Input:
	Introduction

The U.S. farm sector is vast and varied. It encompasses production activities related to traditional field crops (such as corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton) and livestock and poultry products (including meat, dairy, and eggs), as well as fruits, tree nuts, and vegetables. In addition, U.S. agricultural output includes greenhouse and nursery products, forest products, custom work, machine hire, and other farm-related activities. The intensity and economic importance of each of these activities, as well as their underlying market structure and production processes, vary regionally based on the agro-climatic setting, market conditions, and other factors. As a result, farm income and rural economic conditions may vary substantially across the United States.
Annual U.S. net farm income is the single most watched indicator of farm sector well-being, as it captures and reflects the entirety of economic activity across the range of production processes, input expenses, and marketing conditions that have prevailed during a specific time period. When national net farm income is reported together with a measure of the national farm debt-to-asset ratio, the two summary statistics provide a quick and widely referenced indicator of the economic well-being of the national farm economy.

	USDA's November 2019 Farm Income Forecast

In the third of three official U.S. farm income outlook releases scheduled for 2019 (see shaded box below), ERS projects that U.S. net farm income will rise 10.2% in 2019 to $92.5 billion, up $8.5 billion from last year. Net cash income (calculated on a cash-flow basis) is also projected higher in 2019 (+15.0%) at $119.0 billion. The November forecast of $92.5 billion is 6.3% above the 10-year average of $87.0 billion but is well below 2013's record high of $123.7 billion.
The November 2019 net farm income forecast represents an increase from both USDA's preliminary March 2019 forecast of $69.4 billion, and the August 2019 forecast of $88.0 billion ( Table A-1 ). The initial March forecast did not anticipate the second round of MFP payments (valued at up to $14.5 billion). The increase in government support in 2019, projected at $22.4 billion and up 64.0% from 2018, is the principal driver behind the rise in net farm incomeâboth year-to-year and from the previous two forecasts. Support from traditional farm programs is expected to be bolstered by large direct government payments in response to trade retaliation under the trade war with China. Direct government payments of $22.4 billion in 2019, if realized, would represent 24.2% of net farm incomeâthe largest share since a 27.6% share in 2006.

		Highlights

For historical perspective, both net cash income and net farm income achieved record highs in 2013 but fell to recent lows in 2016 ( Figure 1 ) before trending higher in each of the past three years (2017, 2018, and 2019). When adjusted for inflation and represented in 2019 dollars ( Figure 2 ), the net farm income for 2019 is projected to be on par with the average of $86.8 billion for net farm income since 1940. Global demand for U.S. agricultural exports ( Figure 18 ) is projected at $134.5 billion in 2019, down from 2018 (-6.2%), due largely to a decline in sales to China. Farm asset values and debt levels are projected to reach record levels in 2019âasset values at $3.1 trillion (+2.1%) and farm debt at $415.5 billion (+3.4%)âpushing the projected debt-to-asset ratio up to 13.5%, the highest level since 2003 ( Figure 23 ). For 2019, USDA forecasts that prices for most major commoditiesâbarley, soybeans, sorghum, oats, rice, hogs, and milkâwill be up slightly from 2018, while cotton, wheat, choice steers, broilers, and eggs are expected to be lower ( Table A-4 ). However, these projections are subject to substantial uncertainty associated with international commodity markets.

		Three Major Factors Dominate the 2019 Farm Income Outlook

Abundant domestic and international supplies of grains and oilseeds contributed to a fifth straight year of relatively weak commodity prices in 2019 ( Figure A-1 through Figure A-4 , and Table A-4 ). Furthermore, prospects for market conditions heading into 2020 remain uncertain. Three major factors have dominated U.S. agricultural markets during 2019, and have contributed to uncertainty over both supply and demand prospects, as well as market prices, heading into 2020.
First, large domestic supplies of corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton were carried over into 2019 ( Figure 3 ). Large corn and soybean stocks have kept pressure on commodity prices throughout the grain and feed complex in 2019.
Second, adverse weather conditions during the spring planting and fall harvesting periods have contributed to market uncertainty regarding the size of the 2019 corn and soybean crops.
Third, the U.S.-China trade dispute has led to declines in U.S. exports to Chinaâa major market for U.S. agricultural productsâand added to market uncertainty. In particular, the United States lost its dominant role in the world's preeminent market for soybeansâChina. It is unclear how soon, if at all, the United States may resolve its trade dispute with China or how international demand may evolve heading into 2020.

			Large Corn and Soybean Stocks Continue to Dominate Commodity Markets

Corn and soybeans are the two largest U.S. commercial crops in terms of both value and acreage. For the past several years, U.S. corn and soybean crops have experienced strong growth in both productivity and output, thus helping to build stockpiles at the end of the marketing year.
In 2018, U.S. farmers produced a record U.S. soybean harvest of 4.5 billion bushels and record ending stocks (913 million bushels or a 23.0% stocks-to-use ratio) that year ( Figure 3 ). The record soybean harvest in 2018, combined with the sudden loss of the Chinese soybean market (as discussed in the " Agricultural Trade Outlook " section of this report), kept downward pressure on U.S. soybean prices. A smaller crop and lower stocks are projected for 2019; however, the reduction in volume of U.S. soybean exports to China has prevented a major price recovery.
Similarly, several consecutive years of bumper U.S. corn crops have built domestic corn supplies. U.S. corn ending stocks in 2019 are projected to approach or surpass 2 billion bushels for the fourth consecutive year. U.S. wheat and cotton supplies are also projected to remain high relative to use, thus keeping downward pressure on farm prices.

			Poor Weather for Planting, Harvesting U.S. Corn and Soybean Crops

U.S. agricultural production activity got off to a late start in 2019 due to prolonged cool, wet conditions throughout the major growing regions, particularly in states across the eastern Corn Belt and the Dakotas. This resulted in record large "prevented plant" acres (reported at 19.6 million acres by the Farm Service Agency) and delays in the planting of the corn and soybean crops, especially in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and North and South Dakota.
Traditionally, 96% of the U.S. corn crop is planted by June 2, but in 2019 67% of the crop had been planted by that date. Similarly, the U.S. soybean crop was planted with substantial delays. By June 16, 77% of the U.S. soybean crop was planted, whereas an average of 93% of the crop has been planted by that date during the past five years. These planting delays have significant implications for crop development because they push both crops' growing cycle into hotter, drier periods of the summer than usual and increase the risk of plant growth being shut off by an early freeze, thus preventing the plants from achieving their maximum yield potential.
Then, in the fall, early bouts of cold, wet conditions delayed corn and soybean harvests in the Western Corn Belt and produced high-moisture crops, requiring costly drying prior to storage. Many farmers left crops in the field unharvested due to wet fields or the lack of access to sufficient propane to dry wet crops. As of December 2, 2019, nearly 11% of the corn crop remained unharvested.

			Diminished Trade Prospects Contribute to Market Uncertainty

The United States is traditionally one of the world's leading exporters of corn, soybeans, and soybean productsâvegetable oil and meal. During the recent five-year period from marketing year 2013/2014 to 2017/2018, the United States exported 49% of its soybean production and 15% of its corn crop. Thus, the export outlook for both of these crops is critical to farm sector profitability and regional economic activity across large swaths of the United States as well as in international markets. However, the tariff-related trade dispute between the United States and China (as well as several other major trading partners) has resulted in lower purchases of U.S. agricultural products by China in calendar years 2018 and 2019, and has cast uncertainty over the outlook for the U.S. agricultural sector, including the corn and soybean markets.

		Livestock Outlook for 2019 and 2020

Because the livestock sectors (particularly dairy and cattle, but hogs and poultry to a lesser degree) have longer biological lags and often require large capital investments up front, they are slower to adjust to changing market conditions than is the crop sector. As a result, USDA projects livestock and dairy production and prices an extra year into the future (compared with the crop sector) through 2020, and market participants consider this expanded outlook when deciding their market interactionsâbuy, sell, invest, etc.

			Background on the U.S. Cattle-Beef Sector

During the 2007-2014 period, high feed and forage prices plus widespread drought in the Southern Plainsâthe largest U.S. cattle production regionâresulted in an 8% contraction of the U.S. cattle inventory. Reduced beef supplies led to higher producer and consumer prices and record profitability among cow-calf producers in 2014. This was coupled with then-improved forage conditions, all of which helped to trigger the slow rebuilding phase in the cattle cycle that started in 2014 ( Figure 4 ).
The expansion continued through 2018, despite weakening profitability, primarily due to the lag in the biological response to the strong market price signals of late 2014. The cattle expansion appears to have levelled off in 2019, with the estimated cattle and calf population unchanged from a year earlier at 103 million. Another factor working against continued expansion in cattle numbers is that producers are now producing more beef with fewer cattle as a result of heavier weights for marketed cattle.

			Robust Production Growth Projected Across the Livestock Sector

Similar to the cattle sector, U.S. hog and poultry flocks have been growing in recent years and are expected to continue to expand in 2019. For 2019, USDA projects production of beef (+0.6%), pork (+5.0%), broilers (+2.7%), and eggs (+2.5%) to expand robustly heading into 2020. This growth in protein production is expected to be followed by continued positive growth rates in 2020: beef (+1.9%), pork (+3.8%), broilers (+1.8%), and eggs (+0.8%). A key uncertainty for the meat-producing sector is whether demand will expand rapidly enough to absorb the continued growth in output or whether surplus production will begin to pressure prices lower. USDA projects that combined domestic and export demand for 2019 will continue to grow for red meat (+6.2%)âdriven primarily by demand for pork productsâbut flatten for poultry (+0.0%).

			Livestock-Price-to-Feed-Cost Ratios Signal Profitability Outlook

The changing conditions for the U.S. livestock sector may be tracked by the evolution of the ratios of livestock output prices to feed costs ( Figure 5 ). A higher ratio suggests greater profitability for producers. The cattle-, hog-, and broiler-to-feed margins have all exhibited significant volatility during the 2017-2019 period. The hog, broiler, and cattle feed ratios have trended downward during 2018 and 2019, suggesting eroding profitability. The milk-to-feed price ratio has trended upward from mid-2018 into 2019. While this result varies widely across the United States, many small or marginally profitable cattle, hog, broiler, and milk producers face continued financial difficulties.
Continued production growth of between 1% and 4% for red meat and poultry suggests that prices are vulnerable to weakness in demand. However, USDA projects that the price outlook for cattle, hogs, and poultry is expected to turn upward in 2020 ( Table A-4 ). Similarly, U.S. milk production is projected to continue growing in 2019 (+0.5%) and 2020 (+1.7%). Despite this growth, USDA projects U.S. milk prices up in both 2019 (+14.4%) and 2020 (1.3%).

		Gross Cash Income Highlights

Projected farm-sector revenue sources in 2019 include crop revenues (46% of sector revenues), livestock receipts (41%), government payments (5%), and other farm-related income (8%), including crop insurance indemnities, machine hire, and custom work. Total farm sector gross cash income for 2019 is projected to be up (+3.9%) to $431.0 billion, driven by increases in both direct government payments (+64.0%) and other farm-related income (+18.1%). Cash receipts from crop receipts (+1.0%) and livestock product (+0.1%) are up (+0.6%) in the aggregate ( Figure 6 ).

			Crop Receipts

Total crop sales peaked in 2012 at $231.6 billion when a nationwide drought pushed commodity prices to record or near-record levels. In 2019, crop sales are projected at $197.4 billion, up 1.0% from 2018 ( Figure 7 ). Projections for 2019 and percentage changes from 2018 include
Feed cropsâcorn, barley, oats, sorghum, and hay: $59.6 billion (+4.5%); Oil cropsâsoybeans, peanuts, and other oilseeds: $37.6 billion (-5.2%); Fruits and nuts: $29.4 billion (+1.3%); Vegetables and melons: $20.4 billion (+10.0%); Food grainsâwheat and rice: $11.3 billion (-7.2%); Cotton: $7.4 billion (-8.5%); and Other crops including tobacco, sugar, greenhouse, and nursery: $31.3 billion (+3.4%).

			Livestock Receipts

The livestock sector includes cattle, hogs, sheep, poultry and eggs, dairy, and other minor activities. Cash receipts for the livestock sector grew steadily from 2009 to 2014, when it peaked at a record $212.3 billion. However, the sector turned downward in 2015 (-10.7%) and again in 2016 (-14.1%), driven largely by projected year-over-year price declines across major livestock categories ( Table A-4 and Figure 9 ).
In 2017, livestock sector cash receipts recovered with year-to-year growth of 8.1% to $175.6 billion. In 2018, cash receipts increased slightly (+0.6%). In 2019, cash receipts are projected up slightly (+0.1%) for the sector at $176.8 billion as increased hog and dairy sales offset declines in poultry and cattle. Projections for 2019 (and percentage changes from 2018) include
Cattle and calf sales: $66.5 billion (-0.9%); Poultry and egg sales: $40.0 billion (-13.6%); Dairy sales: valued at $39.9 billion (+13.2%); Hog sales: $23.5 billion (+11.2%); and Miscellaneous livestock: valued at $7.0 billion (+2.1%).

			Government Payments

Historically, government payments have included
Direct payments (decoupled payments based on historical planted acres), Price-contingent payments (program outlays linked to market conditions), Conservation payments (including the Conservation Reserve Program and other environmental-based outlays), Ad hoc and emergency disaster assistance payments (including emergency supplemental crop and livestock disaster payments and market loss assistance payments for relief of low commodity prices), and Other miscellaneous outlays (including market facilitation payments, cotton ginning cost-share, biomass crop assistance program, peanut quota buyout, milk income loss, tobacco transition, and other miscellaneous payments).
Projected government payments of $22.4 billion in 2019 would be up 64.0% from 2018 and would be the largest taxpayer transfer to the agriculture sector (in absolute dollars) since 2005 ( Figure 11 and Table A-1 ). The projected surge in federal subsidies is driven by large "trade-damage" payments made under the MFP initiated by USDA in response to the U.S.-China trade dispute. MFP payments (reported to be $14.3 billion) in 2019 include outlays from the 2018 MFP program that were not received by producers until 2019, as well as expected payments under the first and second tranches of the 2019 MFP program.
USDA ad hoc disaster assistance is projected higher year-over-year at $1.7 billion (+90.7%). Most of the $1.7 billion comes from a new, temporary program, the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) enacted through the Disaster Relief Act of 2019 ( P.L. 116-20 ). Payments under the Agricultural Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage programs are projected lower (-19.0%) in 2019 at a combined $2.6 billion compared with an estimated $3.2 billion in 2018 (see "Price Contingent" in Figure 11 ).
Conservation programs include all conservation programs operated by USDA's Farm Service Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service that provide direct payments to producers. Estimated conservation payments of $3.5 billion are forecast for 2019, down (-11.3%) from $4.0 billion in 2018.
Total government payments of $22.4 billion represents a 5% share of projected gross cash income of $425.3 billion in 2019 ( Figure 6 ). In contrast, government payments are expected to represent 24% of the projected net farm income of $92.5 billion. If realized, this would be the largest share since 2006 ( Figure 12 ). The government share of net farm income reached a peak of 65.2% in 1984 during the height of the farm crisis of the 1980s. The importance of government payments as a percentage of net farm income varies nationally by crop and livestock sector and by region.

			Dairy Margin Coverage Program Outlook

The 2018 farm bill ( P.L. 115-334 ) made several changes to the previous Margin Protection Program (MPP), including a new nameâthe Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) programâand expanded margin coverage choices from the original range of $4.00-$8.00 per hundredweight (cwt.). Under the 2018 farm bill, milk producers have the option of covering the milk-to-feed margin up to a threshold of $9.50/cwt. on the first 5 million pounds of milk coverage.
The DMC margin differs from the USDA-reported milk-to-feed ratio (shown in Figure 5 ), but reflects the same market forces. As of October 2019, the formula-based milk-to-feed margin used to determine government payments had risen to $10.88/cwt., above the newly instituted $9.50/cwt. payment threshold ( Figure 13 ), thus decreasing the likelihood that DMC payments might be available in the second half of 2019. In total, the DMC program is expected to make $214 million in payments in 2019, down from $250 million under the previous MPP in 2018.

		Production Expenses

Total production expenses for 2019 for the U.S. agricultural sector are projected to be up slightly (+0.2%) from 2018 in nominal dollars at $344.6 billion ( Figure 14 ). Production expenses peaked in both nominal and inflation-adjusted dollars in 2014, then declined for five consecutive years in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, in nominal dollars production expenses are projected to turn upward in 2019.
Production expenses affect crop and livestock farms differently. The principal expenses for livestock farms are feed costs, purchases of feeder animals and poultry, and hired labor. Feed costs, labor expenses, and property taxes are all projected up in 2019 ( Figure 15 ). In contrast, fuel, seed, pesticides, interest, and fertilizer costsâall major crop production expensesâare projected lower.
But how have production expenses moved relative to revenues? A comparison of the indexes of prices paid (an indicator of expenses) versus prices received (an indicator of revenues) reveals that the prices received index generally declined from 2014 through 2016, rebounded in 2017, then declined again in 2019 ( Figure 16 ). Farm input prices (as reflected by the prices paid index) showed a similar pattern but with a smaller decline from their 2014 peak and have climbed steadily since mid-2016, suggesting that farm sector profit margins have been squeezed since 2016.

			Cash Rental Rates

Renting or leasing land is a way for young or beginning farmers to enter agriculture without incurring debt associated with land purchases. It is also a means for existing farm operations to adjust production more quickly in response to changing market and production conditions while avoiding risks associated with land ownership. The share of rented farmland varies widely by region and production activity. However, for some farms it constitutes an important component of farm operating expenses. Since 2002, about 39% of agricultural land used in U.S. farming operations has been rented.
The majority of rented land in farms is rented from nonoperating landlords. Nationally in 2017, 29% of all land in farms was rented from someone other than a farm operator. Some farmland is rented from other farm operationsânationally about 8% of all land in farms in 2017 (the most recent year for which data are available)âand thus constitutes a source of income for some operator landlords. Total net rent to nonoperator landlords is projected to be down (-1.2%) to $12.7 billion in 2019.
Average cash rental rates for 2019 were up (+1.4%) year-over-year ($140 per acre versus $138 in 2018). Farm rental rates are generally set during the preceding fall or in early spring prior to field work. National average rental rates dipped in 2016, but continue to reflect the high crop prices and large net returns of the preceding several years, especially the 2011-2014 period ( Figure 17 ). The national rental rate for cropland peaked at $144 per acre in 2015.

	Agricultural Trade Outlook

U.S. agricultural exports have been a major contributor to farm income, especially since 2005. As a result, the financial success of the U.S. agricultural sector is strongly linked to international demand for U.S. products. Because of this strong linkage, the downturn in U.S. agricultural exports that started in 2015 ( Figure 18 ) deepened the downturn in farm income that ran from 2013 through 2016 ( Figure 1 ). Since 2018, the U.S. agricultural sector's trade outlook has been vulnerable to several international trade disputes, particularly the ongoing dispute between the United States and China. A return to market-based farm income growth for the U.S. agricultural sector would likely need improved international trade prospects.

		Key U.S. Agricultural Trade Highlights

USDA projects U.S. agricultural exports at $135.5 billion in FY2019, down (-5.5%) from $143.4 billion in FY2018. Export data include processed and unprocessed agricultural products. This aggregate downturn masks larger country-level changes that have occurred as a result of ongoing trade disputes (discussed below). In FY2019, U.S. agricultural imports are projected up at $113.0 billion (+2.7%), and the resultant agricultural trade surplus of $7.0 billion would be the lowest since 2006.
A substantial portion of the surge in U.S. agricultural exports that occurred between 2010 and 2014 was due to higher-priced grain and feed shipments, including record oilseed exports to China and growing animal product exports to East Asia. As commodity prices have leveled off, so too have export values (see the commodity price indexes in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 ). In FY2017, the top three markets for U.S. agricultural exports were China, Canada, and Mexico, in that order. Together, these three countries accounted for 47% of total U.S. agricultural exports during the five-year period FY2013-FY2017 ( Figure 19 ). However, in FY2019 the combined share of U.S. exports taken by China, Canada, and Mexico is projected down to 40% largely due to lower exports to China. The ordering of the top markets in 2019 is projected to be Canada, Mexico, the European Union (EU), Japan, and China, as China is projected to decline as a destination for U.S. agricultural exports. From FY2013 through FY2017, China imported an average of $26.4 billion of U.S. agricultural products. However, USDA reported that China's imports of U.S. agricultural products declined to $20.5 billion in FY2018, and are projected to decline further to $13.6 billion in FY2019 as a result of the U.S.-China trade dispute. The fourth- and fifth-largest U.S. export markets have traditionally been the EU and Japan, which accounted for a combined 17% of U.S. agricultural exports during the FY2014 to FY2018 period. These two markets have shown limited growth in recent years when compared with the rest of the world. However, their combined share is projected to grow slightly to 18% in FY2019 ( Figure 19 ). The "Rest of World" (ROW) component of U.S. agricultural tradeâSouth and Central America, the Middle East, Africa, and Southeast Asiaâhas shown strong import growth in recent years. ROW is expected to account for 42% of U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019. ROW import growth is being driven in part by both population and GDP growth but also from shifting trade patterns as some U.S. products previously targeting China have been diverted to new ROW markets. Over the past four decades, U.S. agricultural exports have experienced fairly steady growth in shipments of high-value productsâincluding horticultural products, livestock, poultry, and dairy. High-valued exports are forecast at $100.1 billion for a 73.8% share of U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019 ( Figure 20 ). In contrast, bulk commodity shipments (primarily wheat, rice, feed grains, soybeans, cotton, and unmanufactured tobacco) are forecast at a record low 26.2% share of total U.S. agricultural exports in FY2019 at $35.5 billion. This compares with an average share of over 60% during the 1970s and into the 1980s. As grain and oilseed prices decline, so will the bulk value share of U.S. exports.

	Farm Asset Values and Debt

The U.S. farm income and asset-value situation and outlook suggest a slowly eroding financial situation heading into 2019 for the agriculture sector as a whole. Considerable uncertainty clouds the economic outlook for the sector, reflecting the downward outlook for prices and market conditions, an increasing dependency on international markets to absorb domestic surpluses, and an increasing dependency on federal support to offset lost trade opportunities due to ongoing trade disputes.
Farm asset valuesâwhich reflect farm investors' and lenders' expectations about long-term profitability of farm sector investmentsâare projected to be up 2.3% in 2019 to a nominal $3.1 trillion ( Table A-3 ). In inflation-adjusted terms (using 2018 dollars), farm asset values peaked in 2014 ( Figure 21 ). Nominally higher farm asset values are expected in 2019 due to increases in both real estate values (+2.1%) and nonreal-estate values (+3.4%). Real estate is projected to account for 83% of total farm sector asset value. Crop land values are closely linked to commodity prices. The leveling off of crop land values since 2015 reflects stagnant commodity prices ( Figure 22 ).
 Total farm debt is forecast to rise to a record $415.5 billion in 2019 (+3.4%) ( Table A-3 ). Farm equityâor net worth, defined as asset value minus debtâis projected to be up slightly (+2.2%) at $2.7 trillion in 2019 ( Table A-3 ). The farm debt-to-asset ratio is forecast up in 2019 at 13.4%, the highest level since 2003 but still relatively low by historical standards ( Figure 23 ). If realized, this would be the seventh consecutive year of increase in the debt-to-asset ratio.

	Average Farm Household Income

A farm can have both an on-farm and an off-farm component to its income statement and balance sheet of assets and debt. Thus, the well-being of farm operator households is not equivalent to the financial performance of the farm sector or of farm businesses because of the inclusion of nonfarm investments, jobs, and other links to the nonfarm economy.
Average farm household income (sum of on- and off-farm income) is projected at $120,082 in 2019 ( Table A-2 ), up 7.0% from 2018 but 10.5% below the record of $134,165 in 2014. About 20% ($24,106) of total farm household income in 2019 is projected to be from farm production activities, and the remaining 80% ($95,976) is earned off the farm (including financial investments). The share of farm income derived from off-farm sources had increased steadily for decades but peaked at about 95% in 2000 ( Figure 24 ). Since 2014, over half of U.S. farm operations have had negative income from their agricultural operations.

		Total vs. Farm Household Average Income

Since the late 1990s, farm household incomes have surged ahead of average U.S. household incomes ( Figure 25 ). In 2018 (the last year for which comparable data were available), the average farm household income of $112,211 was about 25% higher than the average U.S. household income of $90,021 ( Table A-2 ).

			Appendix. Supporting Charts and Tables

 Figure A-1 to Figure A-4 present USDA data on monthly farm prices received for several major farm commoditiesâcorn, soybeans, wheat, upland cotton, rice, milk, cattle, hogs, and chickens. The data are presented in an indexed format where monthly price data for year 2010 = 100 to facilitate comparisons.
USDA Farm Income Data Tables
 Table A-1 to Table A-3 present aggregate farm income variables that summarize the financial situation of U.S. agriculture. In addition, Table A-4 presents the annual average farm price received for several major commodities, including the USDA forecast for the 2019-2020 marketing year.


Input:
T he Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-6 ) was enacted on February 15, 2019.This omnibus bill included appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), of which USDA's domestic food assistance is a part. Prior to its enactment, the government had continued to operate for the first six months of the fiscal year under continuing resolutions (CRs). USDA experienced a 35-day lapse in FY2019 funding and partial government shutdown prior to the enactment of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P.L. 116-5 ), a continuing resolution enacted prior to the Omnibus bill. (See the Appendix .)
This report focuses on USDA's domestic food assistance programs; their funding; and, in some instances, policy changes provided by the enacted FY2018 appropriations law. USDA's domestic food assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the child nutrition programs (such as the National School Lunch Program). The domestic food assistance funding is, for the most part, administered by USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). CRS Report R45230, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2019 Appropriations provides an overview of the entire FY2019 Agriculture and Related Agencies appropriations law as well as a review of the reported bills and CRs preceding its enactment.
With its focus on appropriations, this report discusses programs' eligibility requirements and operations minimally. See CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food Assistance: Summary of Programs for more background.

	Overview of FY2019 USDA-FNS Funding

Domestic food assistance—SNAP and child nutrition programs in the mandatory spending accounts, and WIC and other programs in the discretionary spending accounts—represents over two-thirds of the FY2018 Agriculture appropriations act ( Figure 1 ).
The federal budget process treats discretionary and mandatory spending differently.
Discretionary spending is controlled by annual appropriations acts and receives most of the attention during the appropriations process. The annual budget resolution process sets spending limits for discretionary appropriations. Agency operations (salaries and expenses) and many grant programs are discretionary. Mandatory spending —though carried in the appropriation—is controlled by budget rules during the authorization process. Appropriations acts then provide funding to match the parameters required by the mandatory programs' authorizing laws. For the domestic food assistance programs, these laws are typically reauthorized in farm bill and child nutrition reauthorizations.
Domestic food assistance funding ( Table 1 ) largely consists of open-ended, appropriated mandatory programs—that is, it varies with program participation (and in some cases inflation) under the terms of the underlying authorization law. The largest mandatory programs include SNAP and the child nutrition programs (including the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program). Though their funding levels are dictated by the authorizing law, in most cases appropriations are needed to make funds available.
The three largest discretionary budget items are WIC, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), and federal nutrition program administration.
The enacted FY2019 appropriation would provide over $103 billion for domestic food assistance ( Table 1 ). This is a decrease of approximately $1.7 billion from FY2018. Declining participation in SNAP is responsible for most of the difference. Over 95% of the FY2019 appropriations are for mandatory spending.
 Table 1 summarizes funding for the domestic food assistance programs, comparing FY2019 levels to those of prior years. In addition to the accounts' appropriations language, the enacted appropriation's general provisions include additional funding, rescissions, and/or policy changes. These are summarized in this report.

		President's FY2019 Budget Request

 Table 1 compares the enacted funding to the House- and Senate-reported bills, prior years' enacted funding, and the President's FY2019 budget request. The President's budget request includes the Administration's forecast for programs with open-ended funding such as SNAP and the child nutrition programs; this assists the appropriations committees in providing funding levels expected to meet obligations. The budget also includes the Administration's requests for discretionary programs. Additionally, it is a place for the Administration to include legislative requests. The FY2019 request did include SNAP legislative proposals.
Most significantly for the FNS programs, the President's FY2019 budget request did the following:
It included 14 legislative proposals pertaining to SNAP. The majority of these would have restricted SNAP eligibility and made changes to the benefit calculation. This request also proposed to replace a portion of the SNAP benefit with a box of USDA-purchased foods and to limit federal funding for states' administrative costs, nutrition education, and performance bonuses. Together, these proposals were estimated by both the Administration and Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to reduce program spending in FY2019 and over the 10-year budget window. None of these policies were enacted as part of the FY2019 appropriation. Some of these policies were debated in the formulation of the 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, P.L. 115-334 ), but ultimately only the elimination of performance bonus funding was enacted in the December 2018 law. It requested no funding for a number of discretionary spending programs, including the following: school meals equipment grants, which have received discretionary funding since FY2009; the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1992; and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which has received annual discretionary funding since 1969.

	Domestic Food Assistance Appropriations Accounts and Related General Provisions

		Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services

For the Under Secretary's office, the enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $0.8 million. This office received approximately equal funding in FY2018.
The enacted appropriation (§734) continues to require the coordination of FNS research efforts with USDA's Research, Education and Economics mission area. This is to include a research and evaluation plan submitted to Congress.

		SNAP and Other Programs under the Food and Nutrition Act

Appropriations under the Food and Nutrition Act (formerly the Food Stamp Act) support (1) SNAP (and related grants); (2) a nutrition assistance block grant for Puerto Rico and nutrition assistance block grants to American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (all in lieu of SNAP); (3) the cost of food commodities as well as administrative and distribution expenses under the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR); (4) the cost of commodities for TEFAP, but not administrative/distribution expenses, which are covered under the Commodity Assistance Program budget account; and (5) Community Food Projects.
The enacted appropriation provides approximately $73.5 billion for programs under the Food and Nutrition Act. This FY2019 level is approximately $540 million less than FY2018 appropriations. This difference is largely due to a forecasted reduction in SNAP participation. The enacted appropriation provides $3 billion for the SNAP contingency reserve fund.
The SNAP account also includes mandatory funding for TEFAP commodities. The enacted appropriation provides nearly $295 million, according to the terms of the Food and Nutrition Act. This is an increase ($5.0 million, 1.7%) over $289.5 million provided in FY2018. (TEFAP also receives discretionary funding for storage and distribution costs, as discussed later in " Commodity Assistance Program .")

			SNAP Account: Other General Provisions and Committee Report Language

SNAP-Authorized Retailers. The FY2017 and FY2018 appropriations law limited USDA's implementation of December 2016 regulations regarding SNAP retailers' inventory requirements, and the enacted FY2019 appropriation (§727) continues those limits.
Only SNAP-authorized retailers may accept SNAP benefits. On December 15, 2016, FNS published a final rule to change retailer requirements for SNAP authorization. The final rule would have implemented the 2014 farm bill's changes to inventory requirements for SNAP-authorized retailers ( P.L. 113-79 , §4002). Namely, the 2014 farm bill increased both the varieties of "staple foods" and the perishable items within those varieties that SNAP retailers must stock. In addition to codifying the farm bill's changes, the final rule would have changed how staple foods are defined, clarified limitations on retailers' sale of hot foods, and increased the minimum number of stocking units.
Section 727 in the enacted appropriation continues to require that USDA amend its final rule to define "variety" more expansively and that USDA "apply the requirements regarding acceptable varieties and breadth of stock" that were in place prior to P.L. 113-79 until such regulatory amendments are made. In the meantime, USDA-FNS implemented other aspects of the 2016 final rule, such as increased stocking units. On April 5, 2019, USDA did publish a proposed rule, proposing amendments to the definition of "variety".

		Child Nutrition Programs16

Appropriations under the child nutrition account fund a number of programs and activities authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act and the Child Nutrition Act. These include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), Special Milk Program (SMP), assistance for state administrative expenses, procurement of commodities (in addition to transfers from separate budget accounts within USDA), state-federal reviews of the integrity of school meal operations ("Administrative Reviews"), "Team Nutrition" and education initiatives to improve meal quality and food safety, and support activities such as technical assistance to providers and studies/evaluations. (Child nutrition efforts are also supported by permanent mandatory appropriations and other funding sources discussed in the section " Other Nutrition Funding Support .")
The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides approximately $23.1 billion for child nutrition programs. This is approximately $1.1 billion less (-4.6%) than the amount provided in FY2018, and reflects a transfer of more than $9.1 billion from the Section 32 account.
The enacted appropriation funds certain child nutrition discretionary grants. These include the following:
School Meals Equipment Grants. The law provides $30 million, the same amount as FY2018. Summer EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer) Demonstration Projects. These projects provide electronic food benefits over summer months to households with children in order to make up for school meals that children miss when school is out of session and as an alternative to Summer Food Service Program meals. The projects were originally authorized and funded in the FY2010 appropriations law ( P.L. 111-80 ). The enacted appropriation provides $28 million, the same amount as FY2018.
The child nutrition programs and WIC were up for reauthorization in 2016, but it was not completed. Many provisions of the operating law nominally expired at the end of FY2015, but nearly all operations continued via funding provided in appropriations laws since that time, including the enacted FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also continued to extend, through September 30, 2019, two expiring provisions: mandatory funding for an Information Clearinghouse and food safety audits. (See the Appendix for information about the child nutrition programs during the partial government shutdown.)

			Child Nutrition Programs: General Provisions

One general provision in the enacted FY2019 appropriation included additional funding for child nutrition programs:
Farm to School Grants. Section 754 of the enacted appropriation provides $5 million for competitive grants to assist schools and nonprofit entities in establishing farm-to-school programs. The same amount was provided in FY2018. This is in addition to $5 million in permanent mandatory funding (provided annually by Section 18 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act), for a total of $10 million available in FY2019.
FY2019 general provisions also included policy provisions :
Processed Poultry from China. The enacted appropriation includes a policy provision (§749) to prevent any processed poultry imported from China from being included in the National School Lunch Program, School Breakfast Program, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. This policy has been included in enacted appropriations laws since FY2015. Paid Lunch Pricing . For school year 2019-2020, Section 760 of the enacted appropriation changes federal policy on the pricing of paid (full-price) meals. Included in the 2010 child nutrition reauthorization, and first implemented in the 2011-2012 school year, this policy required schools annually to review their revenue from paid lunches and to determine, using a calculation specified in law and regulation, whether paid prices had to be increased. The purpose of the calculation was to ensure that federal funding intended for F/RP meals was not instead subsidizing full-price meals. For school year 2019-2020, the enacted appropriation requires a smaller subset of schools—only those with a negative balance in their nonprofit school food service account as of December 31, 2018—to be subject to this calculation and potentially to be required to raise prices. The same provision was included in the FY2018 enacted appropriation for school year 2018-2019. Vegetables in School Breakfasts. Section 768 of the enacted appropriation increases the frequency with which starchy vegetables can be substituted for fruits in the School Breakfast Program. Under current regulations, schools are allowed to substitute vegetables for the required servings of fruits (at least one cup daily, and at least five cups weekly) in school breakfasts. The regulations also specify that, "the first two cups per week of any such substitution must be from the dark green, red/orange, beans and peas (legumes) or 'Other vegetables' subgroups." This excludes the starchy vegetable subgroup, which includes corn, plantains, and white potatoes. The enacted appropriation specifies that FY2019 funds cannot be used to enforce this requirement, thereby allowing schools to substitute any type of vegetables for any or all of the required daily and weekly servings of fruits. Child Nutrition Program Commodities. Section 775 of the enacted appropriation changes the calculation of commodity assistance in child nutrition programs. Under current law, commodity assistance in child nutrition programs must comprise at least 12% of total funding provided under Sections 4 and 11 (reimbursements for school lunches) and Section 6 (commodity assistance) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. Section 775 eliminates the inclusion of bonus commodities in this calculation as of September 30, 2018, thereby ensuring that only appropriated funds inform the required level of commodity assistance.

		WIC Program24

Although WIC is a discretionary funded program, since the late 1990s the practice of the appropriations committees has been to provide enough funds for WIC to serve all projected participants.
The enacted FY2019 appropriation provides $6.075 billion for WIC; however, the law also rescinds available carryover funds from past years. This funding level is $175 million less than the FY2018 appropriation. The enacted appropriation also includes set-asides for WIC breastfeeding peer counselors and related activities ("not less than $60 million") and infrastructure ($19.0 million). The peer counselor set-aside is equal to FY2018 levels. The infrastructure set-aside is an increase of $5 million from FY2018, and further sets aside $5 million for telehealth competitive grants to increase WIC access as specified in the law.
The enacted law (§723) rescinds $500 million in prior-year (or carryover) WIC funds. The House-reported and Senate-passed bills also would have rescinded carryover funds: H.R. 5961 (§723) would have rescinded $300 million; H.R. 6147 (§724) would have rescinded $400 million.

		Commodity Assistance Program

The Commodity Assistance Program budget account supports several discretionary programs and activities: (1) Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), (2) funding for TEFAP administrative and distribution costs, (3) the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP), and (4) special Pacific Island assistance for nuclear-test-affected zones in the Pacific (the Marshall Islands) and areas affected by natural disasters.
The enacted appropriation provides over $322 million for this account, no change from FY2018. Within the account,
CSFP receives just below $223 million (a decrease of approximately $15 million or 6.8%); TEFAP Administrative Costs receives nearly $110 million—this includes $79.6 million in FY2019 funding (+$15.2 million compared to FY2018) as well as a transfer of $30.0 million in prior-year (carryover) CSFP funds; in addition to this discretionary TEFAP funding, the law allows the conversion of up to 15% of TEFAP entitlement commodity funding (included in the SNAP account discussed above) to administrative and distribution costs; and WIC FMNP receives $18.5 million, the same level as FY2018.

		Nutrition Programs Administration

This budget account funds federal administration of all the USDA domestic food assistance program areas noted previously; special projects for improving the integrity and quality of these programs; and the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, which provides nutrition education and information to consumers (including various dietary guides).
The enacted appropriation provides nearly $165 million for this account, an increase of approximately $11 million from FY2018. As in FY2018 and prior years, the law sets aside $2 million for the fellowship programs administered by the Congressional Hunger Center.

	Other Nutrition Funding Support

Domestic food assistance programs also receive funds from sources other than appropriations:
In addition to appropriated funds from the child nutrition account for commodity foods (which provides over $1.4 billion), USDA purchases commodity foods for the child nutrition programs using "Section 32" funds—a permanent appropriation. For FY2019, the enacted appropriation specifies that up to $485 million from Section 32 is to be available for child nutrition entitlement commodities, compared to $465 million in FY2018. The Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program (FFVP) for selected elementary schools nationwide is financed with permanent, mandatory funding from Section 32. The underlying law (Section 19 of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act) provides funds at the beginning of every school year (July). For FY2019, there is $171.5 million available for FFVP, which is consistent with the FY2018 base amount adjusted for inflation. The Food Service Management Institute (technical assistance to child nutrition providers, also known as the Institute of Child Nutrition) is funded through a permanent annual appropriation of $5 million. The Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition program receives nearly $21 million of mandatory funding per year (FY2002-FY2023) outside of the regular appropriations process.

		Appendix. USDA-FNS Programs during the FY2019 Partial Government Shutdown

USDA was one of the departments affected by a lapse in FY2019 funding and the resulting 35-day partial government shutdown (during parts of December 2018 and January 2019).
Most of USDA's Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs, whether mandatory or discretionary, rely on funding provided in appropriations acts. As a result, the lapse in FY2019 appropriations required the execution of contingency plans, including staff furloughs, and at times the operating status of programs was in flux.
FNS program operations during a government shutdown vary based on the different programs' available resources, determined by factors such as contingency or carryover funds and terms of the expired appropriations acts as well as USDA's decisionmaking. Beginning in late December 2018, FNS released program-specific memoranda to states and program operators describing the status of different nutrition assistance programs during the funding lapse.
In addition to the impact on programs' funding discussed below, furloughs of FNS staff during this time period may have affected program operations (for example, the availability of technical assistance) on a case-by-case basis.
This appendix summarizes some of the key issues and impacts on the SNAP, Child Nutrition, and WIC programs during this partial government shutdown. Further detail can be found in the FNS documents referenced above. It is important to note that because circumstances during a lapse in appropriations and executive-branch decisionmaking can vary, operations during this partial shutdown are not necessarily how a future shutdown would proceed.
SNAP Benefits
States issue SNAP benefits on a monthly basis. As in the FY2019 appropriations law, the FY2018 appropriations law ( P.L. 115-141 ) provided one year of SNAP funding as well as a contingency fund of $3 billion that can be spent in FY2018 or FY2019. The $3 billion is less than the cost of one month of SNAP benefits, so the contingency fund alone would not fund a month of SNAP benefits in the case of a lapse of funding.
At the start of the partial shutdown, when a continuing resolution ( P.L. 115-298 ) expired after December 21, 2018, December 2018 benefits had already been provided. In addition, during the shutdown period, a provision of the continuing resolution allowed for payments to be made 30 days after the continuing resolution's expiration; this allowed states to issue January 2019 benefits. On January 8, 2019, USDA interpreted the provision to authorize issuance of February 2019 benefits as well, so long as states conducted early issuance—before January 20, 2019.
By the end of the partial shutdown, recipients had received their December 2018, January 2019, and February 2019 benefits. However, at the beginning of the shutdown, it was not clear that benefits would be provided for these months. USDA-FNS provided a series of memoranda to states during the shutdown that included answers to frequently asked questions.
Child Nutrition and WIC
Unlike SNAP, the appropriations language for the child nutrition programs (National School Lunch Program and others) and WIC accounts provides funding that can be obligated over a two-year period. WIC also has a contingency fund. In addition, the child nutrition programs may have more flexibility to continue operating during a shutdown because federal funds are generally provided retroactively (on a reimbursement basis).
During the FY2019 lapse in funding, the Administration had carryover and contingency funds to maintain program operations. This includes FY2018 appropriations that are available for spending through FY2019 and contingency funds (in the case of WIC). Programs with this source of funding potentially available are those with two-year funding from the Child Nutrition Programs account and the WIC account. How long these operations could continue would depend on (1) the funding lapse's duration and (2) the amount of carryover or contingency funding available.
Ultimately, for child nutrition and WIC programs,
USDA continued operating the child nutrition programs "with funding provided under the terms and conditions of the prior continuing resolution [P.L. 115-245]"; USDA stated that the programs had enough funding to continue operating at least through March 2019 if the shutdown were to continue; and USDA continued WIC and WIC FMNP operations using funding that had already been allocated to states and, for WIC, prior-year carryover funding.


Input:
	Background

Selected agencies’ funding for university STEM research. The five  federal agencies included in our preliminary analysis provide billions of  dollars annually for university research in STEM fields, with NIH providing  more than the other four agencies combined. Table 1 details the total  amount of research funding provided to universities by each agency in  fiscal year 2017.
Sexual harassment. As defined in the National Academies of Sciences,  Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) 2018 report, sexual harassment  encompasses three types of behavior:
Sexual coercion: Favorable treatment conditioned on sexual activity.
Unwanted sexual attention: Verbal or physical unwelcome sexual  advances, which can include assault.
Gender harassment: Sexist hostility and crude behavior.
The most common form of sexual harassment is gender harassment,  which generally involves hostility, exclusion, or other discrimination based  on a person’s gender. The 2018 report found that sexual harassment in  academia is significantly more common among female students in  engineering and medical majors than in non-STEM fields. According to  the report, at least five factors create the conditions under which sexual  harassment is likely to occur in STEM programs and departments in  academia:
Perceived tolerance for sexual harassment
Environments where men outnumber women and leadership is male
Environments in which the power structure of an organization is  hierarchical with strong dependencies on those at higher levels or in  which people are geographically isolated  Increased focus on symbolic compliance with Title IX
Uninformed leadership on campus  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Title IX of the  Education Amendments of 1972 is the primary federal law that addresses  sex discrimination in all federally funded grant programs at educational  institutions. Under Title IX, federal agencies that award grants to  educational institutions have enforcement responsibilities to ensure such  institutions do not discriminate based on sex. Enforcement  responsibilities include issuing regulations, conducting periodic  compliance reviews of funding recipients, and investigating timely written  complaints of sex discrimination against recipients. DOJ and the Department of Education have other responsibilities for administering  Title IX. DOJ is designated by Executive Order No. 12250 to coordinate  Title IX compliance across federal agencies, including information  sharing.
Federal grant awards and grant life cycle. In general, federal agencies  administer grants through a common administrative life cycle: pre-award,  award, implementation, and closeout. During the pre-award stage, most  of the agencies we reviewed require grantees to submit an “assurance of  compliance” form as part of their grant application to attest compliance  with anti-discrimination laws, including Title IX. For the award stage, the  federal agency awarding the grant enters into an agreement with  grantees stipulating the terms and conditions for the use of grant funds.  During the implementation stage, among other things, the federal agency  manages and oversees the grant, including any Title IX compliance  reviews. A Title IX compliance review is an agency’s assessment of  whether a grantee is complying with the law. Federal agencies may  conduct these reviews onsite at an institution (grantee) or via a desk  audit. In the closeout stage, the awarding federal agency and grantee  bring the grant to its conclusion, once all the work associated with the  grant agreement is complete, the grant end date has arrived, or both.
Among the federal agencies we reviewed, different offices handle various  aspects of grant compliance. Generally, each agency’s civil rights or  diversity office conducts Title IX compliance reviews, develops policies  and procedures for grantees, and investigates allegations and complaints  involving university researchers supported by their agency’s federal  STEM grants. The office that awards grants generally creates and  modifies grant terms and conditions.

	Resources to Address Sexual Harassment Complaints Vary

Our preliminary analysis indicates that the selected federal agencies’ staff  and budget available to address sexual harassment complaints from  individuals at grantee universities varies according to the duties and  funding for the primary agency offices responsible for addressing the  complaints, as well as with the number of complaints received from  grantees.
Duties and funding for offices responsible for addressing  complaints. Our preliminary analysis shows that all five agencies (DOE,  HHS, NASA, NSF, and USDA-NIFA) primarily address sexual  harassment complaints through their civil rights or diversity offices.  However, these offices are responsible for more than just addressing  complaints and preventing sexual harassment at grantee universities;  they also oversee a number of civil rights, diversity and inclusion efforts  for the entire agency. Moreover, most of these offices also address  internal employee sexual harassment complaints and other discrimination  issues. For example, HHS officials described how staff in their Office for  Civil Rights at headquarters and eight regional offices conduct  compliance reviews and investigate all complaints alleging sexual  harassment and other forms of discrimination against recipients of HHS  federal financial assistance, including recipients of NIH grants. USDA- NIFA said their civil rights and diversity office staff are not always  available when sexual harassment issues arise because they have other  duties and also cover other discrimination issues. In addition, some  agencies noted challenges in ensuring adequate staffing levels. For  example, USDA-NIFA officials cited the need to fill vacant positions in  their civil rights office, and NSF officials described a need to find staff with  expertise in this complicated, specialized area.
All five agencies fund their civil rights and diversity offices separately from  their STEM research funding, and there is little relationship between the  two budgets. For more information on selected agencies’ civil rights and diversity office staffing and budgets planned for fiscal year 2019, see  table 2.
Number of complaints received. Our preliminary analysis of sexual  harassment complaint information indicates that four of the five selected  agencies received three or fewer complaints from individuals at grantee  universities from fiscal year 2015 through 2019. See table 3.
Officials from DOE told us that because they receive so few sexual  harassment complaints from individuals at grantee universities, they have  enough resources to address those that are reported to their civil rights or  diversity offices. In addition, officials from HHS told us that because they  receive so few complaints, their civil rights office has used other oversight  mechanisms, like Title IX compliance reviews, to examine whether sexual  harassment is occurring at universities receiving HHS funds, including  funds from NIH. However, as agencies continue to strengthen grantee  policies or requirements, it may affect the number of complaints an  agency receives from individuals at grantee universities, as well as the  amount of resources an agency needs to address them. For example,  NSF officials described how the number of sexual harassment complaints  they receive has increased since the agency implemented new grant  terms and conditions that require university grantees to report any sexual  harassment findings involving a Principal Investigator or co-Principal  Investigator for NSF-funded research. NSF officials also described an  increased number of questions and calls about how to report incidents,  requests for training and presentations, and meetings with program  officers, awardee representatives and other stakeholders, among other  items.

	Agencies Have Different Sexual Harassment Prevention Policies and Mechanisms for Communicating Them to Grantees

Based on our preliminary review, all five of the selected agencies have  established and communicated their own sexual harassment prevention  policies to grantees within the last 2 fiscal years, but agency  communication mechanisms and the content of these grantee policies  vary.
Specifically, our preliminary analysis shows that NASA, NIH, and NSF  communicate their policies on sexual harassment in multiple forms, such  as grantee policy manuals, best practices documents, and online FAQs.  The result is that grantees receive a relatively high level of detail about  preventing sexual harassment and mechanisms for reporting complaints.  In contrast, Cabinet agencies DOE and USDA-NIFA provide fewer forms  of guidance, either through their website or agency director and  Secretary-level policy statements and documents, which focus more  generally on the broader category of sex discrimination or provide  different levels of information on sexual harassment prevention policies  for grantees. See table 4 for more information.
Regarding the content of the policies, our preliminary analysis shows that  DOE, NIH, NSF, and USDA-NIFA updated their definitions of behaviors or  actions that qualify as sexual harassment in their grantee policies and  procedures, and NASA is in the process of doing so. The definitions are  more specific than previous definitions; for example, they include  descriptions of gender harassment, the most common form of sexual  harassment. The increased specificity may make clear the behaviors or  actions grantees are expected to address in their efforts to prevent sexual  harassment. The agencies continue to develop and revise policies and  communication mechanisms for grantees.
Also, NSF and NASA have modified, or are taking steps to modify their  grant terms and conditions to strengthen requirements for university  grantees to report on findings of sexual harassment to the funding  agency. Officials from both agencies told us these modifications will  help hold grantees accountable for reporting sexual harassment; the NSF  Director states on the agency’s website that these changes are “intended  to provide targeted, serious consequences for harassers” while also  providing “tools to make harassment stop without disturbing others’  careers and lives.” The requirement also supports the NASEM 2018  report recommendation for institutions to be transparent about reporting  sexual harassment findings, which is intended to foster a culture and  climate that does not tolerate sexual harassment at universities.  Officials from cabinet agencies DOE, NIH (a component of HHS), and  USDA-NIFA stated they would need to go through formal rulemaking  processes to alter their grant terms and conditions in a similar manner.
In addition, our preliminary analysis shows that two of the five selected  agencies are taking steps to evaluate the effectiveness of their sexual  harassment prevention policies and procedures for grantees. NSF  officials told us that they are in the process of determining how best to  evaluate the effectiveness of the new sexual harassment reporting  requirements and how the requirements have affected grantees.  Similarly, DOE is in the process of comparing its policies and procedures  against other federal agencies’, according to officials. To date, the other  three agencies have not yet evaluated the effectiveness of their policies,  but officials at these agencies told us that they focus on ensuring  grantees comply with Title IX regulations as a way to measure the effect  of their policies. For example, NASA established a goal to promote  compliance and encourage best practices among grantees, and the  agency measures progress towards this goal through verifying grantee  compliance with Title IX. USDA-NIFA officials are also in the process of  creating a tool to provide a comprehensive blueprint for civil rights  compliance—including Title IX compliance—and are planning to  implement the tool in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to examine and  assess the selected agencies’ sexual harassment prevention policies for  university grantees and steps they are taking to evaluate them in our  ongoing work.

	Agencies Have Taken Some Steps to Share Information and Collaborate

Based on our preliminary review, all five selected agencies have taken  some steps to promote information sharing and collaboration among  agencies on Title IX compliance reviews through DOJ’s Title IX STEM  working group. According to officials, the group discusses strategies for  conducting joint Title IX compliance reviews to leverage limited agency  resources and share best practices. For example, DOE and NSF have  conducted three joint compliance reviews, and NASA and NSF told us  that they are in the process of conducting a joint review. These joint  reviews can be helpful, as the selected agencies conduct a small number  of compliance reviews (two to four) annually relative to the number of  university grantees who must comply with Title IX.
Despite this collaboration, all five selected agencies reported challenges  in obtaining and sharing information. For example, all five selected  agencies told us they rarely discuss sexual harassment cases at DOJ’s  Title IX STEM working group meetings unless they are directly related to  an ongoing or planned compliance review. In addition, DOE, NASA, NIH,  and NSF stated they rarely learn about instances of sexual harassment  from voluntary reporting from universities or other federal agencies and  instead must rely on other sources, such as news reports. This situation  may change at NSF and NASA, which have taken steps to modify their  grant terms and conditions to require reporting of sexual harassment  findings by grantees. Challenges in obtaining and sharing information on  sexual harassment cases may increase the risk of a situation known as  “pass the harasser,” in which a researcher with substantiated findings of  sexual harassment obtains employment at another university or grants  from another funding agency without the university or funding agency  being aware of the researcher’s history.
Officials from all five selected agencies noted a willingness to participate  in an interagency working group to address the culture of sexual  harassment in STEM research that moves beyond conducting Title IX  compliance reviews. The White House’s Office of Science and  Technology Policy (OSTP) has taken steps to establish an interagency  working group. In May 2019, OSTP established a joint committee under  the National Science and Technology Council to address challenges in  the research environment. OSTP, NIH, NSF, DOE, and the National  Institute of Standards and Technology Directors were selected as joint  committee chairs to engage with the academic and science community  for policymaking insight and to convene interagency efforts. According to  DOE officials, the committee will address several priorities, including the  development of policies and procedures across the federal government  regarding sexual harassment in the research environment. Three of the  five selected agencies (NSF, NASA, and DOE) stated OSTP would be the  appropriate entity to establish uniform sexual harassment policy  guidelines to help provide consistency across the federal government.  NSF and NASA officials suggested that DOJ or the Department of  Education would be the appropriate agencies to collaborate with OSTP  on the ongoing monitoring of sexual harassment policy guidelines.
All five selected agencies reported taking collaborative steps with  universities and federal agencies to address the culture and climate for women in STEM. For example, in 2019, NIH established a working group  with university experts to collaborate with other federal agencies to  assess the current state of sexual harassment allegation investigation,  reporting, remediation, and disciplinary procedures at NIH-funded  organizations and advise on oversight, accountability, and reporting  measures for grantees, among other things. In addition, all five agencies  provided examples of collaborative efforts that would help address the  culture of sexual harassment in STEM research. For example, NASA  officials told us that it would be helpful to conduct joint meetings with  other university grantees across agencies to discuss sexual harassment  in science. Lastly, efforts to improve information sharing and collaboration  across agencies beyond conducting Title IX compliance reviews are  consistent with findings in the 2018 NASEM report, which states,  “adherence to legal requirements is necessary but not sufficient to drive  the change needed to address sexual harassment.” We will continue to  examine and assess selected agencies’ Title IX reviews and efforts to  collaborate and share information in our ongoing work.
In closing, I note that we are continuing our ongoing work on this topic.  Sexual harassment is not only degrading to individual researchers, it  undermines the quality and fairness of our nation’s research enterprise. It  is therefore important that federal agencies ensure their grantees  effectively prevent and address sexual harassment in STEM research.  We look forward to continuing our work to determine whether additional  federal actions may be warranted to promote this objective.
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

	GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact John Neumann, Managing Director, Science, Technology  Assessment, and Analytics, at (202) 512-6888 or NeumannJ@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Key contributors  to this testimony include Rob Marek (Assistant Director), Michelle St.  Pierre (Assistant Director), Kristy Kennedy (Analyst-In-Charge), Nora  Adkins, Caitlin Cusati, Nkenge Gibson, Amanda Postiglione, Janay Sam,  and Ben Shouse.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.