USDA Reports

USDA Set To Downsize With Reorganization Plan

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 17:43:04 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced July 24 that the USDA would reorganize, representing consolidation and elimination of programs and personnel.

Dubbed the “ USDA Department Reorganization Plan ,” the move will include moving more than half of the agency’s Washington, D.C.-area staff to five different hubs across the country, “refocusing its core operations” on USDA’s founding mission, and reducing overall staff. According to the announcement and plan document, the move is intended to “improve the internal management” of the department.

“Here at USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers,” Rollins wrote Thursday morning on social platform X.

Here @USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers.
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 24, 2025

The reorganization is built around what the agency calls four pillars:

Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities.
Bring USDA closer to its customers by relocated resources outside of the national capital region.
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy.
Consolidate support functions.

USDA Workforce Costs and Location Changes

Highlighting the high cost of living in the nation’s capital — where average monthly rent in January 2024 was $2,475, according to real estate and rental search site RedFin — USDA’s reorg seeks to move roughly 2,600 of its current 4,600 D.C.-area personnel to five “hub locations” across the country.

According to the plan document, these locations were selected considering cost of living and “existing concentrations of USDA employees.”

These hubs (and their January 2024 average rent levels) are:

Salt Lake City, Utah ($1,627)
Fort Collins, Colo. ($1,607)
Raleigh, N.C. ($1,371)
Indianapolis, Ind. ($1,265)
Kansas City, Mo. ($1,140)

“In addition to these five hubs, USDA will maintain two additional core administrative support locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Minneapolis, Minnesota,” the reorg plan reads. “USDA will continue to maintain critical service centers and laboratories including agency service centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Missoula, Montana.”

The department says it aims to have no more than 2,000 staff members remain in the National Capital Region.

“The details are still to be determined,” adds Callie Eideberg, a Principal with The Vogel Group. “It will be helpful when we know the pace and cadence of these changes, as that will determine how smooth or chaotic this move will be.”

She agrees that the reorganization could benefit those employees looking for a lower cost of living, but the distance between hubs will make for its own workforce management issues.

“Different administrations have tried, in smaller ways, to move the federal workforce to other regions and they’ve been met with these management obstacles,” adds Eideberg. “Stakeholders, as well, will now need to travel to five different locations around the country to have their conversations with USDA instead of ‘one stop shopping’ in Washington.”

The location changes are not limited to personnel only, however. The physical buildings USDA will be occupying in the capital area will also change. The reorg plan cited costs associated with maintaining and repairing some of the overly large buildings as part of the motivation.

Announced building changes include:

The South Building and Braddock Place facilities will be vacated.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be vacated over several years “to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”
George Washington Carver Center, currently being used for area USDA personnel during the reorg, will be sold or transferred eventually.

The department said the Whitten Building will remain the USDA headquarters, and both the Yates Building and the National Agricultural Library “will be retained for use.”

Consolidation and Elimination

Though the reorg document stressed that “USDA is not conducting a large-scale workforce reduction” as part of the change, it also highlighted that the move is part of its ongoing process of reducing its workforce.

“Much of this reduction was through voluntary retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool. As of today, 15,364 individuals voluntarily elected deferred resignation,” the reorg document read.

According to the agency’s own site — both currently and during the previous administration — the USDA has “nearly 100,000 employees.” This makes the stated number of USDA employees who have taken deferred resignation slightly more than 15% of the agency’s overall staff.

Programs within USDA will also be consolidated or eliminated. Those programs and efforts highlighted include:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will eliminate its area offices, with “residual functions” to be preformed by its Office of National Programs.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will consolidate its current 12 regions into five “over a multi-year period.”
The Food and Nutrition Service will reduce its current seven regions into five, aligned with the five hubs, in the next two years.
The Forest Service will “phase out” its nine regional offices in the coming year. It will maintain a reduced state office in Juneau, Alaska, and consolidate its stand-alone research stations into one in Fort Collins, Colo. It will keep its Fire Sciences Lab and Forest Products Lab.
Most “support functions” previously done within the USDA — such as civil rights functions, Freedom of Information Act responses, IT and HR, legislative and tribal relations, and others — will be moved into other agencies of the federal government in an effort “to reduce duplication” within the department.

The reorg document also notes that it will consolidate grants and financial assistance: “This consolidation will include, where feasible, the transfer of grant making and administration functions from USDA offices and agencies that currently have limited capacity to perform such duties to other offices and agencies.”

Most extension personnel in hub-area institutions whom The Packer reached out to about the potential impacts of the reorg either had not responded as of press time or reported that it is too early to provide any meaningful insight.

The News Service from Colorado State University in Fort Collins said, “CSU is continually tracking changes at the federal level and assessing impact to our work.”

Rollins: Impact in Her Own Words

Midday July 24, Rollins spoke to AgriTalk ‘s Chip Flory to talk about the announcement.

“This is just another step in the implementation of getting the government out of Washington, D.C., and getting it to the people,” she says, adding that the move “will save a lot of money.”

When asked if the existing D.C. staff will make the move to the five hubs or if new personnel will need to be hired in those areas, Rollins says she thinks it will be “half and half.”

“For those that do want to continue leading in the Forest Service or working hard on food stamps or, of course, our key work supporting farmers and ranchers, they’re going to have an amazing opportunity to move to, frankly, a better part of the country,” she says. “Out of Washington, D.C., better quality of life, better cost of living and continue to serve the great people of our country. I think that’s a win-win.”

For those who don’t want to move, she says “there are plenty of opportunities in the private sector.”

Rollins adds that the transition is not going to be easy, but the department is ready to do hard work that will streamline its operations and bring services closer to the communities being served. She gave the example of the Forest Service.

“A lot of people don’t know that the USDA manages all of our national forests. We’ve got 11,000 full-time firefighters on the USDA payroll that are constantly battling our fires and are the frontliners,” she says. “The fact that that leadership is in Washington, D.C., but most of the fires are in the West — that doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we have the leadership of the Forest Service closer to the fires and the firefighters that they serve?”

Consumers Bought More Produce During the Pandemic

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:20:16 GMT

The COVID-19 pandemic forced a lot of change on Americans when it came to food. Restaurants were closed. We had to wonder if we needed to disinfect our groceries for a while. That obsession with making sourdough started up.

But apparently people started eating more fresh fruit and vegetables too.

The USDA Economic Research Service released a report on the impacts of COVID-19 on food spending and diet on May 20. The report found that — as is common with negative economic events — the pandemic shifted American’s food purchasing behavior.

The report — U.S. Household Food Spending Post COVID-19 and the Implications for Diet Quality by ERS research agricultural economists Abigail Okrent and Eliana Zeballos — compared changes in household food spending in different groups before, during and after the pandemic (2016 to 2022).

“Economic recessions and slowdowns have profoundly influenced spending patterns on food as consumers navigate tighter budgets and uncertainty,” according to the report. “These changes in food consumption behaviors can have enduring effects on health, persisting long after a recession ends.”

Pandemic food purchasing

The economic shocks of the pandemic were unique compared to previous economic shocks in a few ways, according to the report. The main one was the closure of restaurants and stay-at-home orders around the country.

“This prompted significant shifts in the ways people purchased and acquired food, such as increased online shopping and home cooking,” the report said. More consumers bought food at grocery stores — referred to as food at home (FAH) in the report — during the pandemic compared to the pre-pandemic years of 2016 to 2019.

Buying more food at grocery stores compared to restaurants and other “food away from home” venues changed how consumers spent money on different food categories.

“On the one hand, 2020 had little to no association with spending on dairy, fats and oils, poultry, eggs, fish and seafood, beverages, and desserts,” the report summarized. “On the other hand, spending during 2020 was higher than 2016 to 2019 levels for vegetables (7%), other FAH not elsewhere classified (7%), grains (6%), and prepared meals (6%).”

Some of these shifts continued into the pandemic in 2021, with vegetable spending up 8% and fruit spending up 7% compared to the 2016 to 2019 levels. In 2022, which the report used as a post-pandemic benchmark, spending behavior began to trend back toward pre-pandemic levels with some exceptions. This included spending on vegetables, which was still up 5% in 2022 compared to 2016 to 2019 levels.

The report authors highlighted this trend as potentially beneficial.

“Given that vegetable and fruit consumption has largely been flat over the past few decades and well below [Dietary Guidelines for Americans] recommendations overall, such a shift in spending could lead to better adherence to DGA recommendations.”

Fruit and vegetable buying trends overall

The report also found some key differences in food spending across different demographic groups regardless of year. For example, the report found that urban households spend more on fruit and vegetables compared to their rural counterparts. Similarly, West Coast households spend the most on fruit and vegetables overall out of the U.S. geographic regions.

Racial and ethnic demographic details also played a role in food spending behaviors, regardless of the year.

“Independent of income and other covariates, non-Hispanic Asian households spent more on fruits, vegetables, poultry, fish and seafood, and eggs, and less on processed red meats and beverages than non-Hispanic White, Black, and Native American/Pacific Islander/multiracial households,” the report found.

The report also noted that there were some seasonality trends in food purchasing at grocery stores — but not at restaurants — that was seen across all years in review.

“In particular, spending on fruits tended to be higher in the spring ($20 more per capita) and summer months ($20) compared to fall (-$6) and winter months (base), whereas vegetable consumption was unaffected by the seasons.”

The report authors speculated that the seasonality in fruit consumption, even in the face of expanded trade that means fresh fruit is reliably available year round, “may indicate consumers prefer to eat seasonal fruit produced within the United States.”

The Reasons Fewer Farmers Are Now Responding to USDA's NASS Surveys — And the Impact of Waning Participation

Fri, 12 Jul 2024 15:17:49 GMT

U.S. taxpayer-funded government reports on the economy and agriculture have generated comments from stakeholders and others, especially since the Internet has made it easier for anyone to comment.

We decided to check in on response rates for USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) reports after a new study by the American Statistical Association warned the reliability of U.S. economic data is at risk due to shrinking budgets, declining survey response rates and potential political interference (this is not the case with NASS reports). Currently, government statistics remain dependable, but the study, authored by statisticians from various institutions including George Mason University and the Urban Institute, likens the statistical system to infrastructure that is often neglected until a crisis occurs. (The New York Times addressed the matter in this article .)

Note: We contacted several current and former USDA officials and asked them to comment about the numbers and some of the responses in this special report. These individuals include Lance Honig, Director of Methodology Division, Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board, USDA-National Agricultural Statistics Service; current top USDA economist Dr. Seth Meyer; and Dr. Joe Glauber, former top USDA economist.

Here’s a breakdown of response rates for USDA’s NASS reports:

Response rates have been declining over time:

• In the early 1990s, response rates for NASS crop surveys were 80% to 85%.

• By the late 2010s, response rates had fallen below 60% in some cases.

Recent response rates for specific NASS surveys:

• The 2022 Census of Agriculture had a response rate of 61%.

• The 2017 Census of Agriculture had a response rate of 71.5%.

• For monthly NASS surveys, response rates are around 75%.

• For quarterly or annual NASS surveys, response rates are around 50% to 60%.

Factors affecting response rates:

• Increasing difficulty in accessing households due to new telephone technologies.

• Rising refusal rates from respondents — “It’s mostly inability to reach people that’s increasing. Actual refusals are fairly steady,” Honig says.

• Concerns about data privacy and time constraints from farmers.

• Increased number of people requesting information from farmers.

Impact of declining response rates:

• Reduced statistical precision of estimates, especially at the county level.

• Fewer counties for which estimates can be published.

• Potential introduction of bias if non-respondents differ from respondents.

USDA NASS efforts to address declining response rates:

• Offering online response options.

• Developing shorter questionnaires.

• Adjusting sampling and weighting procedures.

• Increasing follow-up efforts through multiple contact methods.

• Increased outreach efforts to build relationships/trust and increase transparency (i.e. #StatChat, Data Users’ Meetings, Visitors to Lockup, etc.)

Importance of response rates:

• High response rates are crucial for maintaining data quality and reliability.

• Lower response rates can lead to increased costs for data collection.

• Accurate data is essential for policymaking, research and agricultural planning.

Bottom line: NASS continues to monitor response rates and implement strategies to improve participation in their surveys, recognizing the critical importance of high-quality agricultural data.

Ag industry chimes in about the relevance of NASS reports and the response rates:

• “Accurate data primarily allows transparency in the marketplace, otherwise you get misinformation on social media and conspiracy theories due to what analyst one listens to. It does not create a level playing field for all.”

• “While people complain in the U.S. that big companies have all the information, USDA’s NASS allows one point of solid information that everyone can trade off of.”

• “While there are shortcomings, NASS provides the best source of agriculture data anywhere in the world. It has allowed U.S. agriculture to thrive. Going forward, policymakers need to understand they need to fund the service to help farmers, agribusinesses and consumers.”

• “This is a topic every year on the Pro Farmer Midwest Crop Tour because it’s a debate on how accurate NASS is with their crop estimates. Farmers want to complain NASS isn’t that accurate, but they don’t want to give NASS any insights, either (the trust issue).”

Note: NASS publishes a report each year that shows the accuracy of its estimates.

• Several growers said they don’t trust the government and they aren’t giving out their data. One said: “You just wonder with all the technology on planters and combines today, as well as all the satellite info, when NASS will have to change their approach.”

Honig response: “NASS is exploring the potential of using precision ag data, but significant hurdles currently exist, primarily around ownership/availability of the data. Satellite data are currently utilized to augment the survey and administrative data.”

• “I think the response rate is way below 50%. Some of these guys are big farmers and do not want to share data. Plus, they all think NASS’ quality has declined so why give data to a failing entity?”

• “Grain stocks on farm has been a big topic amongst the elderly grain traders I keep in touch with. Most think the basis is a much better indicator than NASS. For example: Why is the cash corn basis so strong in the WCB this year, yet ECB stocks are reported by NASS to be huge. Meanwhile, Cn/Cu is trading an inverse during delivery and the delivery points are in the ECB.”

Honig response: “NASS stocks estimates represent quantities stored by location, but do not indicate whether or not those quantities are all still available to be marketed (i.e. some/all may already be contracted/committed).”

• “Why can’t crop insurance yield data be used to compare to NASS plot data? I would argue crop insurance yield data is probably the most accurate data currently available. Since crop insurance is a federally subsidized program, let us see the data.”

Honig response: “NASS can use these data for evaluation purposes, but timing is a big issue with these data. Data are only provided once for each season, and not available until late-spring/early-summer the year following harvest. NASS publishes yield forecasts throughout the growing season and provides final season estimates in early January for most major row crops (late-September for small grain crops).”

• “Social media (SM) has turned everyone into an analyst that feels they get ‘enough’ data from SM to determine crop size. Then they go on a drive and look for confirmation of what they expect to see and, of course, they find it. Now they are armed with 4 hours of research on ‘X’ and what they saw on a 200-mile round trip, and they think they have the U.S. crop figured out. When NASS reports something different than they expected, the first thing they do is get back to SM and tell everyone how wrong NASS is. When NASS reports something in line with their expectations, the first thing they do is get back to SM to tell everyone how right they were before NASS put out its guess.”

Honig response: “Agreed — and people commonly assume because NASS estimates don’t match what many expected that they are wrong. Expectations are often based on limited information.”

• “Distrust not just of USDA’s NASS but of anything to do with or organized by the government. Some refuse to respond while others (very few, but it happens) falsely respond and then complain (loudly) about how wrong NASS is.”

Honig response: “More data always leads to increased accuracy, so responding to surveys is the best way to make things better!”

• “Few take time to understand the process and how results are generated at different times of the year. If they had a better understanding they might be more willing to participate in a constructive way.”

Honig response: “NASS works hard to be transparent and provide details about our procedures. We make ourselves readily available to answer questions and address concerns.”

• “Of course, it’s not just the NASS estimates that create the distrust ... it’s the combination of the NASS estimate and the market reaction. So, the distrust is also toward ‘the markets.’ It’s the, ‘Let them figure it out on their own’ attitude. These are the same people that don’t want any crop estimates (private or public), will say ‘Let the market figure it out’ and then complain when the market doesn’t perform like they think it should.”

• “Conspiracy theorists are taking over ... due to social media. Media isn’t meant to be social. Keyboard warriors … everyone thinks they’re an expert. They hide behind cute screen names, but no recourse for putting out wild/false claims,” said one veteran industry analyst .

• “Going to be more important going forward! These new AI models scrape data and form conclusions. Without good data, the promise for AI may be limited, or even worse, misleading.”

Comments from Lance Honig, Director of Methodology Division and Chair, Agricultural Statistics Board of USDA’s NASS:

“As a Federal statistical agency, NASS has the unique ability to level the playing field by providing unbiased and accurate information to everyone involved in agriculture — free of charge and available to everyone at the same time. The work that we do is a partnership with farmers across the Nation. Every producer who receives a NASS survey has an opportunity to improve the accuracy of the results by completing it, which leads to better decisions, better policy, and increased market efficiency. That’s a win for everyone. Response to surveys has declined in recent years, but overall rates remain very strong at NASS relative to other organizations and entities conducting survey work — a tribute to the time farmers commit to this partnership. While surveys remain the backbone of our estimates, we incorporate additional information into our process, including administrative data from across USDA, geospatial information, and more. This helps to improve accuracy while reducing the volume of survey contacts we have to make, therefore reducing the burden placed on farmers. We continue to explore additional data sources as we look to the future, but remain committed to utilizing the most reliable information available today.”

Comments from USDA top economist Dr. Seth Meyer:

“There is talk about crop insurance and use of other data sources. For RMA data, the issue is timeliness and when producers are required to report information to AIPs. By that point it has very little additive value. (Note: USDA’s Honig also commented on this as noted above.) NASS also makes extensive use of FSA data; they can pull what they need, and NASS has moved up when it more fully utilizes the FSA data as the FSA data have both improved quality and timeliness. I expect we will see more of this, and it will support crop production estimates. They will use any bit of data they think can contribute to an improved estimate.

“Indeed, earth observation (EO) data and analysis are improving. 20 years ago, EO often overpromised what it can do, but the reality is starting to meet the hype. We use EO extensively in the WASDE report, in particular this is helpful in countries which lack a strong statistical service or where data collection are challenging. However, I’m not yet willing to trade my NASS data for it and I’m going to want a couple of decades of overlapping data before I’d agree.

“Often when I’m overseas, people I meet report that they rely on USDA data more than their own government’s data. There is a level of trust that the data are unbiased, and we need to work to maintain that trust among our direct constituents in the U.S. I think important points are raised [in this report] about how to ensure that the quality of that data is maintained.

“I always try to explain to producers why responding [to surveys] is in their best interest. They might not always like the way prices move when the report is released (at least not half the time) but these reports level the playing field every 30 days. They are at a disadvantage to large grain traders able to accumulate more information; NASS reports resolve some of this information asymmetry each month.

“There is a lot of value in NASS reports, value that isn’t as flashy as a new program or initiative but lays the foundation for a lot of decision making across the country by producers and others. I think it is always important for us at USDA to make the case, and I think it is a good case, that these reports are a benefit to the sector and not only help market function but result in better policy formation in DC and in the state capitals.”

Comments from former top USDA economist Dr. Joe Glauber:

“Earth observation data and AI technologies are becoming increasingly accurate at measuring area and predicting yields. While we still ground truth a lot of those data against NASS surveys, those methodologies will become increasingly prevalent and may ultimately become the gold standard. Earth observation technologies are already the standard for evaluating crop conditions in many countries (for example, GEOGLAM’s estimation of cropland and crop conditions in occupied areas of Ukraine). But moving beyond area, yield and production, it gets more difficult. NASS is one of the few national statistical agencies that attempts to measure grain stocks. Consumption estimates are even more difficult (There is a reason the WASDE corn balance sheet includes “Feed AND RESIDUAL.”) Lastly, NASS and ERS have provided long time series on farm sector well-being and as much as I am often critical of the farm income measure, my criticism is more about how the measure is (mis)interpreted.

“USDA’s original function was providing research and development for farmers (through seed development and distribution) and providing information on prices, production, etc. These remain public goods that I would argue are still relevant today as they were in the 1860s.”