good enough.

During my government career, I was involved in both "sharing" and "centralizing" efforts. We worked for some years on trying to transfer files of ASCS data to SCS computers, basically to enable policing of the sod/swamp provisions of the 86 farm bill.  And the effort which eventually became SCIMS was based on the idea of a central customer/client record serving all the service center agencies. 

Neither effort worked out, at least not during my career.  I'm not sure what lessons to derive from that fact.  I mention this history because doing such things as implementing Obamacare or immigration reform (E-Verify) raise similar issues of system design.  

If you can design the interfaces, it's probably easier and faster to do the sharing, perhaps particularly these days with the availability of syncing software.  The biggest advantage of centralized data is not just avoiding redundant data load; it's avoiding the problem of stale data.  For example, a death gets reported in system A, but never propagated to systems B...Z.   The problem with sharing/communication is that the unspoken and unidentified assumptions in system A may trip you up in the other systems.  The problem with centralized systems is you have to understand a whole lot more about all the business rules. And it's difficult to have modular development.

NRCS IT Type

Federal Computer Week Government Executive profiles the whippersnapper who now heads up NRCS IT.

It's fine, but it sounds as if NRCS only got a website when she came aboard, which is wrong.

I've never been very impressed with their website, and it appears it's been revised now, which may be the project which failed twice before.  I do see they have a my.nrcs.usda.gov site.  I'm not clear whether farmers can get services on the website--probably.

I'm not sure what is meant by saying the website is accessible to both external and internal user base. Maybe they're saying the NRCS intranet is accessible through the home page?

Finally in my nitpicking is the claim NRCS is the second biggest USDA agency.  Not sure that's correct, if you add together FSA's federal and county employees, but then NRCS could add in their district employees as well. [Updated to correct error]

Conservation Compliance and NRCS

Via Farm Policy, the Grand Forks Herald reports on a backlog of wetland determinations at NRCS, a big enough issue to get the agency head out there.

From the article:

Wetlands determinations that are held up, waiting for NRCS approval, have become frustrating for the region’s farmers, particularly those in the central and southern Red River Valley. They want to use tile drainage or water management to contend with a string of wet years, and to capitalize on higher commodity prices and land values.

Apparently NRCS is looking at using a 30-year average, dropping extreme years and coming up with an average.

This sentence struck me: "White [head of NRCS] said he thinks USDA can approve some of the procedures in a month." I wonder. If there's no one to challenge the changes, he's probably right. But if Ducks Unlimited or others think it's unwise/unfair, I'd assume they'd have to go through rule-making, though on the third hand I'm not sure how much rule-making NRCS does.  In the old days that wasn't part of the agency's culture, simply because they were always helping farmers, never hurting them.

Once again this is in the pothole area, and is a caution to us bureaucrats who assume once you identify a thing, it's that thing forever.

Dueling Aerial Compliance: NRCS and FSA

ASCS/FSA has long used aerial photography to validate acreage reports.  It was a big deal in the 70's when we moved to aerial compliance using 35mm slides matched against the base photography.  Samuel T. Brown, Jr. and his shop got an award because they saved so much energy

Now it seems NRCS is into aerial compliance(for conservation compliance reviews):

Instead of staff taking photographs [as they did in last year's pilot], this year NRCS will contract to use special planes equipped with GPS-synched, high-resolution cameras attached to the belly of the craft.
“We feel this will be much more efficient,” said Adkins. “We went through several teams of volunteers to complete last year’s pilot project. All the banking and tight turning required to get good photographs took a lot of time.”

I wonder if there's been any coordination among the agencies.  Faint hope. (Though I suspect the parameters for NRCS are enough different than FSA to make coordination hard. I am a little concerned about the idea of notifying landowners of the flights--does that set a precedent for FSA, or is what I would guess to be a big different in altitude enough of a distinguishing feature?)