Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS

Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS

May 1, 2020
Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS
In October 2019, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDA’s use of funds to implement the proposed relocation
(USDA) relocated most staff positions at two of its research
and realignment and that they deny related reprogramming
agencies—the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
requests. These groups asserted that USDA’s proposal
(NIFA) and the Economic Research Service (ERS)—from
would “undermine the quality and breadth of the work these
their long-term location in Washington, DC, to Kansas
agencies support and perform” and “result in a major
City, MO. About 75% of affected employees declined to
negative impact on U.S. farmers, ranchers, consumers, and
relocate and left the agencies. While ERS and NIFA have
researchers.”
prioritized hiring new staff, some agency activities have
The primary external supporters of the relocation were
been reduced or delayed. The USDA budget request for
advocates for smaller government or those supporting
FY2021 proposes an ERS staff level that is 41% lower than
regional interests in hosting the agencies. The Acting White
in FY2018—before the relocation.
House Chief of Staff referred to the relocations as “a
Agency Background
wonderful way to streamline government.”
NIFA is USDA’s principal extramural research agency
Congressional Response
(awarding grants to non-federal entities). It administers
Members of Congress expressed various views on USDA’s
approximately $1.5 billion in federal funding annually.
proposals, as exemplified by letters in 2018 and 2019. In
NIFA supports research, education, and extension projects
2018, the chair and ranking member of the Senate
conducted in partnership with land-grant colleges and
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry asked
universities, other institutions and organizations, and
Secretary Perdue to provide data and plans for
individuals. NIFA awards include capacity (formula-based)
implementing the proposals. In 2019, some Members on the
and competitive grants.
House Agriculture Committee supported relocation in a
ERS is a USDA intramural research agency (employing
letter to the House agriculture appropriations subcommittee.
federal researchers). It has an annual budget of about $85
In 2019, chairs of two subcommittees of the House
million. ERS conducts economic and statistical analyses on
Agriculture Committee opposed relocation in a letter to
topics of interest to Congress, agricultural producers, and
Secretary Perdue.
stakeholders. Topics include agricultural commodities,
Some Members of Congress attempted to block or delay
trade, marketing, food price forecasting, farm and rural
USDA’s proposals through legislation, such as the proposed
income, food safety, and nutrition.
Agriculture Research Integrity Act (115th Congress: H.R.
Relocation and Realignment Proposal
7330; 116th Congress: H.R. 1221 and S. 1637).
In August 2018, USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue announced
Other legislative attempts included provisions in two years
the intention to relocate ERS and NIFA from Washington,
of annual appropriations bills. The explanatory statement
DC, to a location outside of the Washington, DC, area.
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019
Among the stated reasons were (1) improving USDA’s
(P.L. 116-6), supported an “indefinite delay” of ERS
ability to attract and retain qualified staff without the
realignment and directed USDA to include in the FY2020
burden of a high cost of living, (2) placing USDA resources
President’s budget request cost estimates and an analysis of
closer to stakeholders, and (3) lowering agency
expected research benefits. The Further Consolidated
employment costs and rent.
Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94), did not address the
Concurrent with the relocation proposal, the Secretary
proposals, and the relocation had already occurred. The
proposed an organizational realignment: moving ERS from
report accompanying the earlier House bill (H.R. 3164)
within the USDA Research, Education, and Economics
stated that USDA “flatly refused numerous requests … to
(REE) mission area to the Office of the Chief Economist
provide the initial cost benefit analysis that preceded the
(OCE). REE consists of four research agencies. OCE is a
decision to go ahead with the proposal.”
staff office within the USDA Office of the Secretary.
OIG and GAO Reviews
External Response
In 2018, two Members of Congress requested that the
Criticism of USDA’s relocation and realignment proposals
USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) review
began almost immediately. In November 2018, the
USDA’s legal and budget authority for the proposals and
American Statistical Association and 59 other organizations
the sufficiency of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) used to
sent a letter to congressional appropriations committees
justify them. The August 5, 2019, OIG report found that
requesting that Congress not provide funding for relocation.
USDA had legal authority. It also found that USDA had not
In March 2019, 99 academic, statistical, research, and
complied with approval and reporting requirements
producer groups sent a letter to congressional
specified in the FY2018 appropriations act (P.L. 115-141).
appropriations committees requesting that they prohibit
USDA asserted that its actions complied with all applicable
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 2
Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS
laws and that the provisions in P.L. 115-141 were
relocate. The annual Explanatory Notes for the President’s
unconstitutional. OIG asserted that USDA’s position on
budget requests identify 412 permanent full-time positions
constitutionality was inconsistent with its prior positions.
at NIFA from FY2016 to FY2020. Staffing of 315 at the
time of the CBA suggests an initial vacancy rate of 25%.
In December 2019, members of the House Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology requested that the
By September 30, 2019—the effective date of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit USDA
relocation—NIFA had 250 permanent full-time employees
decisions related to these relocations. As of April 2020,
and ERS had 239, according to the FY2021 President’s
GAO has not released a report.
budget request. As of February 1, 2020—four months after
USDA Proposal Updates and Analysis
relocation—NIFA had 105 and ERS had 106. Compared
with full staffing levels cited in the CBA, NIFA and ERS
After announcing its proposals in August 2018, USDA
are operating with approximately 33% of their staff.
proceeded with site selection. It solicited expressions of
interest for siting ERS and NIFA, and in October 2018 it
In March 2020, USDA reported that over 150 active
announced receipt of 136 proposals in 35 states. In May
recruitments are in process for ERS and NIFA and that it is
2019, USDA announced three finalist regions: Greater
using additional tools to help ensure mission continuity:
Indianapolis (Indiana), Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri),
using re-employed annuitants, short-term contractors, and
and Research Triangle (North Carolina).
employees on detail from other agencies. USDA conducted
a virtual career fair in April 2020.
On June 13, 2019, USDA released a CBA at the time of its
site decision. USDA selected the Kansas City Region for
Mission Delivery
relocation and noted that some staff positions would remain
Since the relocation, NIFA grantees have experienced
in Washington, DC: 76 for ERS and 21 for NIFA. USDA
delays in receiving awarded funds, which are typically
also announced that it would not realign ERS under OCE.
released one to two months after the start of the next fiscal
year. A notice to grantees of March 12, 2020, advises that
The CBA compared the Washington, DC, area to the three
FY2019 capacity and competitive awards may be released
finalist regions and concluded that relocating to Kansas
by the end of March 2020 and April 2020, respectively
City would save $300 million over 15 years. In response,
(three to five months later than is typical). This notice
the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association
stated that NIFA did not yet have a timeline for issuing
released a report concluding that USDA overstated the costs
of not relocating and that USDA “
FY2020 awards.
failed to follow federal
guidelines” for the CBA. The report estimated the move
Media reports citing USDA internal memos suggest that
would cost between $83 million and $182 million when
ERS has delayed or discontinued numerous reports. Senator
accounting for the lost value of research from employees
Debbie Stabenow sent a letter to USDA in September 2019
who would resign rather than move.
raising concerns about ERS report delays and
discontinuations and USDA’s transparency regarding
Leadership and Staffing Levels
impacts of the relocation on mission delivery.
Since the relocation, leadership positions at NIFA and ERS
have been staffed primarily by acting officials.
Congressional Interest
Congress may be interested in how NIFA and ERS are
Staffing levels have declined at ERS and NIFA since
meeting their responsibilities with reduced workforces, and
USDA announced its proposals (see Figure 1). The CBA
in the future, as new staff are hired. In addition to the GAO
showed that USDA would require 294 of 315 government
and OIG reviews, Congress may consider exercising
employees at NIFA, and 253 of 329 employees at ERS, to
oversight of USDA implementation of the relocations and
any benefits as anticipated by the CBA.
Figure 1. Permanent Staff Positions at ERS and NIFA

Source: Annual President’s budget request, FY2019, FY2020, FY2021; CRS communication from USDA on March 5, 2020; annual
appropriations acts, FY2019, FY2020.
Notes: *FY2020 “actuals” are employment data as of February 1. Other “actuals” are employment data as of September 30 of each fiscal year.

Genevieve K. Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
IF11527
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11527 · VERSION 1 · NEW