This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-14-428 
entitled 'USDA Farm Programs: Farmers Have Been Eligible for Multiple 
Programs and Further Efforts Could Help Prevent Duplicative Payments' 
which was released on July 29, 2014. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

July 2014: 

USDA Farm Programs: 

Farmers Have Been Eligible for Multiple Programs and Further Efforts 
Could Help Prevent Duplicative Payments: 

GAO-14-428: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-14-428, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

USDA administers farm programs to provide financial assistance to 
farmers, particularly when they experience losses. FSA, NRCS, and RMA 
administer most such programs. USDA's Office of Inspector General has 
reported on duplicative payments between USDA programs that pay for 
crop losses. 

GAO was asked to examine the potential for overlap and duplication 
among USDA's farm programs. This report examines (1) USDA programs 
that provided financial assistance to farms during the effective 
period of the 2008 farm bill (2008 through 2013) and the potential for 
overlap and duplication among these programs; (2) the extent that 
farms received payments from farm programs and the amount of these 
payments; and (3) the internal controls USDA has designed to help 
prevent duplicative payments for the same crop losses to the same 
farms. GAO developed an inventory of USDA farm programs in existence 
during the 2008 farm bill, analyzed USDA data on farm payments from 
2008 through 2011, and compared USDA's internal control activities for 
programs covering crop losses with federal standards for internal 
control. 

What GAO Found: 

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) reported spending about $114 billion on 60 programs 
providing financial assistance to farmers, including about $28 billion 
in crop insurance subsidies. Those programs existed during the 
effective period of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(2008 farm bill). Most were administered by the Farm Service Agency 
(FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Risk 
Management Agency (RMA). The 2014 farm bill eliminated some programs 
covered by this report, including FSA's Direct Payments Program, and 
added or expanded other programs. Under the 2008 farm bill, farmers 
were eligible for multiple programs depending on the commodities they 
produce and other factors. Some of these programs were overlapping, 
meaning they have similar goals, engage in similar activities or 
strategies, or target similar beneficiaries. However, based on a 
review of the programs, GAO did not find sufficient evidence to 
conclude that these programs were duplicative, meaning that they 
engaged in the same activities or provided the same services to the 
same beneficiaries. 

Annually, USDA surveys individual farm costs and returns, including 
government payments. The survey among other things is aimed at 
estimating the farm sector's financial condition. The survey allows 
linking payments to farm characteristics, but it does not account for 
all payments in a given fiscal year. Based on these survey data, 
except crop insurance subsidies, most of the estimated 2.2 million 
farms reported receiving no program payments from 2008 through 2011, 
and about 37 percent (800,000) received a payment from at least one 
farm program. Farms receiving payments reported receiving $11,293 on 
average (median payment of $3,719) annually from various programs. 
Payments were higher if a farm received assistance from multiple farm 
programs—less than 1 percent of farms received payments of $57,899 on 
average (median payment of $27,412) annually from multiple programs. 
Larger farms or farms producing cash grains such as corn were more 
likely to receive payments from multiple programs than small farms or 
farms producing other crops. Larger farms also received more crop 
insurance premium subsidies than other farms. 

The three largest USDA programs that pay for crop losses are FSA's 
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP), FSA's Supplemental 
Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program, and RMA's Federal Crop 
Insurance Program. SURE and NAP assist farmers with losses due to 
natural disasters. Crop insurance, the largest program covering 
losses, makes payments based on revenue and production losses. These 
programs have controls to help prevent duplicative payments; however, 
GAO asked FSA to conduct data matching to compare payment data for RMA'
s Adjusted Gross Revenue crop insurance policy and FSA's NAP from 2010 
through 2012, and that effort, with RMA analyses, identified 13 
duplicative payments that may amount to about $188,000. It is possible 
there were other duplicative payments made by NAP and other crop 
insurance policies, but USDA has not taken steps to compare or monitor 
these payments. Without monitoring by engaging in activities such as 
data matching, agencies will find it difficult to identify such 
payments. In addition, a 2013 FSA decision to allow farmers in six 
states to have coverage for forage under both NAP and a pilot RMA crop 
insurance policy could result in duplicative payments in the 2014 crop 
year. FSA officials said they estimated potential duplicative payments 
to be less than $10 million resulting from this decision. RMA and FSA 
officials told GAO that they had not developed a plan to prevent or 
recover duplicative payments that may result from FSA's decision. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that RMA and FSA (1) monitor to identify the extent of 
duplicative payments and (2) develop a plan to prevent or recover any 
duplicative payments in 2014 involving a pilot RMA crop insurance 
policy. USDA generally agreed with GAO's recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-428]. For more 
information, contact Anne-Marie Fennell at (202) 512-3841 or 
fennella@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

From 2008 through 2012, USDA Agencies Offered Financial Assistance to 
Farmers under 60 Programs That May Have Overlapped but Did Not Appear 
to Be Duplicative: 

Nearly Two-Thirds of Farms Received No Payments, and About One-Third 
Received Payments from at Least One Program: 

USDA's Three Largest Programs Covering Crop Losses Have Internal 
Controls Designed to Help Prevent Duplicative Payments, but 
Duplicative Payments Are Possible: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Select Changes to Farm Assistance Programs under the 2014 
Farm Bill: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs for Fiscal Years 
2008 through 2012 That Offered Financial Assistance to Farmers: 

Appendix IV: Obligations for U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs 
Under Way during the Effective Period of the 2008 Farm Bill That 
Offered Financial Assistance to Farmers, Fiscal Years 2008 through 
2012: 

Appendix V: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Assistance Programs 
Under Way during the Effective Period of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Types 
of Financial Assistance Offered, and the General Basis for Determining 
Eligibility: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: USDA Programs for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 That Offered 
Financial Assistance to Farmers: 

Table 2: Obligations for USDA Programs Under Way during the Effective 
Period of the 2008 Farm Bill That Offered Financial Assistance to 
Farmers, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012: 

Table 3: USDA Farm Assistance Programs Under Way during the Effective 
Period of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Types of Financial Assistance 
Offered, and the General Basis for Determining Eligibility: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage of Farms in Each of the Economic Research 
Service's (ERS) Farm Resource Regions: 

Figure 2: Number and Percentages of Farms by Size and the Number of 
Categories of Program Payments Received, Calendar Years 2008 through 
2011: 

Figure 3: Percentage and Number of Farms by Categories of Agricultural 
Commodities, Calendar Years 2008 through 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

ACEP: Agricultural Conservation Easement Program: 

ACRE: Average Crop Revenue Election: 

AGP: Aquaculture Grant Program: 

AGR: Adjusted Gross Revenue: 

ALAP: Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment: 

AMA: Agricultural Management Assistance: 

AMS: Agricultural Marketing Service: 

APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

ARC: Agricultural Risk Coverage: 

ARMS: Agricultural Resource Management Survey: 

BCAP: Biomass Crop Assistance Program: 

CAP: Crop Assistance Program: 

CBWI: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative: 

CCC: Commodity Credit Corporation: 

CCP: Counter-Cyclical Payments: 

CL: Conservation Loan: 

CREP: Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program: 

CRP: Conservation Reserve Program: 

CSP: Conservation Security Program: 

CStP: Conservation Stewardship Program: 

DELAP: Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Payment: 

DFN: Debt for Nature: 

DIPP: Dairy Indemnity Payment Program: 

DP: Direct Payments: 

DPPSP: Dairy Product Price Support Program: 

DWQP: Durum Wheat Quality Program: 

ECP: Emergency Conservation Program: 

EFRP: Emergency Forest Restoration Program: 

ELAP: Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised 
Fish Program: 

EM: Emergency Loan Program: 

EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentives Program: 

ERS: Economic Research Service: 

EWP: Emergency Watershed Protection: 

FAS: Foreign Agricultural Service: 

FSA: Farm Service Agency: 

FSFL: Farm Storage Facility Loan: 

FWP: Farmable Wetlands Program: 

GRP: Grassland Reserve Program: 

HFRP: Healthy Forests Reserve Program: 

HSDP: Hawaii Sugar Disaster Program: 

LC: Land Contract: 

LDP: Loan Deficiency Payments: 

LFP: Livestock Forage Disaster Program: 

LIP: Livestock Indemnity Program: 

MAL: Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans: 

MILC: Milk Income Loss Contract: 

MLG: marketing loan gain: 

NAP: Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program: 

NOCCSP: National Organic Certification Cost Share Program: 

NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

OIG: Office of Inspector General: 

PGAP: Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program: 

PLC: Price Loss Coverage: 

RCPP: Regional Conservation Partnership Program: 

RD: Rural Development: 

REAP: Rural Energy for America Program: 

RMA: Risk Management Agency: 

RTCP: Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program: 

STAX: Stacked Income Protection Plan: 

SURE: Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments: 

TAA: Trade Adjustment Assistance: 

TAP: Tree Assistance Program: 

TIP: Transition Incentive Program: 

TTPP: Tobacco Transition Payment Program: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

VAPG: Value-Added Producer Grants: 

WBP: Water Bank Program: 

WHIP: Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program: 

WRP: Wetlands Reserve Program: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO:
441 G St. N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 8, 2014: 

The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Dr. Coburn: 

Farms in the United States produce a generous supply of food and make 
significant contributions to the nation's economy and food security. 
[Footnote 1] Yet the uncertainties of weather and commodity markets 
make farming a risky endeavor. The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) administers farm programs,[Footnote 2] including price support, 
revenue support, and other risk management programs, which are 
intended to provide financial assistance to farmers,[Footnote 3] 
particularly when they experience losses caused by adverse weather or 
low commodity prices. For decades, Congress has authorized many 
federal farm programs through major pieces of legislation known as 
farm bills. The prior farm bill--the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008 (2008 farm bill)--provided financial assistance to farmers 
for, among other things, crops, horticulture, livestock, and farm 
conservation efforts.[Footnote 4] However, a number of farm programs 
discussed in this report were eliminated in the most recent farm bill 
that became law in February 2014 (see appendix I for select changes to 
farm assistance programs under the 2014 farm bill).[Footnote 5] 

At USDA, financial assistance to farmers is provided primarily by 
three agencies--the Farm Service Agency (FSA), the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Risk Management Agency (RMA). FSA 
administers various programs that, among other things, help support 
farm prices and revenue and compensate farmers for losses incurred as 
a result of natural disasters. NRCS administers programs that 
primarily make payments to farmers as an incentive to implement 
practices to conserve natural resources, such as soil and water. 
[Footnote 6] Both FSA and NRCS assist farmers through a network of 
staff at headquarters, state, and county offices. RMA administers the 
Federal Crop Insurance Program, which offers farmers various levels 
and types of insurance protection for the agricultural commodities 
they produce. RMA partners with private insurance companies that sell 
and service the federal crop insurance policies and subsidizes the 
insurance premiums farmers pay. The program also serves as a reinsurer 
for the private insurance companies to limit their underwriting losses 
and pays an administrative fee to the insurance companies to cover 
their expenses of selling and servicing the crop insurance policies. 

Each year, USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) and National 
Agricultural Statistics Service conduct an annual national survey 
called the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). This survey 
obtains information from a representative sample of farmers on, among 
other things, the farm practices they employ, the income and expenses 
generated by their operation, and the payments they received from USDA 
programs. The survey also obtains demographic information on the 
farmer, as well as various characteristics of the farm, such as the 
commodities produced and the size of the operation. The information 
that ERS obtains from ARMS enables researchers to examine the 
relationship between the payments made to farmers and the 
characteristics of the farmers and farms receiving those payments. 

As fiscal pressures facing the nation continue, so too does the need 
for the federal government to improve the efficiency and effectiveness 
of its various financial assistance programs and activities. GAO is 
statutorily mandated to identify and report annually to Congress on 
federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within 
departments or government-wide, with duplicative goals or 
activities.[Footnote 7] Since 2011, we have issued four annual 
reports, which included opportunities for executive branch agencies to 
reduce overlap or duplication,[Footnote 8] achieve cost savings, or 
enhance revenue.[Footnote 9] In this report, we define overlap as 
occurring when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, 
engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target 
similar beneficiaries and duplication as occurring when two or more 
agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the 
same services to the same beneficiaries. We recognize that there could 
be instances where program overlap and duplication may result from the 
way programs are designed in statute and some overlap and duplication 
may be warranted due to the nature or magnitude of the federal effort. 

In 2010 and 2011, USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported on 
actual or potential duplicative payments made by USDA programs that 
pay for crop losses and recommended strengthening internal controls 
for the programs.[Footnote 10] According to federal internal control 
standards,[Footnote 11] such controls comprise the plans, methods, and 
procedures used to meet missions, goals, and objectives and, in doing 
so, support performance-based management. Internal controls also serve 
as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets and preventing and 
detecting errors and fraud. In this report, we define duplicative 
payments as payments made by more than one program to the same farmer 
for the same commodity loss that are specifically prohibited by 
federal law or contract, or are contrary to USDA policy. 

You asked us to examine the potential for overlap and duplication 
among USDA's farm programs. This report, based on programs under way 
during the effective period of the 2008 farm bill, examines (1) the 
number of USDA programs that provided financial assistance to farms, 
the total amount of this assistance, and the potential for overlap and 
duplication among these programs; (2) the extent, if at all, that 
farms received payments from farm programs, including multiple farm 
programs, and the amount of these payments; and (3) the internal 
controls that USDA has designed to help prevent duplicative payments 
for the same crop losses to the same farms.[Footnote 12] 

To determine the number of USDA programs that provided financial 
assistance to farms, the total amount of this assistance, and the 
potential for overlap and duplication among these programs for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2012, we developed an inventory of USDA farm 
programs under way during the effective period of the 2008 farm bill 
using, among other sources, the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance's and USDA's program fact sheets. Based on this inventory, 
we developed six categories to describe the type of financial 
assistance these programs offered to farmers.[Footnote 13] We also 
obtained data on the dollar obligations for each of these programs and 
total outlays from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 (the most recent 
year for which data were available) from USDA budget documents. To 
assess the reliability of the data, we requested that agency officials 
review our inventory for completeness and accuracy. For the 
obligations and outlays data, we interviewed agency officials and 
reviewed system documentation, including documentation of training, 
and did not identify any concerns about the reliability of the data. 
Based on the information we gathered, we determined these data are 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we 
reviewed (1) our recent work on overlap and duplication; (2) 
information on the characteristics of the programs; and (3) studies 
conducted by USDA and the Congressional Research Service. 

To determine the extent, if at all, that farms received payments from 
farm programs, including multiple farm programs, and the amount of 
these payments, we worked with ERS staff to specify custom analyses of 
the data they collect using ARMS on government payments received by 
farms during calendar years 2008 through 2011 (the most recent years 
for which ARMS data were available during which the 2008 farm bill was 
in effect) and selected characteristics of these farms, such as the 
size of the farm as measured by farm sales and the agricultural 
commodity produced. We selected these characteristics because they 
allowed us to analyze the data based on whether it was a small, mid-
sized or large farm and what commodities were produced. We worked with 
ERS staff to organize the program payments collected in ARMS into four 
functional payment categories--direct payments; major price-related 
payments such as payments made to a farmer when a commodity price 
falls below a specific level; major conservation program payments; and 
other federal, state, or local agricultural program payments.[Footnote 
14] We also worked with ERS to design analyses to determine how many 
farms received payments from various farm program payment categories. 
To assess the reliability of the ERS analyses, we obtained the 
computer coding ERS used to generate the analyses and information on 
the statistical reliability of the results and interviewed ERS 
officials to obtain additional detail about how they conducted the 
analyses; we determined the results of these analyses were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To identify the internal controls that USDA has designed to help 
prevent duplicative payments, we focused on RMA's crop insurance 
program, FSA's Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) 
Program, and FSA's Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) 
because they accounted for most of the payments USDA made for crop 
losses for fiscal years 2008 through 2013--the effective period of the 
2008 farm bill. We reviewed prior GAO and USDA OIG reports, and laws, 
regulations, and USDA program policies and procedures that describe 
internal controls; compared USDA internal controls with federal 
standards for internal control to identify strengths and 
weaknesses;[Footnote 15] and interviewed officials from RMA, FSA, and 
USDA's OIG and General Counsel's Office. In addition, we requested FSA 
conduct an analysis to match payments made to the same farmers by 
FSA's NAP and RMA's Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) crop insurance policy 
to identify whether any potentially duplicative payments had been 
made. To ensure the reliability of this analysis, we reviewed the 
analysis and the methodology used to conduct it. We also requested 
that RMA's regional compliance offices review the results of the 
analysis and work with insurance companies to determine which, if any, 
payments were duplicative. (For more details on our scope and 
methodology, see appendix II.) 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 through July 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Federal financial assistance to farmers has been at the heart of 
federal farm policy since the early 1930s, when Congress passed the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act in 1933 as one of the first pieces of New 
Deal legislation. Since then, Congress has modified or created new 
farm programs in other legislation to respond to changing conditions 
in the farm sector, federal budgetary pressures, and shifts in policy 
goals. 

Congress's and others' scrutiny of farm program payments has 
intensified in recent years in light of federal budget pressures and 
record farm income. According to ERS's 2014 farm income forecast, 
national net farm income increased from $83.7 billion in 2008 to 
$113.8 billion in 2012, and is forecast to reach a record of $130.5 
billion in 2013 before decreasing to $95.8 billion in 2014. A new farm 
bill that eliminates a number of programs included in the 2008 farm 
bill that are discussed in this report became law in 2014. (See 
appendix I for details.) 

According to ERS data, from 2008 through 2012, on average, there were 
about 2.2 million farms in the United States. The highest percentage 
of farms were located in the area identified by ERS as the Heartland 
farm resource region and predominantly produce cash grains and cattle. 
The percentage of farms and predominant commodities in other regions 
are shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Percentage of Farms in Each of the Economic Research 
Service's (ERS) Farm Resource Regions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Depicted on map: 

Fruitful Rim: 
* 12 percent of farms; 
* Fruit, vegetable, nursery, and cotton farms. 

Basin and Range: 
* 4 percent of farms; 
* Cattle, wheat, and sorghum farms. 

Northern Great Plains: 
* 4 percent of farms; 
* Wheat, cattle, and sheep farms. 

Prairie Gateway: 
* 14 percent of farms; 
* Cattle, wheat, sorghum, cotton, and rice farms. 

Heartland: 
* 20 percent of farms; 
* Cash grain and cattle farms. 

Northern Crescent: 
* 14 percent of farms; 
* Dairy, general crop, and cash grain farms. 

Eastern Uplands: 
* 15 percent of farms; 
* Part-time cattle, tobacco, and poultry farms. 

Southern Seaboard: 
* 12 percent of farms; 
* Part-time cattle, general field crop, and poultry farms. 

Mississippi Portal: 
* 4 percent of farms; 
* Cotton, rice, poultry, and hog farms. 

Source: GAO analysis of ERS data; Map Resources (map). GAO-14-428. 

Note: Percentages of farms do not add to 100 because of rounding. 
Percentages reflect the percentage of farms in each farm resource 
region, on average, from 2008 through 2012, according to ERS data. The 
commodities produced in each farm resource region reflect the 
commodities identified by ERS when it developed the farm resource 
regions in 2000. 

[End of figure] 

From 2008 through 2012, USDA Agencies Offered Financial Assistance to 
Farmers under 60 Programs That May Have Overlapped but Did Not Appear 
to Be Duplicative: 

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, seven USDA agencies obligated a 
total of about $173 billion in financial assistance to farmers under 
60 programs that could result in farmers being eligible for multiple 
programs, depending on the characteristics of the farms (see appendix 
III).[Footnote 16] FSA, NRCS, and RMA administered the majority of the 
60 programs and provided most of the financial assistance that USDA 
provided to farms. Farmers were eligible to receive financial 
assistance from overlapping programs, but there were no programs that 
appeared to be duplicative because we did not find sufficient evidence 
that they engaged in the same activities or provided the same services 
to the same beneficiaries. 

For 2008 through 2012, Seven USDA Agencies Obligated a Total of About 
$173 Billion in Financial Assistance to Farmers: 

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, seven USDA agencies obligated 
about $173 billion (about $114 billion in outlays) in financial 
assistance to farmers under 60 programs. FSA (with 40 programs), NRCS 
(with 9), and RMA (with 1) administered 50 programs and jointly 
administered another 2 programs.[Footnote 17] We found that four other 
USDA agencies administered 8 financial assistance programs--the 
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS), the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), 
and Rural Development (RD).[Footnote 18] 

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the 60 programs obligated a total 
of about $34.5 billion annually in financial assistance to farmers 
(see appendix IV). FSA, NRCS, and RMA accounted for about $172 billion 
of the approximately $173 billion in obligations for programs 
providing financial assistance to farmers.[Footnote 19] RMA's Federal 
Crop Insurance Program was the largest program, providing an average 
of $9.6 billion annually and $48.2 billion in total obligations (about 
$28 billion in outlays) from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 in crop 
insurance subsidies, including premium subsidies to farmers. Among the 
larger programs were FSA's Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan 
Program, which provides an influx of cash to farmers at harvest time 
and allows them to delay the sale of crops until more favorable market 
conditions emerge ($7.5 billion annual average, $37.7 billion total 
obligations); FSA's Direct Payments Program, which provided farmers 
with fixed annual payments based on their farms' historical crop 
production ($4.7 billion annual average, $23.5 billion total 
obligations);[Footnote 20] and FSA's Farm Operating Loans Program, 
which includes obligations for guaranteed and direct loans ($2.3 
billion annual average, $11.6 billion total obligations). Some USDA 
programs obligated far less in financial assistance. For example, 
FSA's Durum Wheat Quality Program, which compensated farmers of durum 
wheat for up to 50 percent of the purchase price of fungicide and the 
cost to apply it to control fusarium head blight, commonly known as 
wheat scab, obligated a total of $2.9 million during fiscal years 2008 
through 2012. 

Not all USDA-administered programs provided financial assistance to 
farmers every year from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. For example, 
NRCS's Water Bank Program was only available to farmers in 2012 after 
being authorized following flooding in 2011 in the Great Plains 
region. Similarly, FSA's Hawaii Sugar Disaster Program was only 
available to farmers who suffered a loss during the 2008 crop year. We 
also found that not all programs that were authorized had obligated 
funds from fiscal years 2008 through 2012. For example, FSA's Land 
Contract Guarantee Program, which provides incentives to farmers who 
sell their land to beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, had 
no obligations from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 
2012.[Footnote 21] 

USDA programs' providing financial assistance to farmers varied by the 
type of assistance they provided, and some programs provided multiple 
types of assistance. We categorized these programs based on the type 
of assistance provided: direct payments, support for costs, support 
for losses, price support, support to encourage specific actions, and 
revenue support.[Footnote 22] We found that 3 programs provided direct 
payments, and 24 programs offered support for various costs incurred 
by farmers, which was the type of financial assistance offered by the 
largest number of programs (see appendix V). In addition, we found 
that: 

* Thirteen programs provided assistance for farmers who had suffered a 
loss. For example, FSA's SURE provided assistance to farmers who 
suffered a loss due to damaging weather or adverse natural 
occurrences, such as an earthquake, that occurred on or before 
September 30, 2011, and FSA's NAP provided assistance for crop and 
planting losses as a result of a natural disaster when catastrophic-
level crop insurance was not available. 

* Six programs provided price support assistance to farmers when 
prices for a commodity fell below a specific level. These programs 
included FSA's Milk Income Loss Contract Program, which compensated 
dairy farmers when domestic milk prices fell below a specific price. 
FSA's Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan Program also provided 
assistance to farmers, allowing farmers to delay the sale of a crop 
until more favorable conditions emerged. 

* Twenty-two programs offered assistance to encourage a specific 
action. For example, FSA's Conservation Loan Program provided access 
to credit for farmers to implement conservation practices on their 
land--such as the establishment of forest cover--if they did not have 
the up-front funds available to implement these practices. The APHIS 
animal indemnity program offered financial assistance to farmers whose 
animals were destroyed to control the spread of certain diseases, thus 
encouraging farmers to cooperate in disease control measures by 
compensating for the loss of their herds or flocks. 

* Five programs provided revenue support assistance to offset lost 
revenue. For example, in addition to offering policies that protect 
against crop production losses, RMA's Federal Crop Insurance Program 
offered revenue-based policies that protect against crop revenue loss 
resulting from declines in yield, price, or both. Another example of 
revenue support programs is FSA's Poultry Loss Contract Grant 
Assistance Program, which provided financial assistance, through 
participating states, to poultry farmers if their poultry dealer filed 
for bankruptcy. 

Farmers Were Eligible to Receive Financial Assistance from Overlapping 
Programs: 

Farmers were eligible to receive financial assistance from overlapping 
programs, but GAO did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that 
these programs were duplicative with respect to engaging in the same 
activities or providing the same services to the same beneficiaries. 
Farmers were eligible for multiple programs based on the commodities 
they produced and/or risks they faced, the lands that comprised their 
farms, and the costs they incurred. To the extent that eligibility for 
multiple programs occurred, the programs overlapped. For example, 
several programs were specifically available to farms that produced 
cash grain crops. Depending on the risks they faced, soybean farmers 
were potentially eligible for 10 programs that specifically listed 
soybeans as an eligible crop.[Footnote 23] Similarly, wheat farmers 
were potentially eligible for 11 programs. For example, during the 
effective period of the 2008 farm bill, a wheat farmer could have been 
eligible for FSA's ACRE, Direct Payments Program, Durum Wheat Quality 
Program, Counter-Cyclical Payments Program, Commodity Certificates, 
Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan Program, Loan Deficiency 
Payments, SURE, and NAP as well as RMA's Federal Crop Insurance 
Program and APHIS's Plant Indemnity program, which compensates farmers 
for losses resulting from efforts to eradicate plum pox, a viral 
disease on some fruits, and Karnal bunt, a fungal disease on certain 
wheat or rye plants.[Footnote 24] The largest programs for which wheat 
and soybean farmers were eligible were FSA's Direct Payments Program 
and Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan Program and RMA's Federal 
Crop Insurance Program. We found that farmers producing crops other 
than cash grains were eligible for fewer programs. Individual 
specialty crops, such as fruits and vegetables, were generally covered 
by four programs. 

Program eligibility also varied by farm operational characteristics, 
with some types of operations eligible for more programs than others, 
depending on what commodities were being produced. For example, we 
found that dairy farmers were potentially eligible for 12 programs 
covering different aspects of their production cycle, including for 
their dairy cows, the forage (i.e., plant material) to be eaten by 
their cows, and the dairy products produced. The various dairy 
programs would be overlapping, but if a dairy farmer also raised corn 
and was eligible for financial assistance for that crop, the dairy and 
corn programs also would overlap. 

In addition to programs targeting specific commodities, USDA also 
administered programs that provided financial assistance to farmers 
not tied to the production of a specific commodity, such as programs 
that either encouraged specific conservation practices on lands that 
comprised their farms or provided assistance for various costs 
incurred by them (e.g., housing, energy, or transportation costs). To 
the extent the farmers were eligible for these conservation or cost 
programs, these programs overlapped with any programs targeting 
specific commodities for which the same farmers also may have been 
eligible. For example, in addition to nine programs specifically 
available for corn, a corn farmer may have also been eligible for 
financial assistance from NRCS's Environmental Quality Incentives 
Program and FSA's Conservation Reserve Program that compensate farmers 
for implementing conservation practices and undertaking efforts to 
improve water quality, control soil erosion and enhance wildlife 
habitat. Other USDA-administered programs also provided specific 
assistance for a farm's operating expenses that were not tied to the 
production of a specific commodity. For example, FSA's Farm Operating 
Loans provided assistance to farmers for expenses such as paying costs 
incident to reorganizing a farm for more profitable operation, 
purchasing farm equipment, and refinancing debt. In the event of a 
natural disaster, farmers may have also been eligible for the 
Emergency Loan Program, which provided assistance for farmers to 
recover from production and physical losses not relating to any 
specific commodity. These funds could have been used to repair or 
replace essential property; pay annual operating expenses; pay 
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming operation; 
and refinance certain debts. 

In addition to FSA, RD also administered programs that provided 
specific assistance for operating expenses that were not tied to the 
production of a specific commodity. RD's Farm Labor Housing Loan 
Program provided loans to eligible farmers to help construct or 
purchase housing for laborers. Similarly, RD's Value-Added Producer 
Grants program provided assistance to farmers for generating new value-
added products and creating and expanding marketing opportunities, as 
well as working-capital expenses such as processing, marketing, and 
advertising expenses. 

Some USDA programs exhibited similar characteristics, but our review 
of the programs' characteristics did not produce sufficient evidence 
that these programs were duplicative. 

Nearly Two-Thirds of Farms Received No Payments, and About One-Third 
Received Payments from at Least One Program: 

Of the estimated 2.2 million farms in the United States, about 63 
percent (about 1.4 million) received no program payments from calendar 
year 2008 through 2011, the most recent year for which data were 
available at the time we conducted our analysis. The remaining 37 
percent of farms (about 800,000) received a payment from at least one 
farm program. Of the farms receiving government payments, the median 
payment was $3,719 annually per farm.[Footnote 25] Also, larger farms 
were more likely than small farms to receive payments from multiple 
farm programs. In addition to size, a farm's production specialty 
often determined whether the farm was eligible to receive certain 
program payments, with cash grain farms more likely to receive 
multiple payments than farms specializing in other commodities. 

From 2008 through 2011, 37 Percent of Farms Received Payments from at 
Least One Farm Program: 

From calendar years 2008 through 2011, about 37 percent of all farms 
(about 800,000 of 2.2 million farms) received direct payments, price-
related payments, conservation program payments, and/or other federal, 
state, or local agricultural program payments. The remaining 1.4 
million farms (approximately 63 percent) did not receive any program 
payments. 

Of the nearly 800,000 farms that received farm program payments during 
this period, the median payment was $3,719 annually ($11,293 on 
average), meaning an equal number of farms received more than and less 
than that amount. For farms that received program payments, we 
analyzed whether they received payments from the following categories: 
(1) direct payments, (2) major price-related payments, (3) major 
conservation program payments, or (4) other agricultural program 
payments. (For more details on this analysis, see appendix II.) For 
the nearly 800,000 farms receiving any type of farm program payment 
from 2008 through 2011, we estimated that about 67 percent received 
payments from one category, 25 percent received payments from two 
categories, about 7 percent received payments from three categories, 
and less than 1 percent received payments from all four categories. 

The amount of payments that a farm received increased considerably if 
a farm participated in more than one category of program payments. 
Farms that received payments from one category received median 
payments of $2,538 annually. In contrast, farms that received payments 
from four payment categories received median payments of $27,412 
annually ($57,899 on average). 

Larger Farms Were More Likely Than Small Farms to Receive Payments 
from Multiple Farm Programs: 

About 82 percent of mid-size farms (gross cash farm income from 
$350,000 to $999,999) and about 74 percent of large farms (gross cash 
farm income of $1 million or more) received payments from one or more 
program categories. About 45 percent and 43 percent of mid-size and 
large farms, respectively, received payments from two or more 
categories. In contrast, about 67 percent of small farms (gross cash 
farm income of less than $350,000) received no payments, and most of 
the remaining small farms received only one category of payments. 
Based on gross cash farm income,[Footnote 26] from calendar years 2008 
through 2011, about 93 percent of all farms were categorized as small 
farms, about 5 percent were categorized as mid-size farms, and about 2 
percent were categorized as large farms. The breakdown of payments to 
small, mid-size, and large farms under programs under way during the 
effective period of the 2008 farm bill is shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Number and Percentages of Farms by Size and the Number of 
Categories of Program Payments Received, Calendar Years 2008 through 
2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph] 

Size and number of farms: Small farms (2,023,362); 
No program payment: 66.9%; 
One payment category: 23.6%; 
Two payment categories: 7.3%; 
Three payment categories: 2.0%; 
Four payment categories: 0.2%. 

Size and number of farms: Mid-size farms (118,628); 
No program payment: 18.5%; 
One payment category: 36.2%; 
Two payment categories: 32.4%; 
Three payment categories: 11.4%; 
Four payment categories: 1.5%. 

Size and number of farms: Large farms (45,339); 
No program payment: 25.8%; 
One payment category: 30.8%; 
Two payment categories: 29.5%; 
Three payment categories: 12.0%; 
Four payment categories: 1.9%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Economic Research Service data. GAO-14-428. 

Note: USDA's Economic Research Service data come from a survey, and, 
as such, are estimates and have sampling error associated with them. 

[End of figure] 

From 2008 through 2011, farms receiving more categories of payments 
generated greater annual gross cash farm income than farms that 
received no payments. Farms that received no payments generated a 
median gross cash farm income of $3,400 per year. However, for the 
less than 1 percent of all farms that received payments from all four 
categories, the median gross cash farm income was $288,327 per year. 
[Footnote 27] 

Larger farms also received more crop-insurance premium subsidies than 
other farms. From 2008 through 2011, about 15 percent (329,799) of all 
approximately 2.2 million farms purchased federal crop insurance, and 
the median amount spent on the policies was $3,587 per year. The 
federal government provides financial assistance to a farmer who 
purchases federal crop insurance in the form of a premium subsidy, and 
during this period, on average, USDA subsidized about 61 percent of 
farmers' crop insurance premiums. The median amount farms spent on 
federal crop insurance increased as farms received more categories of 
program payments. 

Cash Grain Farms Were More Likely to Receive Payments Than Farms 
Specializing in Other Commodities: 

For our analyses of ARMS data, ERS organized the production specialty 
of farms tracked in ARMS into four broad categories of agricultural 
commodities: 

* Cash grains include corn, soybeans, and wheat. 

* Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and other crops include grass seed and 
silage, hay, hops, maple syrup, mint, pasture, sugar beets, sugarcane, 
and straw. 

* Specialty crops include fruits, vegetables, and nursery plants. 

* All livestock include cattle, dairy, hogs, and poultry. 

Figure 3 provides a breakdown of the percentage and number of farms in 
each production category of agricultural commodity. 

Figure 3: Percentage and Number of Farms by Categories of Agricultural 
Commodities, Calendar Years 2008 through 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

All livestock (1,202,635 farms): 55.0%; 
Tobacco, cotton, peanuts, and other crops (517,787 farms): 23.7%; 
Cash grains (317,579 farms): 14.5%; 
Specialty crops (149,328 farms): 6.8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of Economic Research Service data. GAO-14-428. 

Note: USDA's Economic Research Service data come from a survey, and, 
as such, are estimates and have sampling error associated with them. 

[End of figure] 

Cash grain farms were more likely to receive farm program payments 
than farms specializing in other commodities. Specifically, about 40 
percent of farms specializing in cash grains received payments from 
two or more categories of farm programs. In general, livestock and 
specialty crop farmers are not eligible for certain farm program 
payments, such as direct or price-related payments, for which cash 
grain, cotton, and peanut farmers are. As a result, about 79 percent 
of farms that primarily produced livestock and about 89 percent of 
farms that primarily produced specialty crops received no payments 
from farm programs. 

USDA's Three Largest Programs Covering Crop Losses Have Internal 
Controls Designed to Help Prevent Duplicative Payments, but 
Duplicative Payments Are Possible: 

The three largest USDA programs that pay for crop losses--FSA's NAP, 
FSA's SURE, and RMA's Federal Crop Insurance Program--have internal 
controls designed to help prevent duplicative payments.[Footnote 28] 
However, some duplicative payments have occurred between NAP and a 
crop insurance policy that covers farm revenue losses, and additional 
duplicative payments are possible between NAP and catastrophic-level 
crop insurance policies. In addition, potentially duplicative payments 
are possible between NAP and a crop insurance pilot policy offered in 
six states for 2014 because of an FSA decision. 

FSA's NAP and SURE Programs and RMA's Crop Insurance Program Have 
Internal Controls Designed to Help Prevent Duplicative Payments: 

To help prevent potentially duplicative payments, FSA has developed 
internal controls for SURE, which provided assistance to farmers who 
suffered a loss due to a qualifying natural disaster, including 
damaging weather conditions,[Footnote 29] and NAP, which provides 
assistance for crop and planting losses as a result of a natural 
disaster when catastrophic-level crop insurance is not available. In 
addition, to help prevent potentially duplicative payments, RMA has 
developed internal controls for its Federal Crop Insurance Program, 
which is the largest program covering losses and which offers policies 
that protect against crop revenue and crop production losses. One such 
policy--Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR)--covers revenue losses for all 
commodities on a farm. Examples of controls for these programs include: 

* FSA county officials are directed to consider the amount of RMA crop 
insurance or NAP payments when calculating the amount of a SURE 
payment, by FSA's SURE handbook.[Footnote 30] According to FSA 
officials, this internal control is intended to help prevent 
duplication between SURE payments, which totaled $1.8 billion in 2011, 
and RMA crop insurance payments, which totaled $10.7 billion in 2011. 
It also is intended to help prevent duplicative payments between SURE 
payments and NAP payments, which totaled $262 million in 2011. FSA 
officials in the county offices are to verify and sign off on the 
accuracy of payment calculations, which are entered into spreadsheets 
by FSA county office staff, according to FSA's program handbooks and 
by FSA officials. 

* FSA county officials are directed by FSA's NAP Handbook to check 
RMA's list of crops and counties eligible for catastrophic-level crop 
insurance when determining whether farmers are eligible for NAP 
coverage. According to FSA officials, this internal control is 
intended to help prevent duplicative payments between NAP and crop 
insurance policies that offer catastrophic-level coverage. 

* Insurance companies that offer crop insurance to farmers provide 
policy information to farmers detailing their benefits and policy 
requirements. According to RMA officials, that information includes 
the fact that farmers are not allowed to receive both a NAP payment 
from FSA and a payment from an insurance company on an RMA AGR policy. 
RMA officials said that to prevent duplicative payments, farmers are 
required to report NAP payments to their insurance companies when they 
also are receiving AGR payments. AGR covers losses related to multiple 
commodities on a farm, rather than providing insurance on a single 
commodity. The RMA policy information is intended to help prevent 
duplicative payments between NAP and AGR crop insurance policies. AGR 
payments totaled $13 million in 2011. 

Some Duplicative Payments Have Occurred, and Others Could Be Possible: 

USDA's OIG reported on the accuracy of SURE and other farm program 
payments in 2012 and 2013.[Footnote 31] The OIG found SURE payment 
errors in both reports, and some of these errors were due to incorrect 
amounts of RMA payments that were used to calculate the SURE 
payments.[Footnote 32] However, for the 2012 report, the OIG did not 
find any duplicative SURE payments. The OIG analyzed the amount of 
SURE and crop insurance farmers received for crop losses and actual 
revenues. The OIG did not find any producers that received more than 
their expected farm revenue and thus made no recommendations. 
According to the OIG's 2013 report, payment errors occurred primarily 
because FSA's internal controls over the SURE program's manual payment 
calculation process did not prevent the data errors from occurring, 
but the OIG report did not state whether the payment errors resulted 
in duplicative payments.[Footnote 33] The 2013 report states that 
personnel at county offices made errors when inputting the data into 
the manual workbook used to calculate the payments, and second-party 
reviewers did not identify these errors. The OIG recommended that FSA 
officials strengthen internal controls by emphasizing the importance 
of second-party reviews, a form of monitoring conducted in the county 
offices to ensure the accuracy of SURE data input. The OIG also 
recommended that FSA officials develop and implement a checklist to 
verify the integrity of data entered into SURE workbooks. 

In response to the OIG's recommendations, FSA officials stated that 
FSA's Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs alerted FSA state offices 
to the importance of second-party reviews by video conference and 
highlighted the OIG's findings, including crop insurance data 
discrepancies. In addition, FSA calls for second-party reviews in 
agency guidance, policy, and procedures--e.g., FSA Notice SURE-33 and 
FSA Handbook 1-SURE.[Footnote 34] The SURE handbook provides 
instructions for using a checklist as an optional management tool to 
help address deficiencies identified by an audit or review. However, 
FSA decided not to call for a checklist because the authority for SURE 
ended with crop losses that were due to a natural disaster that 
occurred through September 30, 2011, and the program is in its final 
stages. We did not conduct further work on potentially duplicative 
payments between SURE and other programs because the program is in its 
final stages, and FSA reported taking actions to address weaknesses 
identified by the OIG. 

Regarding NAP and the Federal Crop Insurance Program, RMA and FSA 
senior headquarters and field office officials said there is a low 
risk of duplicative payments between NAP and RMA policies that offer 
catastrophic-level coverage. Providing NAP coverage when catastrophic-
level coverage is available would be inconsistent with federal statute 
and regulation.[Footnote 35] According to these officials, the risk is 
low because of an internal control that requires FSA county officials 
to check RMA's list of crops and counties eligible for catastrophic-
level coverage when determining whether farmers are eligible for NAP. 
The officials said based on their experience working with and in 
county offices, they consider this internal control to be effective. 
However, they had not monitored payments by conducting data matching 
or other activities to show the extent to which, if at all, NAP 
payments and catastrophic-level crop insurance payments were provided 
for the same acreage. In addition, the internal control requiring 
county officials to check RMA's eligibility list does not apply to AGR 
because that crop insurance policy does not offer catastrophic-level 
coverage. Since AGR policies cover multiple commodities on a farm, 
they could provide duplicative payments with NAP. We asked FSA to 
conduct data matching to compare payment data for AGR and NAP to 
determine whether duplicative payments were made. FSA's effort, which 
was the first time such data matching had been done, identified 14 
potentially duplicative payments received by 10 farmers who received 
both AGR and NAP payments from crop years 2010 through 2012. According 
to FSA officials, the data matching took an estimated 1 to 2 staff 
days to complete. Four RMA regional compliance offices then analyzed 
insurance company payment data for the 14 payments, and their 
preliminary analysis found that 13 of the 14 payments were 
duplicative. The RMA officials said regional compliance offices will 
conduct further analysis to confirm their findings and work with the 
insurance companies and FSA to determine how the agencies will ensure 
that farmers refund any overpayments. RMA officials said that recovery 
of the 13 duplicative payments will require considerable staff time 
and that the agency needs the flexibility to decide which payments it 
will seek to recover so that it focuses on the most significant (e.g., 
larger dollar) compliance issues. RMA officials stated that if farmers 
returned the smaller of the duplicative AGR or NAP payments, the 
amount returned to the federal government could be $188,000 for those 
13 duplicative payments.[Footnote 36] 

RMA's AGR handbook and insurance policy documents provided to farmers 
state that a farmer should not be able to obtain both NAP and AGR 
indemnity payments for the same crop year.[Footnote 37] In addition, 
insurance companies give documents to farmers signing up for the AGR 
policies that state the farmers must choose between AGR payments and 
other payments if they are eligible for both payments due to a loss, 
according to RMA officials. After the opportunity to read the 
statements, farmers certify their eligibility and the accuracy of the 
information they have provided when they sign the insurance 
application. Identifying a duplicative payment would rely on farmers' 
self-reporting. FSA and RMA officials stated that prior to our 
request, the agencies had not made an effort to identify duplicative 
payments involving NAP and AGR or any other RMA crop insurance 
policies because these programs have a low risk of a duplicative 
payment and that the agencies' limited resources are needed in other 
areas. The RMA officials said that areas with a greater risk of larger 
improper payments include questionable payments to farmers for crop 
losses.[Footnote 38] We recognize that these duplicative payments are 
less than 1 percent (0.0006) of total crop insurance payments, but our 
review showed that monitoring of NAP and crop insurance payments by 
data matching or other activities can identify whether duplicative 
payments have been made and assist USDA in recovering duplicative 
payments. 

Under federal internal control standards, monitoring is to be 
performed continually and includes regular management and supervisory 
activities, comparisons, and reconciliations.[Footnote 39] Without 
monitoring these farm programs and engaging in data matching or other 
activities for at least a sample of payments, it will be difficult for 
the agencies to identify whether duplicative payments have occurred 
and the reasons for these occurrences and make changes, as needed, to 
prevent future occurrences. RMA and FSA have identified 13 apparently 
duplicative payments over a 2-year period through data matching, and 
RMA officials are in the process of recovering such payments. However, 
FSA and RMA officials said that they had no plans to monitor NAP and 
crop insurance payments--including payments made under catastrophic-
level policies and AGR policies--by engaging in activities to identify 
duplicative payments. RMA officials said developing a plan to conduct 
such monitoring would be a reasonable action to take so that the 
agencies could identify duplicative payments and establish the size of 
the problem. These officials also said they have not determined 
whether internal control weaknesses are of a magnitude to warrant 
additional controls given resource constraints and higher priorities. 
Federal internal control standards state that management should design 
and implement internal controls based on the related cost and benefits. 

Duplicative Payments Are Possible between NAP and an RMA Pilot Offered 
in Six States for 2014 due to an Agency Decision: 

FSA decided in 2013 to allow coverage by both NAP and a pilot RMA crop 
insurance policy in six states for 1 year (crop year 2014) because of 
concerns that farmers might not become aware of the pilot policy in 
time to obtain coverage. This decision may result in duplicative 
payments because a farmer may be paid for forage production losses due 
to drought under NAP and also be paid for lower than average rainfall 
causing the same drought, under the pilot policy for the same acreage. 
RMA initiated the pilot crop insurance policy starting with the 2014 
crop year to cover losses for annual forage[Footnote 40] resulting 
from lower than average rainfall. The pilot policy is intended to take 
the place of coverage previously offered under NAP and is being 
offered in Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and 
Texas. The pilot policy offers catastrophic-level coverage to farmers 
for annual forage based on RMA's rainfall index.[Footnote 41] 

However, a 2013 FSA policy memorandum stated that for 2014 only, 
farmers would still be eligible to obtain forage coverage from NAP 
despite the pilot RMA crop insurance policy being available.[Footnote 
42] As a result, there is a potential for duplicative payments to the 
same farmers, which would not be consistent with statute or 
regulation.[Footnote 43] Farmers in the six states who only use their 
land for forage could sign up for both the RMA pilot policy and NAP 
for forage coverage for the 2014 crop year and file claims for the 
same loss under both programs. 

Starting in the 2015 crop year, no NAP coverage option for forage will 
be available in those six states, and farmers will need to decide 
which acres they want covered under the RMA pilot coverage for forage 
and which acres they want covered through crop insurance for their 
wheat production. FSA officials said they expect most grain farmers to 
cover their wheat production rather than forage because it is the more 
valuable of the two crops. The FSA memo stated that the agency decided 
to leave the NAP program in place for the 2014 crop year out of 
concern that many farmers would not learn that they were ineligible 
for NAP coverage until it was too late to sign up for RMA's pilot crop 
insurance policy and could end up with no coverage at all. FSA 
officials said they would not know how many duplicative payments were 
made or the amount of duplicative payments that occurred until later 
in 2014 when the last payments for losses are paid. However, these 
officials said that they estimated that the total amount of 
duplicative payments would be less than $10 million. An FSA official 
confirmed that if a drought were to occur, the amount of duplicative 
payments would increase. As of March 4, 2014, drought is occurring in 
four of the six pilot states. 

Through FSA's policy decision, the agencies are allowing the 
possibility for duplicative payments to occur. FSA's 2013 memo on its 
decision to allow both NAP and RMA coverage in the six pilot states 
said that USDA did not consider losses under RMA's annual forage 
policy and FSA's NAP forage to be the same crop losses. The memo said 
the RMA losses would be based on lack of rainfall, and the NAP losses 
would be calculated based on production, but did not address the 
statute prohibiting NAP coverage when catastrophic-level crop 
insurance is available. The memo also did not address the potentially 
duplicative payments from NAP coverage of forage and RMA catastrophic-
level coverage of winter wheat. The amount of potentially duplicative 
payments will not be known until later in 2014 because most payments 
will not be made until after summer 2014, according to a senior FSA 
official. RMA and FSA have not developed a plan to prevent or recover 
potential duplicative payments between FSA's NAP and RMA's annual 
forage pilot policy or NAP forage coverage and RMA's catastrophic-
level coverage for winter wheat in the 2014 crop year. Based on our 
interviews with RMA and FSA officials, it was not clear why such a 
plan has not been developed. Without such a plan, the agencies may 
have difficulty preventing or recovering potential duplicative 
payments made in 2014. 

Conclusions: 

USDA administers a wide array of programs that provide financial 
assistance to farms to ensure that they continue to produce a generous 
supply of food and make significant contributions to the nation's 
economy and food security. Our review of the 60 USDA programs 
available to farmers during the effective period of the 2008 farm bill 
found some overlap, but no evidence that the programs are duplicative 
in terms of their activities or services. However, of USDA's three 
largest programs covering crop losses, two--FSA's NAP and RMA's 
Federal Crop Insurance Program--have made some duplicative payments. 
Those programs have a number of internal controls designed to help 
prevent such payments. But without monitoring by conducting data 
matching or other activities to identify the extent to which 
duplicative payments have been made and the reasons for these 
occurrences, it will be difficult for the agencies to determine 
whether duplicative payments have been made through NAP and crop 
insurance programs. The agencies have no plans to monitor these 
payments by engaging in such activities, although RMA officials said 
developing a plan to conduct such monitoring would be a reasonable 
action to take to establish the size of the problem. 

In addition, due to a policy decision by FSA in 2013, farmers in six 
states covered by a pilot crop insurance policy could receive 
duplicative payments for crop year 2014. The decision was made because 
of concern that farmers might not become aware of the pilot policy in 
time to obtain coverage. However, the decision means that for that 
year, farmers in those six states could receive forage coverage from 
NAP as well as forage coverage from the RMA pilot policy. FSA decided 
to allow coverage that may result in duplicative payments for one 
year, but the agencies did not develop a plan to prevent such 
duplicative payments from occurring or to recover potential 
duplicative payments made in 2014 to help mitigate the impact of FSA's 
policy decision. Without such a plan, the agencies may have difficulty 
preventing or recovering potential duplicative payments made in 2014. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To further strengthen internal controls for preventing duplicative 
payments, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the 
administrators of RMA and FSA to take the following two actions: 

* Monitor NAP and crop insurance payments by conducting data matching 
or other activities to identify the extent to which duplicative 
payments have been made and the reasons for these occurrences and make 
changes, as needed, to prevent future occurrences. 

* Develop a plan to prevent or recover any potential duplicative 
payments in 2014 resulting from FSA's decision to continue NAP 
eligibility for forage payments in 2014 in the six states covered by 
the RMA pilot forage policy. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided the Secretary of Agriculture with a draft of this report 
for review and comment. In written comments, which are reproduced in 
appendix VI, USDA generally agreed with our report's findings and 
recommendations. The comment letter further states that FSA and RMA 
plan to evaluate different options on how to monitor NAP payments and 
crop insurance payments to identify the extent to which duplicative 
payments may occur. USDA also provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated, as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to the Secretary of Agriculture, the appropriate congressional 
committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this 
report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Anne-Marie Fennell: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Select Changes to: 

Farm Assistance Programs under the 2014 Farm Bill: 

On February 7, 2014, the President signed the 2014 farm bill into law. 
Under the 2014 farm bill, there have been several changes made to the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture's programs described in this report 
that offer financial assistance to farmers. Such changes are 
summarized below. 

Changes to Commodity Programs under the 2014 Farm Bill: 

The 2014 farm bill authorizes commodity programs for the 2014 through 
2018 crop years and through December 31, 2018, for dairy programs. In 
addition, the 2014 farm bill: 

* Eliminates the Direct Payments Program,[Footnote 44] Counter-
Cyclical Payments Program, and Average Crop Revenue Election Program. 

* Retains a counter-cyclical price program that makes a farm payment 
when prices for covered crops decline below certain levels and a 
revenue-based program designed to cover a portion of a farmer's out-of-
pocket loss (or "shallow loss"). A farm that produces covered crops 
[Footnote 45] has a one-time, irrevocable opportunity to elect either 
Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agricultural Risk Coverage (ARC) on a 
crop-by-crop basis. If no choice is made, the farm defaults to PLC. 
The farmer may elect county-based or individual farm ARC, but this 
election applies to the entire farm. PLC payments occur if the 
effective price for the crop year is less than the crop's reference 
price. ARC payments occur when actual crop revenue is below the ARC 
revenue guarantee for a crop year. 

* Extends the Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loan Program and the 
Loan Deficiency Payments Program and extends, and in some cases 
modifies, the associated loan rates. 

* Replaces the Dairy Product Price Support Program, Milk Income Loss 
Contract Program, and export subsidies with a Margin Protection 
Program for Dairy Producers based on the difference between the price 
of milk and feed cost of producing milk. A farmer elects a coverage 
level from $4 to $8 per hundredweight. No premium is paid for the $4 
coverage level; premiums are paid for higher coverage levels. 

* Retroactively reauthorizes four of the five disaster programs 
authorized in the 2008 farm bill. The Supplemental Revenue Assistance 
Payments Program is not reauthorized, though elements of the program 
are folded into ARC by allowing producers to protect against farm-
level revenue losses. The Livestock Indemnity Program; Livestock 
Forage Disaster Program; Emergency Assistance for Livestock, 
Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program; and the Tree Assistance 
Program are permanently authorized. 

Changes to Conservation Programs under the 2014 Farm Bill: 

The 2014 farm bill reduces and consolidates the number of conservation 
programs. Specifically, the 2014 farm bill: 

* Extends many of the larger existing conservation programs, such as 
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Conservation Stewardship Program, 
with smaller and similar conservation programs "rolled" into them. CRP 
is amended to include the enrollment of grassland acres similar to the 
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP), which is repealed. EQIP is 
reauthorized with funding dedicated for wildlife habitat practices 
similar to the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, which is repealed. 

* Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create two new conservation 
programs--the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and 
the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP)--out of several 
existing programs. Conservation easement programs, including the 
Wetlands Reserve Program and GRP, are repealed and consolidated to 
create ACEP. The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative and other 
programs are consolidated into the new RCPP, which uses partnership 
agreements with state and local governments, Indian tribes, and farmer 
cooperatives, among others to leverage federal funding and further 
conservation on a regional or watershed scale. 

Changes to the Federal Crop Insurance Program under the 2014 Farm Bill: 

Regarding crop insurance, the 2014 farm bill: 

* Directs RMA to make available a new crop insurance policy called the 
Stacked Income Protection Plan (STAX) for cotton farmers. The STAX 
policy indemnifies losses in county revenue of 10 to 30 percent of 
expected revenue based on the deductible level selected by the farmer 
for the underlying individual policy. The farmer's subsidy as a share 
of the policy premium is set at 80 percent. 

* Establishes an additional coverage called the Supplemental Coverage 
Option, for farmers selecting PLC but not ARC. The Supplemental 
Coverage Option is based on expected county yields or revenue, to 
cover part of the deductible under the farmer's underlying policy 
(referred to as a farmer's out-of-pocket loss or "shallow loss"). The 
farmer subsidy as a share of the policy premium is set at 65 percent. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

This report, based on farm programs under way during the effective 
period of the 2008 farm bill, examines (1) the number of U.S. 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs that provided financial 
assistance to farms, the total amount of this assistance, and the 
potential for overlap and duplication among these programs; (2) the 
extent, if at all, that farms received payments from farm programs, 
including multiple farm programs, and the amount of these payments; 
and (3) the internal control activities USDA has designed to help 
prevent duplicative payments for the same crop losses to the same 
farms. For this report, a farm is defined as any place from which at 
least $1,000 worth of agricultural commodities were produced or sold, 
or normally have been sold, in a year. A farmer is a person who 
operates a farm, either doing the work or making day-to-day operating 
decisions for the farm. The term farm program is generally meant to 
include the commodity programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
(FSA), as well as the other USDA programs that directly benefit 
farmers. For this report, we include only those farm programs that 
provide some form of financial assistance to farmers and exclude 
programs that provide solely technical assistance. We define 
agricultural commodities as any crop, livestock, or other agricultural 
products, such as wool or honey, produced by a farm. When we refer to 
crop losses in this report, we are also including livestock losses. 

To determine the number of USDA programs that provided financial 
assistance to farms, the total amount of this assistance, and the 
potential for overlap and duplication among these programs, we 
developed an inventory of USDA farm assistance programs in existence 
during the effective period of the 2008 farm bill. We developed this 
inventory using, among other sources, the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance; USDA program fact sheets and other publicly available 
information from USDA's website; and studies completed by us, USDA, 
the Congressional Research Service, and other organizations. In 
addition, we interviewed officials from USDA's Agricultural Marketing 
Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, FSA, Foreign 
Agricultural Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Office 
of Inspector General (OIG), Risk Management Agency (RMA), and Rural 
Development. In our inventory, we included all USDA-administered 
programs that provided financial assistance--such as payments, loans, 
or debt restructuring--to farmers during fiscal years 2008 through 
2012. We generally excluded from the inventory any programs that (1) 
provided assistance to processors only (e.g., programs that provided 
financial assistance to sugar processors), (2) provided only technical 
assistance to farmers, (3) were considered to be components of larger 
programs (e.g., the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, which we 
listed as a component of the Conservation Reserve Program), or (4) 
provided assistance to states or tribes, unless the financial 
assistance provided by these programs subsequently went to farmers 
through the state agencies or tribes. In addition to brief 
descriptions of each program, we obtained information on the 
characteristics of these programs--such as the type of assistance 
provided (e.g., direct payments, price support payments, or loss 
compensation payments); the recipients, commodities, lands, and costs 
that were eligible for the programs; and the risks covered by the 
programs--among others. Based on this inventory, we developed six 
categories to describe the type of financial assistance these programs 
offered to farmers.[Footnote 46] We requested that USDA officials 
review the programs we included in our inventory as well as the 
descriptions provided for each program, and they verified the 
completeness and accuracy of the information presented. We also 
obtained the dollars obligated for each of the programs in our 
inventory and total outlays for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 (the 
most recent year for which data were available) from USDA budget 
documents and agency officials in USDA's program offices as well as 
USDA's Office of Budget and Program Analysis. For this report, we 
primarily used obligations to express the federal government's 
commitment to these programs. We interviewed agency officials and 
reviewed system documentation, including documentation of training, 
and did not identify any concerns about the reliability of the data. 
Based on the information we gathered, we determined these data are 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. In addition, we 
(1) reviewed our annual reports on opportunities to reduce overlap and 
duplication across federal agencies and programs;[Footnote 47] (2) 
reviewed information on the characteristics of the programs in our 
inventory; and (3) reviewed studies by and interviewed officials from 
USDA and the Congressional Research Service to determine whether 
programs were overlapping or duplicative. In this report, we use the 
same definitions for overlap and duplication found in our annual 
reports: 

* Overlap occurs when multiple agencies or programs have similar 
goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or 
target similar beneficiaries. 

* Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or programs are engaged 
in the same activities or provide the same services to the same 
beneficiaries. 

We recognize that there could be instances where program overlap and 
duplication may result from the way programs are designed in statute 
and some overlap and duplication may be warranted due to the nature or 
magnitude of the federal effort. 

To determine the extent, if at all, that farms received payments from 
farm programs, including multiple farm programs, and the amount of 
these payments, we worked with staff in USDA's Economic Research 
Service (ERS) to specify custom analyses of the data they collect 
using the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) on government 
payments received by farms for calendar years 2008 through 2011 (the 
most recent years for which ARMS data were available during the 
effective period of the 2008 farm bill) and selected characteristics 
of these farms, such as the size of the farm as measured by farm sales 
and the agricultural commodity produced. We selected these 
characteristics because they allowed us to analyze the data based on 
whether it was a small, mid-sized or large farm and what commodities 
were produced. ARMS is an annual survey of individual farm costs and 
returns, including government payments, which is aimed at estimating 
the farm sector's financial condition, production practices, and 
resource use. The survey allows linking payments to farm 
characteristics. However, it does not account for all payments in a 
given fiscal year, and estimates derived from ARMS have sampling error 
associated with them. To increase the likelihood that this analysis 
would produce results that would be reportable (i.e., with sample 
sizes large enough to produce reliable data), we worked with ERS staff 
to organize the program payments collected in ARMS into four 
functional payment categories--direct payments; major price-related 
payments such as payments made to a farmer when a commodity price 
falls below a specific level; major conservation program payments; and 
other federal, state, or local agricultural program payments. Each 
payment category combined payments farms received from at least two 
programs as follows: [Footnote 48] 

1. Direct payments include those that farms received from either the 
Direct Payments Program or the Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) 
Program. 

2. Major price-related payments include Counter-Cyclical Payments 
Program payments, Average Crop Revenue Election Program revenue 
payments, loan deficiency payments, marketing loan gains, or the net 
value of commodity certificates that farms received. 

3. Major conservation program payments include any Conservation 
Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands 
Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Payments Program, 
Conservation Security Program, or Conservation Stewardship Program 
payments that the farm received. 

4. Other federal, state, or local agricultural program payments 
include any agricultural disaster program, Milk Income Loss Contract, 
Tobacco Transition Payment,[Footnote 49] or any other federal, state, 
or local agricultural program payments that the farm received. 

Because each payment category combines payments from two or more 
programs, if a farm received payments from one payment category, it 
received payments from at least one, and possibly multiple, farm 
programs. Conversely, a farm that received payments from two payment 
categories may have received payments from just one program if the 
farm received ACRE direct payments, which are included in the direct 
payments category, and ACRE revenue payments, which are included in 
the major price-related payments category, but no other payments. We 
were unable to isolate the individual program or programs within a 
payment category from which a farm received a payment. We worked with 
ERS to design analyses of the payment categories to determine how many 
farms received payments from one, two, three, or four different 
payment categories. We also worked with ERS staff to specify custom 
analyses that examined how the amount of the payments and the 
characteristics of farms varied as the number of different categories 
of farm program payments received increased. Characteristics of farms 
we examined included the size of the farm as measured by farm sales 
and acres operated; the gross cash farm income; whether the farm 
purchased federal crop insurance and if so, how much; the production 
specialty (e.g., livestock) of the farm; and the ownership structure 
(e.g., sole proprietorships, partnerships, or corporations) of the 
farm. We obtained the computer coding ERS used to generate the 
analyses, as well information on the statistical reliability of the 
results, and interviewed ERS officials to obtain additional detail 
about how they conducted the analyses. Based on the information we 
gathered, we determined the results of these analyses are sufficiently 
reliable for our purposes. 

To identify the internal control activities that USDA has designed to 
help prevent duplicative payments for the same crop losses, we focused 
on RMA's crop insurance program, FSA's Supplemental Revenue Assistance 
Payments Program, and FSA's Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance 
Program (NAP) because they accounted for most of the payments USDA 
made for crop losses from fiscal years 2008 through 2013--the period 
covered by the 2008 farm bill. We reviewed prior GAO and USDA OIG 
reports, and laws, regulations, and USDA program policies and 
procedures that describe internal controls. We interviewed officials 
from (1) RMA headquarters and three regional compliance offices, (2) 
FSA headquarters and three county offices, (3) USDA OIG headquarters 
and regional offices, and (4) three USDA General Counsel officials to 
obtain information on the programs that pay for crop losses and the 
controls used to safeguard against duplicative payments. Regarding the 
two OIG reports that we cite for our discussion of SURE, we reviewed 
the methodology for those reports, including how the OIG sampled farm 
program payments and determined they were sufficiently reliable for 
the purposes of our report. In addition, we requested that FSA conduct 
an analysis to match payments made to the same farmers by FSA's NAP 
and RMA's Adjusted Gross Revenue crop insurance policy to identify 
whether any potentially duplicative payments had been made. To ensure 
the reliability of this analysis, we reviewed the FSA analysis and the 
methodology used to develop it, and requested that RMA's regional 
compliance offices review the results of the analysis and work with 
insurance companies to determine which, if any, payments were 
duplicative. Furthermore, we compared USDA internal control activities 
with federal standards for internal control (e.g., GAO's Standards for 
Internal Control in the Federal Government [GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]) to 
identify strengths and weaknesses. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2012 through July 
2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs for Fiscal Years 
2008 through 2012 That Offered Financial Assistance to Farmers: 

For fiscal years 2008 through 2012, 60 programs in 7 U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) agencies offered financial assistance to 
farmers. Table 1 describes these programs and provides information on 
the USDA agency or agencies that administered them; the commodities, 
lands, or costs that formed the basis of whether farmers were eligible 
for the programs; the type of financial assistance that the programs 
offered; and the total obligations for the programs for fiscal years 
2008 through 2012. 

Table 1: USDA Programs for Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012 That Offered 
Financial Assistance to Farmers: 

Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) - 1 program; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP); 
NOCCSP provides certification cost share assistance to farmers and 
handlers of organic agricultural products in states that receive 
certification or continuation of certification from a USDA-accredited 
certifying agent. Reimbursements are provided through participating 
states. NOCCSP covers up to 75 percent of the costs of certification, 
limited to $750 per year; 
Eligible costs: According to AMS policies and procedures, application 
fees, inspection costs, first-time National Organic Program 
certification fees, travel costs and per diem for organic inspectors, 
user fees, sales assessments, and postage; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $21.5 million. 

Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) - 2 
programs; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Animal 
Indemnity Programs; 
APHIS provides payments to farmers, in cooperation with states, for 
livestock that are destroyed as part of a disease control effort. 
Indemnities serve as an incentive to farmers to report disease 
promptly to minimize the risk of disease spread. Indemnities are 
authorized for animals destroyed because of tuberculosis, brucellosis, 
pseudorabies, foot-and-mouth disease, pleuropneumonia, rinderpest, 
scrapie, chronic wasting disease, avian influenza, and certain other 
communicable diseases of livestock; 
Eligible commodities: Cattle, bison, or captive cervids (such as deer, 
elk, and moose) because of tuberculosis; sheep or goats because of 
scrapie; cattle, bison, swine, sheep, goats, and horses because of 
brucellosis; swine because of pseudorabies; all livestock, including 
poultry, because of foot-and-mouth disease, pleuropnemonia, 
rinderpest, and certain other communicable diseases; any captive 
cervid because of chronic wasting disease; and poultry because of 
avian influenza; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $49.0 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Plant 
Indemnity Programs; 
APHIS makes payments to farmers to mitigate losses or compensate for 
costs incurred as a result of Karnal bunt because of regulations and 
emergency actions or plum pox quarantine and emergency actions; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat affected by Karnal bunt, and stone fruit 
affected by plum pox; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses and to 
compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $0.5 million. 

Agency: Farm Service Agency (FSA) - 40 programs; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Aquaculture Grant Program (AGP); 
AGP provides financial assistance to aquaculture farmers who 
experienced high feed input costs during the 2008 calendar year. FSA 
provides block grants to state departments of agriculture that agree 
to provide assistance to eligible farmers. Payments are calculated by 
multiplying a farmer's total feed deliveries in calendar year 2009 by 
the farmer's payment rate. Payments are limited to $100,000; 
Eligible commodities: Any aquaculture species; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $48.5 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment (ALAP) Program; 
ALAP compensates asparagus farmers for revenue losses resulting from 
imports during the 2004 through 2007 crop years. Eligible farmers will 
receive a market loss payment based upon the marketing category of 
their 2003 crop of asparagus. Payments are limited to $100,000; 
Eligible commodities: Commercial quantities of asparagus produced and 
marketed during both crop years 2003 and 2007; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support revenue; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $14.8 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Average 
Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program[A, B]; 
ACRE is an alternative revenue-based safety net to the price-based 
safety net provided by the Direct Payments and Counter-Cyclical 
Payments programs for crop years 2009 through 2012. ACRE payments are 
made when (1) the actual state-level revenue for a crop falls below a 
guaranteed level, and (2) the farmer experiences an individual crop 
revenue loss on a farm. A farmer's decision to enroll and "elect" ACRE 
may be made in any of the crop years 2009-2012; however, ACRE election 
is irrevocable and cannot be changed from the time of election through 
the 2012 crop year. If ACRE is selected, Direct Payments are limited 
to $40,000 minus a 20 percent Direct Payment reduction. ACRE payments 
are limited to $65,000 in addition to the 20 percent direct payment 
reduction amount. In addition, farmers are not eligible for Counter-
Cyclical Payments and their marketing assistance loan rates are 
reduced by 30 percent; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, 
rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame 
seed, pulse crops, and other oilseeds as determined by the Secretary, 
and peanuts; 
Type of financial assistance: Direct payments and payments to support 
revenue; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $442.6 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Biomass 
Crop Assistance Program (BCAP); 
BCAP provides financial assistance to owners and operators of 
agricultural and nonindustrial private forest land to establish 
produce, and deliver biomass feed stocks. Assistance may include 
annual payments and up to 75 percent payment of cost-share assistance 
to establish eligible crops. BCAP also assists agricultural and forest 
land owners and operators with matching payments for the collection, 
harvest, storage and transportation of eligible material by a 
qualified biomass conversion facility; 
Eligible lands: Agricultural and non-industrial private forestland 
(excluding federal or state-owned land, land that is native sod, or 
land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve 
Program, or Grassland Reserve Program); 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $290.6 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Commodity Certificates[B]; 
The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) offers farmers the opportunity 
to purchase commodity certificates that may be exchanged for the 
farmer's outstanding marketing assistance loan collateral rather than 
forfeit the loan collateral at loan maturity. The program was 
terminated by the 2008 farm bill beginning for the 2009 crop year; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat, rice, feed grains (including corn), pulse 
crops (dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas), peanuts, wool, mohair, 
upland cotton, soybeans, and designated minor oilseeds; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $893.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Conservation Loan (CL) Program; 
CL provides direct loans and loan guarantees to finance conservation 
techniques that will conserve natural resources. Guaranteed 
conservation loans are limited to a maximum indebtedness of $1,214,000 
for fiscal year 2012. Direct conservation loans, which have a maximum 
indebtedness of $300,000, received funding in fiscal years 2010 and 
2011; 
Eligible costs: Conservation practices approved by NRCS, such as the 
installation of conservation structures; establishment of forest cover; 
installation of water conservation measures; establishment or 
improvement of permanent pastures; implementation of waste management; 
and the adaptation of other emerging or existing conservation 
practices, techniques or technologies; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $16.8 million[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)[D]; 
CRP provides farmers with annual contract payments, including certain 
incentive payments, and cost-share assistance. To participate, farmers 
must enter into contracts to convert eligible lands into conserving 
uses. Contract durations are between 10 and 15 years. The objective of 
the program is to cost-effectively reduce water and wind erosion, 
reduce sedimentation, improve water quality, and create and enhance 
wildlife habitat, among other things; 
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is a derivative 
program of CRP. It is a federal-state cooperative effort designed to 
target specific high-priority resource concerns. The program is a 
partnership among farmers; tribal, state, and federal governments; 
and, in some cases, private groups; 
Eligible lands: Land must be cropland that is planted or considered 
planted to an agricultural commodity 4 of the 6 previous crop years 
from 2002 through 2007, and which is physically and legally capable of 
being planted in crops; or certain marginal pastureland; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $9.566 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Counter-
Cyclical Payments (CCP) Program[B]; 
CCP provides payments to farmers when national farm prices drop below 
a certain threshold (i.e., a crop's target price minus the Direct 
Payment rate). Farmers and landowners receive a payment based on their 
farm's historical acreage and yield. The CCP payments are crop-
specific and depend on the relationship between national average farm 
prices and government-set target prices. Payments are limited to 
$65,000 annually; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, 
rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame 
seed, pulse crops, and other oilseeds as determined by the Secretary, 
lentils, small and large chickpeas, and peanuts; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support revenue; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $2.127 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Crop 
Assistance Program (CAP); 
CAP is a limited one-time program providing emergency assistance to 
reestablish the purchasing power of eligible rice, upland cotton, 
soybean, and sweet potato farmers in specified counties for which a 
Secretarial disaster designation was issued based on excessive 
moisture and related conditions for the 2009 crop year. Payments are 
limited to $100,000; 
Eligible commodities: Rice, upland cotton, soybeans, and sweet 
potatoes from 2009 crop year; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $258.5 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Dairy 
Economic Loss Assistance Payment (DELAP) Program; 
DELAP provides assistance to dairy farmers who have recently 
experienced low milk prices and high production costs. Farmers will 
receive a one-time payment based on the amount of milk both produced 
and commercially marketed by their operation during the months of 
February through July 2009; 
Eligible commodities: Commercially marketed milk produced in the 
United States from February 2009 through July 2009; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $287.3 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Dairy 
Indemnity Payment Program (DIPP); 
DIPP provides payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy 
products when a formally registered public regulatory agency directs 
them to remove their raw milk from the commercial market because it 
has been contaminated by pesticides, nuclear radiation or fallout, or 
chemical or toxic substances. The indemnity payment is based on the 
average daily production; 
Eligible commodities: Commercially marketed whole milk or dairy 
products; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.6 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Dairy 
Product Price Support Program (DPPSP); 
DPPSP supports the price of nonfat dry milk, butter, and cheddar at 
statutory minimum levels through the purchase of such products made 
from cow's milk produced in the United States. The established prices 
are uniform for all regions of the United States and may be increased 
by the Secretary when considered appropriate; 
Eligible commodities: Cheddar cheese, butter, and nonfat dry milk; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $277.2 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Debt 
for Nature (DFN) Program; 
DFN allows farmers to cancel a portion of their FSA indebtedness in 
exchange for a conservation contract with a term of 50, 30, or 10 
years. The conservation contract is a voluntary legal agreement that 
restricts the type and amount of development that may take place on 
portions of the farmer's property. Contracts may be established on 
marginal cropland and other environmentally sensitive lands for 
conservation, recreation, and wildlife purposes; 
Eligible lands: Wetlands; highly erodible lands; lands containing 
aquatic life, endangered species, or wildlife habitat of local, 
regional, or national importance; lands in 100-year floodplains; 
areas of high water quality or scenic value; historic or cultural 
properties listed or eligible for the National Register of Historic 
Places; aquifer recharge areas of local, regional, or state importance; 
buffer zones necessary to protect proposed conservation contract areas; 
and areas within or adjacent to federal, state, or local conservation 
areas; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $0[E]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Direct 
Payments (DP) Program[A]; 
DP provides farmers with fixed annual payments based on their farms' 
historical crop production. USDA makes these payments regardless of 
whether these farmers grow crops, as long as they and their farms meet 
certain eligibility criteria. DP payments do not vary with crop prices 
or crop yields and are made regardless of a farmer's risk factors. 
Payments are limited to $40,000 annually; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland 
cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, soybeans, sunflower seed, 
rapeseed, canola, safflower, flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe, sesame 
seed, and other oilseeds as determined by the Secretary and peanuts; 
Type of financial assistance: Direct payments; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $23.524 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Downpayment Farm Ownership Loans; 
Downpayment Farm Ownership loans provide beginning and socially 
disadvantaged farmers loans and loan guarantees to partially finance 
the purchase of a family farm. FSA provides not more than the least of 
45 percent of the purchase price, 45 percent of the appraised value of 
the farm, or $225,000. The farmer must provide a minimum of 5 percent 
of the purchase price and secure other financing for the remaining 50 
percent; 
Eligible costs: Available to socially disadvantaged or beginning 
farmers to purchase a farm; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $668.8 million[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Durum 
Wheat Quality Program (DWQP); 
DWQP compensates farmers of durum wheat for the cost of fungicide 
applied to control Fusarium head blight, commonly known as wheat scab. 
Farmers will be compensated for 50 percent of their share of both the 
purchase price of an eligible fungicide and the cost of applying the 
eligible fungicide to durum wheat acres. To be eligible, the farmer 
must have a share in the durum wheat planted, as well as a share in 
the costs to acquire and apply eligible fungicide; 
Eligible commodities: Durum wheat treated with eligible fungicide to 
control Fusarium head blight, applied during flowering stage of the 
crop; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $2.9 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish 
Program (ELAP); 
ELAP provides emergency assistance to farmers of livestock, honeybees, 
and farm-raised fish not covered under other supplemental agricultural 
disaster assistance payment programs, covering losses due to disease, 
adverse weather conditions, and wildfires that occur on or before 
September 30, 2011. Payments from SURE, LIP, LFP, and ELAP combined 
are limited to $100,000 per crop year; 
Eligible commodities: Specific losses not covered by LFP, LIP or SURE; 
Livestock: Alpacas, dairy cattle, beef cattle, beefalo, buffalo, deer, 
elk, emus, equine, goats, llamas, poultry, reindeer, sheep, or swine; 
Fish: Bait or game fish propagated and reared in a controlled 
environment; 
Fish feed: Fish must be an aquatic species propagated and reared in a 
controlled environment; 
Honeybees: Bees housed in a managed hive and used for honey production 
or pollination in commercial use in a farming operation; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $39.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP); 
ECP provides funding for farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by 
wind erosion, floods, hurricanes, or other natural disasters, and to 
carry out emergency water conservation measures during periods of 
severe drought. Eligible ECP participants may receive financial 
assistance of up to 75 percent of the cost to implement approved 
emergency land rehabilitation practices, or up to 90 percent for 
qualified limited resource producers. Cost-share assistance is limited 
to $200,000 per person or legal entity, per disaster; 
Eligible costs: Costs to replace or restore the farmland, fences, or 
conservation structures to a condition similar to that existing before 
the natural disaster; 
Eligible lands: Land that has new conservation problems as a result of 
a natural disaster that, if untreated, would impair or endanger the 
land; materially affect the land's productive capacity; represent 
unusual damage, which, except for wind erosion, is not the type likely 
to recur frequently in the same area; and be so costly to repair that 
federal assistance is or will be required to return the land to 
productive agricultural use; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $359.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP); 
EFRP provides payments to owners of rural nonindustrial private forest 
land to carry out emergency measures to restore forest health on land 
damaged by natural disasters. Participants may receive financial 
assistance of up to 75 percent of the cost to implement forest 
restoration measures. Payments are limited to $500,000 per disaster; 
Eligible costs: Costs to implement emergency forest restoration 
practices; 
Eligible lands: Forest land that has new conservation problems as a 
result of a natural disaster that if not dealt with would harm the 
natural resources on the land and significantly affect future use; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $19.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Emergency Loan Program (EM); 
EM provides loans to help farmers recover from production and physical 
losses due to natural disasters or quarantine who cannot obtain credit 
from commercial sources. EM loans are only available as direct loans. 
Farmers can borrow up to 100 percent of actual production or physical 
losses, to a maximum amount of $500,000; 
Eligible costs: Costs to repair or replace essential property (real 
estate and chattel) damaged or destroyed by the disaster; pay annual 
operating expenses; pay essential family living expenses; reorganize 
the farming operation, and refinance certain debts, among other things; 
Eligible lands: Land located in a county declared by the President or 
designated by the Secretary of Agriculture as a primary disaster area 
or quarantine area and counties contiguous to the primary counties; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $174.6 million[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Farm 
Operating Loans; 
Direct and guaranteed Farm Operating Loans are made to farmers to pay 
for farm operating costs and improvements. To qualify, farmers must be 
unable to obtain sufficient credit from commercial credit sources, 
have acceptable credit history demonstrated by debt repayment, and 
pledge enough collateral to fully secure the loan. Direct loans are 
limited to a maximum indebtedness of $300,000. Guaranteed loans were 
limited to a maximum indebtedness of $1,214,000 for fiscal year 2012; 
Eligible costs: Costs incident to reorganizing the farm; purchasing 
livestock, poultry, and equipment; meeting essential farm operating 
costs, land or water development, use, and conservation; paying loan 
closing costs; complying with occupational safety requirements; 
refinancing debt; family subsistence; and certain training; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $11.645 billion[C, F]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Farm 
Ownership Loans; 
Direct and guaranteed Farm Ownership Loans are made to farmers to 
acquire or enlarge a farm or ranch, make capital improvements, and 
promote soil and water conservation measures, among other things. To 
qualify, farmers must be unable to obtain sufficient credit from 
commercial credit sources, have acceptable credit history demonstrated 
by debt repayment, and pledge enough collateral to fully secure the 
loan. Direct loans are limited to a maximum indebtedness of $300,000. 
Guaranteed loans were limited to a maximum indebtedness of $1,214,000 
for fiscal year 2012; 
Eligible costs: Purchasing of a farm, enlarging an existing farm, 
constructing or improving farm structures, paying closing costs, and 
promoting soil and water conservation and protection; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $10.211 billion[C, F]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Farm 
Storage Facility Loan (FSFL) Program; 
FSFL provides low-interest financing for farmers to construct or 
upgrade farm storage and handling facilities. These loans must be 
approved by the local FSA county committee before any site preparation 
and/or construction can be started. The types of facilities eligible 
include but are not limited to bins for whole grain storage, new cold 
storage buildings and the remodeling of existing farm storage 
facilities. Loans are limited to $500,000; 
Eligible commodities: Corn, grain sorghum, rice, soybeans, oats, 
peanuts, wheat, barley or minor oilseeds harvested as whole grain; 
corn, grain sorghum, wheat, oats or barley harvested as other-than-
whole grain; lentils, chickpeas, dry peas, hay; renewable biomass; 
and fruits, vegetables, and nuts for cold storage facilities; 
Eligible costs: Costs to construct or upgrade storage facilities; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.126 billion[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP); 
FWP provides farmers with annual contract payments, including 
incentive payments, and cost share payments. Up to 1 million acres of 
farmable wetlands and associated buffers may be enrolled in the 
program. Farmers may enter between 10 and 15 year contracts and must 
restore the hydrology of the wetlands and establish vegetative cover; 
Eligible lands: Land that has been farmed and prior converted wetlands 
that have a cropping history in 3 of the immediately preceding 10 crop 
years; constructed wetland developed to receive flow for row-crop 
agriculture drainage system for the purpose of providing nitrogen 
removal and other wetland functions; land devoted to commercial pond-
raised aquaculture in any year during 2002-2007; and cropland that, 
after January 1, 1990, and before December 31, 2002, was planted in 
crops during at least 3 of 10 crop years, and was subject to the 
natural overflow of a prairie wetland; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $58.7 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Graze-
out Program; 
The Graze-out Program provides payments to farmers who elect to use 
their acreage planted to wheat, barley, oats, or triticale for grazing 
by livestock and agree to forgo any other harvesting of the crop on 
such acreage during the applicable crop year. Graze-out payments are 
subject to the same basic eligibility requirements as crop loans and 
loan deficiency payments. Graze-out acres may not receive assistance 
from MAL, LDP, crop insurance, or NAP; 
Eligible commodities: Wheat, barley, oats, or triticale that is not 
harvested by any means other than grazing; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: Less than $0.01 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Hawaii 
Sugar Disaster Program (HSDP); 
HSDP provides assistance to farmers who suffered a production loss due 
to a natural disaster during the 2008 crop year. The farmer must 
demonstrate that there was a lack of access to a policy or plan of 
insurance, or that the farmer does not qualify for a written agreement 
because one or more farming practices differed from that of other 
farming practices of farmers of the same crop in other regions of the 
United States. The farmer must also not be eligible for NAP; 
Eligible commodities: Sugar produced in Hawaii during the 2008 crop 
year; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $4.9 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Land 
Contract (LC) Guarantee Program; 
LC provides incentive for owners to sell land to beginning and 
socially disadvantaged farmers by reducing the financial risk to the 
seller due to buyer default on the contract payments. The program 
offers two guarantee options. The Prompt Payment Guarantee provides a 
guarantee of up to the amount of three annual installments and related 
real estate taxes and insurance on three occasions. The Standard 
Guarantee provides a 90-percent guarantee of the outstanding principal 
balance of the land contract. The program is only available for farms 
priced at $500,000 or less; 
Eligible lands: Farm owned by someone selling real estate through a 
land contract to a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or 
rancher; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $0. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP); 
LFP provides payments to livestock farmers who have suffered grazing 
losses due to drought on land that is native or improved pastureland 
with permanent vegetative cover or is planted specifically for 
grazing. LFP also provides compensation to livestock farmers that have 
suffered grazing losses on rangeland managed by a federal agency if 
the livestock farmer is prohibited by the federal agency from grazing 
the normal permitted livestock on the managed rangeland due to a 
qualifying fire. The grazing losses must have occurred on or after 
January 1, 2008, and before October 1, 2011. Payments from SURE, LIP, 
LFP, or ELAP combined are limited to $100,000 per year; 
Eligible commodities: Alpacas, cattle (beef, beefalo, buffalo, dairy), 
deer, elk, emus, equine, goats, llamas, poultry, reindeer, sheep, and 
swine; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $555.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); 
LIP provides indemnity payments to livestock farmers suffering deaths 
in excess of normal mortality caused by adverse weather between 
January 1, 2008, and October 1, 2011. The livestock death losses must 
also have occurred in the calendar year for which benefits are being 
requested. Farmers do not have to be located in a county or contiguous 
county designated a natural disaster. Payments are based on the 
individual farmer's losses. Payments from SURE, LIP, LFP, or ELAP 
combined are limited to $100,000 per year; 
Eligible commodities: Alpacas, cattle (beef, beefalo, buffalo, dairy), 
deer, elk, emus, equine, goats, llamas, poultry (chickens, ducks, 
geese, turkeys), reindeer, sheep, and swine; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $145.0 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Loan 
Deficiency Payments (LDP)[B]; 
LDP provides payments to farmers eligible for Nonrecourse Marketing 
Assistance Loans (MAL) who agree to forgo MAL. The LDP rate equals the 
amount by which the applicable loan rate where the commodity is stored 
exceeds the effective MAL repayment rate for the respective commodity. 
The LDP amount equals the LDP rate times the quantity of the commodity 
for which the LDP is requested; 
Eligible commodities: Barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, soybeans, 
oilseeds (including sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, 
flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe and sesame seed), wheat, dry peas, 
lentils, chickpeas, rice, cotton, wool, mohair, unshorn pelts, hay, 
silage, honey, and peanuts; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $373.0 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Milk 
Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program; 
MILC compensates dairy farmers who enter into contracts when domestic 
milk prices fall below a specified level. MILC payments are made 
monthly when the milk price falls below the established price per 
hundredweight and are issued by CCC based upon selection of a start 
month by the farmer. Farmers are subject to an annual maximum eligible 
pound limit per dairy operation which varies by per fiscal year; 
Eligible commodities: Commercially marketed cow milk produced in the 
United States between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2012; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.344 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP); 
NAP provides eligible farmers with catastrophic-level coverage for 
crop losses and planting prevented due to qualifying natural disasters 
for crops when catastrophic-level crop insurance is unavailable. 
Landowners, tenants, or sharecroppers who share in the risk of 
producing an eligible crop are eligible. Payments for covered losses 
are limited to $100,000 per crop year; 
Eligible commodities: Crops grown for food; crops planted and grown 
for livestock consumption, including, but not limited to grain and 
forage crops, including native forage; crops grown for fiber, such as 
cotton and flax (except trees); crops grown in a controlled 
environment, such as mushrooms and floriculture; specialty crops, such 
as honey and maple sap; value loss crops, such as aquaculture, 
Christmas trees, ginseng, ornamental nursery, and turfgrass sod; 
sea oats and sea grass; and seed crops where the propagation stock is 
produced for sale for other eligible NAP crop production; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $559.4 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL)[B]; 
MAL provides an influx of cash when market prices are typically at 
harvest-time lows, which allows the farmer to delay the sale of the 
crop until more favorable market conditions emerge. Allowing farmers 
to store production at harvest or shearing provides for a more orderly 
marketing of crops throughout the year. There are no limitations on 
loan amounts. A farmer realizes a marketing loan gain (MLG) if the MAL 
is repaid at less than the loan principal. The MLG rate equals the 
amount by which the applicable loan rate exceeds the MAL repayment 
rate; 
Eligible commodities: Barley, corn, grain sorghum, oats, soybeans, 
oilseeds (including sunflower seed, rapeseed, canola, safflower, 
flaxseed, mustard seed, crambe and sesame seed), wheat, dry peas, 
lentils, chickpeas, rice, cotton, wool, mohair, honey, and peanuts; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $37.753 billion[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Poultry 
Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program (PGAP); 
PGAP provides assistance to poultry farmers whose poultry growing 
arrangements with a live poultry dealer were terminated because of 
that dealer's bankruptcy. FSA provides grants to the state departments 
of agriculture that agree to provide assistance to eligible poultry 
farmers. Payments are limited to $100,000; 
Eligible commodities: Poultry in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, 
Louisiana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support revenue; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $60.0 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Recourse Seed Cotton Loans; 
Recourse seed cotton loans are made available by CCC to farmers 
through March 31 of the year following the calendar year in which the 
cotton crop is normally harvested. Seed cotton pledged as collateral 
for a loan must be tendered to CCC by a farmer and must be in 
existence and in good condition at the time of disbursement of loan 
proceeds, in addition to other requirements; 
Eligible commodities: Seed cotton; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to support prices; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $96.2 million[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program (RTCP) for 
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers; 
RTCP reimburses geographically disadvantaged farmers with a portion of 
the cost to transport agricultural commodities or inputs used to 
produce an agricultural commodity. RTCP payments are calculated based 
on the amount of costs incurred by the farmer for transportation of 
the agricultural commodity or inputs during a fiscal year and 
multiplied by the applicable percentage of allowance for the 
applicable fiscal year in the applicable area. Payments are limited to 
$8,000 per fiscal year; 
Eligible commodities: Any agricultural commodity (including 
horticulture, aquaculture, and floriculture), food, feed, fiber, 
livestock (including elk, reindeer, bison, horses, or deer), or 
insects, and any product thereof; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $7.1 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program; 
SURE provides agricultural disaster assistance to farmers who suffered 
qualifying crop production losses, crop quality losses, or both due to 
damaging weather or adverse natural occurrences, such as an 
earthquake, that occurred on or before September 30, 2011. To receive 
SURE payments, a farmer must have suffered at least a 10 percent loss 
of at least one crop of economic significance due to a disaster on a 
farm in a disaster county. Farmers outside a declared disaster county, 
but with production losses greater than or equal to 50 percent of the 
normal production on the farm (expected revenue for all crops on the 
farm), also qualify for SURE. Payments from SURE, LIP, LFP, or ELAP 
combined are limited to $100,000 per year; 
Eligible commodities: The initial planting of Federal Crop Insurance 
Corporation-insured crops and crops covered by NAP, excluding acreage 
intended for grazing; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $2.518 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Tobacco 
Transition Payment Program (TTPP); 
TTPP provides payments to tobacco quota holders and tobacco farmers. 
TTPP is the final and only opportunity to receive federal payments 
related to tobacco marketing quotas. Payments began in 2005 for those 
who signed up on or before June 17, 2005. Sign up for the program is 
continuous through 2014 to allow those who missed the original signup 
to receive payments that have not been made as of the contract date. 
Owners, operators, landlords, tenants, or sharecroppers who shared 
production risk during any of the 2002, 2003, or 2004 marketing years 
are eligible. There are no payment limitations for TTPP payments; 
Eligible commodities: Certain varieties of tobacco; 
Type of financial assistance: Direct Payments; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $4.769 billion[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Transition Incentive Program (TIP); 
TIP provides annual rental payments to retired or retiring farmers for 
up to two additional years after the date of the expiration of a CRP 
contract. The retired or retiring farmer must agree to sell, or have a 
contract to sell, or agree to lease long-term (at least 5 years) the 
land enrolled in an expiring CRP contract to a beginning or socially 
disadvantaged farmer or rancher; 
Eligible lands: CRP land from a retired or retiring owner or operator. 
Land must be used for sustainable grazing or crop production; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $26.8 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Tree 
Assistance Program (TAP); 
TAP provides financial assistance to qualifying orchard and nursery 
tree farmers for a share of the costs to replant or rehabilitate 
eligible trees, bushes and vines that were affected by natural 
disasters and suffered mortality losses in excess of 15 percent, after 
adjustment for normal mortality on or before September 30, 2011. 
Payments are limited to $100,000 per year; 
Eligible commodities: Trees, bushes, and vines from which an annual 
crop is produced for commercial purposes. Nursery trees include 
ornamental, fruit, nut, and Christmas trees produced for commercial 
sale; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $33.9 million. 

Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) - 1 program; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Trade 
Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program; 
TAA provides financial benefits and technical assistance to farmers of 
agricultural commodities, including livestock and wild-caught aquatic 
species, who have been hurt by import competition. Farmers who develop 
an approved 'initial business plan' will receive up to $4,000 as 
payment toward implementing the plan or developing long-term business 
adjustment plans. Farmers who subsequently develop approved long-term 
business adjustment plans may receive an additional cash payment of up 
to $8,000 for plan implementation. A farmer may not receive more than 
$12,000 during the 36-month period following certification of a group 
petition; 
Eligible commodities: Agricultural commodities, including livestock, 
in its raw or natural state and wild-caught aquatic species can be 
eligible if the Secretary of Agriculture certifies the group of 
producers as being qualified when an increase in imports contributed 
to declines in price, value, production, or cash receipts; 
Eligible costs: Developing and implementing business plans; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $127.2 million. 

Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - 9 programs; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI); 
CBWI provides payments for approved conservation practices and systems 
and land use adjustments on agricultural and nonindustrial private 
forest lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed through the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program and Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; 
Eligible lands: Land within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, defined as 
all tributaries, backwaters, and side channels and their watersheds, 
that drain into the Chesapeake Bay in the states of Delaware, 
Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia as well 
as the District of Columbia that are eligible under the Environmental 
Quality Incentives Program or Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $188.1 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Conservation Security Program (CSP)[D]; 
CSP provides financial and technical assistance to promote the 
conservation and improvement of soil, water, air, energy, plant and 
animal life, and other conservation purposes. While CSP closed to new 
enrollees in 2008, the program continues to pay on enrolled acres 
until 2017. Annual contract payment amounts vary with level of 
participation, with an upward limit of $45,000. Since 2008, farmers 
must enroll new acres into the Conservation Stewardship Program. Acres 
cannot be enrolled in both CSP and the Conservation Stewardship 
Program; 
Eligible lands: Privately owned and tribal agricultural land (which 
includes cropland, rangeland, pastureland, and hayland) and forested 
land that is an incidental part of an agriculture operation; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.202 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP)[D]; 
CStP provides financial and technical assistance to conserve and 
enhance soil, water, air, and related natural resources on their land 
to encourage producers to address resource concerns. CStP payments may 
not exceed $40,000 in any year, and $200,000 during any 5-year period. 
CStP replaced CSP in 2008; acres cannot be enrolled in both; 
Eligible lands: Privately owned and tribal agricultural land (which 
includes cropland, rangeland, and pastureland on which agricultural 
products and livestock are produced). Agricultural land may also 
include incidental areas included in the agricultural operation; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.719 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program; 
EWP provides cost share assistance and in-kind services upon requests 
when a watershed impairment that poses a threat to health, life, or 
property is determine to exist to a state, subdivision of a state, 
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or local government. Except in 
limited resource areas, the federal contribution may not exceed 75 
percent of the construction cost of emergency measures. In addition, 
NRCS may purchase any floodplain easements lands that have been 
impaired within the last calendar year or have been flooded at least 
twice during the past 10 years; 
Eligible costs: Assistance may be provided for structural, enduring, 
and long-life conservation practices, including grassed waterways, 
terraces, embankment ponds, diversions, and water conservation systems; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $1.091 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)[D]; 
EQIP provides financial and technical assistance to farmers who face 
threats to soil, water, air quality, wildlife habitat, surface and 
groundwater conservation, energy conservation, and related natural 
resources on their land. NRCS contracts with farmers to implement 
conservation practices to address environmental natural resource 
problems. Generally, payments are made once conservation practices are 
completed according to NRCS requirements. Payments are limited to 
$300,000 for all contracts entered into in any 6-year period. Payments 
for organic production are limited to $20,000 per year or $80,000 
during any 6-year period for implementing conservation practices; 
Eligible lands: Eligible land includes agricultural land and 
nonindustrial private forest land, and other land on which 
agricultural products, livestock, or forest-related products are 
produced and resource concerns may be addressed. Other agricultural 
lands include cropped woodland, marshes, incidental areas included in 
the agricultural operation, and other types of agricultural land used 
for production of livestock; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $6.119 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Healthy 
Forests Reserve Program (HFRP); 
HFRP provides payments to landowners to assist them in restoring, 
enhancing, and protecting forestland resources on private lands 
through permanent and 30-year easements, 30-year contracts and 10-year 
cost-share agreements. Eligible landowners agree to implement 
restoration plans. In addition, landowners may avoid certain 
regulatory restrictions under the Endangered Species Act on the use of 
that land; 
Eligible costs: Landowners receive from 75 to 100 percent of the 
land's value for permanent easement and up 75 percent for 30-year 
easements and contracts. In addition, landowners may receive cost 
share payments of from 75 to 100 percent for measures in the 
restoration plan for permanent easements and cost share payments of up 
to 75 percent for 30-year easements or contracts. For 10-year cost-
share agreements, landowners may receive up to 50 percent of costs; 
Eligible lands: Private land or tribal lands that will contribute to 
the restoration or enhancement of the habitat or otherwise measurably 
increase the likelihood of recovery of a threatened or endangered 
species; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $38.9 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Water 
Bank Program (WBP); 
WBP provides payments to landowners who enter into 10-year agreements 
to implement conservations plans to protect, enhance, maintain, and 
manage the hydrologic conditions of the land. Landowners receive 
annual payments for conserving and protecting wetlands and adjacent 
lands from adverse land uses and activities, such as drainage, that 
would destroy the wetland characteristics of those lands. In addition, 
WBP offers cost-share payments of up to 75 percent of costs for 
wetland protection measures provided for by the conservation plan; 
Eligible lands: Certain privately owned wetlands and adjacent lands 
essential for nesting, breeding, or feeding of migratory waterfowl or 
for the protection of wetland. It does not include converted wetlands; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $7.3 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)[D]; 
WRP provides financial and technical assistance to owners of private 
and tribal lands to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange 
for retiring eligible land from agricultural production. WRP offers 
four enrollment options: permanent easements, 30-year easements, 30-
year contracts, and restoration cost-share agreements. WRP pays 100 
percent of the easement's fair-market value for permanent easements 
and up to 75 percent of the value for 30-year easements and 30-year 
contracts; 
Eligible costs: Restoration cost-share payments on permanent easements 
are from 75 to 100 percent of costs, For non-permanent easements, 30-
year contracts, and restoration cost-share agreements, payments are 
from 50 percent to 75 percent of costs. Cost-share payments are 
limited to $50,000 per year. In addition, USDA pays all costs 
associated with recording the easement in the local land records 
office, including recording fees, charges for abstracts, survey and 
appraisal fees, and title insurance for easements and 30-year 
contracts; 
Eligible lands: Farmed or converted wetlands, with adjacent land that 
is functionally dependent on the wetlands, or certain cropland or 
grassland used for agricultural production prior to flooding from 
natural overflow; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $2.406 billion. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP); 
WHIP provides financial and technical assistance to private and tribal 
landowners for the development of wildlife habitat. Cost-share 
payments are made to landowners to develop upland and wetland wildlife 
habitat, habitat for threatened or endangered species, fish habitat, 
and other wildlife habitat. Payments are limited to $50,000 per year 
for each participant; 
Eligible costs: Generally, up to 75 percent of the cost to develop 
fish and wildlife habitat; 
Eligible lands: Private agricultural land including cropland, 
grassland, rangeland, pasture, and other land determined by NRCS to be 
suitable for fish and wildlife habitat development; non-industrial 
private forest land which is rural land that has existing tree cover 
or is suitable for growing trees; and tribal land; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $370.9 million. 

Agency: Risk Management Agency (RMA) - 1 program; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Federal 
Crop Insurance Program[G]; 
Through the federal crop insurance program, farmers insure against 
losses on major crops as well as nursery crops and certain fruits and 
vegetables. RMA partners with private insurance companies that sell 
and service the federal program's insurance policies and share a 
percentage of the risk of loss and opportunity for gain associated 
with the policies. Most crop insurance policies are either production-
based or revenue-based. For production-based policies, a farmer can 
receive a payment if there is a production loss relative to the 
farmer's historical production per acre. Revenue-based policies 
protect against crop revenue loss resulting from declines in 
production, price, or both. The federal government encourages farmers' 
participation in the federal crop insurance program by subsidizing 
their insurance premiums and acting as the primary reinsurer for the 
private insurance companies that take on the risk of covering, or 
"underwriting," losses to insured farmers; 
Eligible commodities: Almonds, apiculture, apples, avocados, barley, 
beans, blueberries, buckwheat, cabbage, camelina, canola and rapeseed, 
cattle, cherries, chili peppers, citrus fruit, corn, cotton, cotton 
seed, cranberries, cultivated clams, cultivated wild rice, dairy, 
figs, flax, Florida fruit trees, forage, forage seed, grain sorghum, 
grapes and table grapes, grass seed, Hawaii tropical fruit, Hawaii 
tropical trees, hybrid seed, lamb, macadamia, millet, mint, mustard, 
nursery plants, oats, olives, onions, oysters, peas, peaches, peanuts, 
pears, pecans, peppers, pistachios, plums, popcorn, potatoes, prunes, 
pumpkins, raisins, rice, rye, safflower, sesame, silage sorghum, 
soybeans, stonefruit, strawberries, sugar beets, sugarcane, 
sunflowers, sweet corn, sweet potato, swine, tobacco, Texas citrus 
fruit tree, tomatoes, walnuts, and wheat[H]; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to support revenue and to 
compensate for losses; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $48.212 billion[C]. 

Agency: Rural Development (RD) - 4 programs; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Advanced Biofuel Payment Program; 
The Advanced Biofuel Payment Program provides payments to biofuel 
producers to ensure and expand production of advanced biofuels refined 
from sources other than corn kernel starch. Additional incentive 
payments may be made to certain producers who have increased their 
biofuel output over the previous year's production; 
Eligible commodities: Advanced biofuel derived from renewable biomass 
other than corn kernel starch; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $0.6 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Farm 
Labor Housing Loans; 
Farm Labor Housing Loans provide capital financing for the development 
of housing for domestic farm laborers. Typically, loan applicants are 
unable to obtain credit elsewhere, but in some instances, farmers able 
to get credit elsewhere may obtain loans at a rate of interest based 
on the cost of federal borrowing; 
Eligible costs: Purchasing a site or a leasehold interest in a site; 
construction of housing, emergency care facilities, or community rooms; 
fees to purchase durable household furnishings; and construction loan 
interest; 
Type of financial assistance: Loans to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $8.0 million[C, I]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Rural 
Energy for America Program (REAP); 
REAP provides assistance to farmers and rural small businesses to 
complete renewable energy systems projects through both loan 
guarantees and grants. Assistance is also available for energy system 
feasibility studies. The amount of a grant cannot exceed 25 percent of 
the actual cost. The amount of the loan guarantee cannot exceed 75 
percent of the eligible project costs, and in no case can be more than 
$25,000,000; 
Eligible costs: The purchase or improvement of renewable energy 
systems to make energy efficiency improvements or conduct energy 
audits and feasibility studies; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments and loans to encourage a 
specific action and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $210.0 million[C]. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: Value-
Added Producer Grants (VAPG); 
VAPG helps farmers enter into value-added activities related to, among 
other things, the processing and/or marketing of bio-based value-added 
products. Funds may be used to develop a business plan and strategies 
for marketing opportunities and capital expenses. Grants are awarded 
on a competitive basis. Payments are capped at $100,000 for planning 
and $300,000 for working capital grants; 
Eligible costs: Conducting feasibility studies and developing business 
plans for processing and marketing of the proposed value-added 
product. Funds may also be used for eligible working capital expenses 
such as processing costs, marketing and advertising, and some 
inventory and salary expenses directly related to a value-added 
project; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $50.7 million. 

Agency: Jointly administered - 2 programs; 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) administered by AMS, NRCS, 
and RMA; 
AMA provides assistance to farmers in 16 states to construct or 
improve watershed management structures or irrigation structures; 
plant trees for windbreaks or improve water quality; and mitigate risk 
through production diversification or resource conservation practices, 
including soil erosion control, integrated pest management, and 
organic farming, among other things. NRCS has leadership for the 
conservation provisions of AMA. AMS is responsible for an organic 
certification cost-share program, and RMA is responsible for 
mitigation of financial risk through an insurance cost-share program. 
Generally, payments are limited to 75 percent of costs incurred or 100 
percent of income foregone. Payments are limited to $50,000 per 
recipient each year; 
Eligible lands: Cropland, grassland, rangeland, pasture, or other 
agricultural land on which agricultural, forest-related products, or 
livestock are produced; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action 
and to compensate for costs; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $38.7 million. 

Program description and eligible commodities, lands, or costs: 
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) administered by FSA and NRCS; 
GRP provides assistance to landowners and operators to protect grazing 
uses and related conservation values by restoring and conserving 
grassland, including rangeland, pastureland, shrubland, and certain 
other lands. Participants may apply for easements or choose a 10-year, 
15-year, or 20-year contract. USDA will provide payments up to the 
value of the land, less the grazing value of the land, and for annual 
contract payments, up to 75 percent of the grazing value established 
by FSA. Contract payments are limited to $50,000 per recipient per 
year; 
Eligible lands: Privately owned and tribal grasslands; land that 
contains forbs or shrubland (including improved rangeland and 
pastureland) for which grazing is the predominant use; is located in 
an area that has been historically dominated by grassland, forbs, or 
shrubland; or has the potential to serve as wildlife habitat of 
significant ecological value; 
Type of financial assistance: Payments to encourage a specific action; 
Total obligations, FY 2008-2012: $567.9. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. GAO-14-428. 

Note: This table generally includes programs that provide financial 
assistance directly to farmers and excludes programs that provide 
technical assistance to farmers or provide financial assistance 
directly to processors, which indirectly benefits farmers, such as the 
FSA's Sugar Program. 

[A] Program was included in the direct payments category of the custom 
analysis of the Economic Research Service's (ERS) Agricultural 
Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data. 

[B] Program was included in the major price-related payments category 
of the custom analysis of ERS's ARMS data. 

[C] Obligations do not reflect the impact of offsetting collections, 
which are reflected in net outlays. 

[D] Program was included in the major conservation program payments 
category of the custom analysis of ERS's ARMS data. 

[E] Use of program does not entail a new obligation. 

[F] Includes both direct and guaranteed loans. 

[G] The financial assistance provided by the Federal Crop Insurance 
Program was not included in any of the payment categories used in the 
custom analysis of ERS's ARMS data. The custom analysis examined the 
amount of crop insurance that farmers purchased. 

[H] Includes the eligible commodities for 2012 crop year. Commodities 
eligible for the Federal Crop Insurance Program change on a yearly 
basis and vary by county. 

[I] Total includes on-farm loans only, as on-farm projects are not 
eligible for the grant portion of this program. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Obligations for U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs 
Under Way during the Effective Period of the 2008 Farm Bill That 
Offered Financial Assistance to Farmers, Fiscal Years 2008 through 
2012: 

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) obligated $172.7 billion in financial assistance, 
or about $34.5 billion annually on average, through 60 programs. Table 
2 identifies the total dollars that agencies obligated to each of 
these programs. 

Table 2: Obligations for USDA Programs Under Way during the Effective 
Period of the 2008 Farm Bill That Offered Financial Assistance to 
Farmers, Fiscal Years 2008 through 2012: 

Programs: 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS): 

National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $4.0 million; 
2009: $8.9 million; 
2010: $3.1 million; 
2011: $5.3 million; 
2012: $0.2 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $21.5 million. 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). 

Animal Indemnity Programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $35.0 million; 
2009: $4.7 million; 
2010: $4.3 million; 
2011: $2.2 million; 
2012: $2.8 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $49.0 million. 

Plant Indemnity Programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0.3 million; 
2009: $0.1 million; 
2010: $0.1 million; 
2011: $0.0; 
2012: $0.0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $0.5 million. 

Total, APHIS programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $35.3 million; 
2009: $4.8 million; 
2010: $4.4 million; 
2011: $2.2 million; 
2012: $2.8; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $49.5 million. 

Farm Service Agency (FSA). 

Aquaculture Grant Program (AGP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $48.5 million; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $48.5 million. 

Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Program (ALAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $14.8 million; 
2012: $0.1 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $14.8 million. 

Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $431.5 million; 
2012: $11.1 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $442.6 million. 

Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $2.1 million; 
2010: $248.2 million; 
2011: $24.3 million; 
2012: $15.9 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $290.6 million. 

Commodity Certificates; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.2 million; 
2009: $887.6 million; 
2010: $4.5 million; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $893.4 million. 

Conservation Loan (CL) Program[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $5.1 million; 
2011: $11.7 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $16.8 million. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.991 billion; 
2009: $1.910 billion; 
2010: $1.891 billion; 
2011: $1.875 billion; 
2012: $1.899 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $9.566 billion. 

Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $359.1 million; 
2009: $731.1 million; 
2010: $902.6 million; 
2011: $124.0 million; 
2012: $9.9 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $2.127 billion. 

Crop Assistance Program (CAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $258.5 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $258.5 million. 

Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Payment (DELAP) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $287.3 million; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $287.3 million. 

Dairy Indemnity Payment Program (DIPP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0.1 million; 
2009: $0.7 million; 
2010: $0.2 million; 
2011: $0.4 million; 
2012: $0.3 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.6 million. 

Dairy Product Price Support Program (DPPSP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0.7 million; 
2009: $17.3 million; 
2010: $247.2 million; 
2011: $12.0 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $277.2 million. 

Debt for Nature (DFN) Program[B]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $0. 

Direct Payments (DP) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $4.821 billion; 
2009: $5.222 billion; 
2010: $4.898 billion; 
2011: $4.745 billion; 
2012: $3.838 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $23,524 billion. 

Downpayment Farm Ownership Loans[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $13.1 million; 
2009: $133.7 million; 
2010: $170.0 million; 
2011: $175.2 million; 
2012: $176.7 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $668.8 million. 

Durum Wheat Quality Program (DWQP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $2.9 million; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $2.9 million. 

Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish 
Program (ELAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $21.5 million; 
2011: $8.4 million; 
2012: $9.5 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $39.4 million. 

Emergency Conservation Program (ECP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $35.5 million; 
2009: $92.5 million; 
2010: $92.5 million; 
2011: $64.3 million; 
2012: $74.6 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $359.4 million. 

Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $2.2 million; 
2012: $17.2 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $19.4 million. 

Emergency Loan Program (EM)[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $45.0 million; 
2009: $30.4 million; 
2010: $35.6 million; 
2011: $32.6 million; 
2012: $31.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $174.6 million. 

Farm Operating Loans[A, C]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.712 billion; 
2009: $2.611 billion; 
2010: $2.934 billion; 
2011: $2.285 billion; 
2012: $2.103 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $11,645 billion. 

Farm Ownership Loans[A, C]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.552 billion; 
2009: $1.833 billion; 
2010: $2.309 billion; 
2011: $2.487 billion; 
2012: $2.030 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $10.211 billion. 

Farm Storage Facility Loan (FSFL) Program[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $148.5 million; 
2009: $200.0 million; 
2010: $327.1 million; 
2011: $250.0 million; 
2012: $200.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.126 billion. 

Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $3.5 million; 
2009: $6.7 million; 
2010: $19.7 million; 
2011: $15.6 million; 
2012: $13.2 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $58.7 million. 

Graze-out Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: Less than $0.01 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: Less than $0.01 million. 

Hawaii Sugar Disaster Program (HSDP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $4.9 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $4.9 million. 

Land Contract (LC) Guarantee Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $0. 

Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $264.7 million; 
2011: $212.0 million; 
2012: $78.7 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $555.4 million. 

Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $5.8 million; 
2010: $89.4 million; 
2011: $23.9 million; 
2012: $25.9 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $145.0 million. 

Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $6.0 million; 
2009: $145.5 million; 
2010: $191.6 million; 
2011: $29.8 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $373.0 million. 

Milk Income Loss Contract Program (MILC) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $2.2 million; 
2009: $756.9 million; 
2010: $181.5 million; 
2011: $0.6 million; 
2012: $403.2 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.344 billion. 

Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $74.0 million; 
2009: $62.1 million; 
2010: $98.7 million; 
2011: $71.0 million; 
2012: $253.6 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $559.4 million. 

Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL)[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $9.509 billion; 
2009: $8.291 billion; 
2010: $7.190 billion; 
2011: $7.103 billion; 
2012: $5.660 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $37.753 billion. 

Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program (PGAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $60.0 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $60.0 million. 

Recourse Seed Cotton Loans[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $74.8 million; 
2009: $6.8 million; 
2010: $2.4 million; 
2011: $8.6 million; 
2012: $3.6 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $96.2 million. 

Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program (RTCP) for 
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $2.6 million; 
2011: $2.5 million; 
2012: $2.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $7.1 million. 

Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $1.196 billion; 
2011: $760.7 million; 
2012: $561.5 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $2.518 billion. 

Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP)[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $954.8 million; 
2009: $953.2 million; 
2010: $954.1 million; 
2011: $953.3 million; 
2012: $953.4 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $4,769 billion. 

Transition Incentive Program (TIP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $2.8 million; 
2012: $24.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $26.8 million. 

Tree Assistance Program (TAP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $2.2 million; 
2011: $13.0 million; 
2012: $18.7 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $33.9 million. 

Total, FSA programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $21.305 billion 
2009: $23.948 billion; 
2010: $24.568 billion; 
2011: $22.064 billion; 
2012: $18.413 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $110,298 billion. 

Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS): 

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $25.1 million; 
2010: $79.6 million; 
2011: $22.5 million; 
2012: $0; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $127.2 million. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $21.8 million; 
2010: $44.0 million; 
2011: $72.6 million; 
2012: $49.7 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $188.1 million. 

Conservation Security Program (CSP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $317.1 million; 
2009: $276.0 million; 
2010: $222.2 million; 
2011: $198.9 million; 
2012: $188.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.202 billion. 

Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $9.4 million; 
2010: $389.8 million; 
2011: $577.8 million; 
2012: $741.6 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.719 million. 

Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $178.8 million; 
2009: $324.2 million; 
2010: $299.2 million; 
2011: $76.1 million; 
2012: $212.4 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $1.091 billion. 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.252 billion; 
2009: $1.055 billion; 
2010: $1.184 billion; 
2011: $1.245 billion; 
2012: $1.383 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $6.119 billion. 

Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0.7 million; 
2009: $2.6 million; 
2010: $7.9 million; 
2011: $17.9 million; 
2012: $9.8 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $38.9 million. 

Water Bank Program (WBP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $0; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $7.3 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $7.3 million. 

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $182.9 million; 
2009: $435.7 million; 
2010: $630.2 million; 
2011: $569.1 million; 
2012: $588.0 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $2.406 billion. 

Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $83.5 million; 
2009: $72.7 million; 
2010: $83.4 million; 
2011: $83.9 million; 
2012: $47.4 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $370.9 million. 

Total, NRCS programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $2.015 billion; 
2009: $2.197 billion; 
2010: $2.861 billion; 
2011: $2.841 billion; 
2012: $3.227 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $13.141 billion. 

Risk Management Agency (RMA): 

Federal Crop Insurance Program[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $6.496 billion; 
2009: $12.113 billion; 
2010: $7.073 billion; 
2011: $9.849 billion; 
2012: $12.681 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $48.212 billion. 

Rural Development (RD): 

Advanced Biofuel Payment Program; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $0; 
2009: $0.1 million; 
2010: $0.2 million; 
2011: $0.2 million; 
2012: Less than $0.1 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $0.6 million. 

Farm Labor Housing Loans[A, D]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $1.3 million; 
2009: $3.0 million; 
2010: $1.9 million; 
2011: $1.1 million; 
2012: $0.8 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $8.0 million. 

Rural Energy for America Program (REAP)[A]; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $25.3 million; 
2009: $59.1 million; 
2010: $84.4 million; 
2011: $31.4 million; 
2012: $9.8 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $210.0 million. 

Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG); 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $5.3 million; 
2009: $0; 
2010: $9.2 million; 
2011: $0; 
2012: $36.1 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $50.7 million. 

Total, RD programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $31.9 million; 
2009: $62.2 million; 
2010: $95.7 million; 
2011: $32.7 million; 
2012: $46.7 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $269.2 million. 

Jointly administered programs: 

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA); Administered by AMS, NRCS, 
and RMA; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $8.2 million; 
2009: $8.9 million; 
2010: $8.7 million; 
2011: $9.0 million; 
2012: $3.9 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $38.7 million. 

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP); Administered by FSA and NRCS; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $4.6 million; 
2009: $88.2 million; 
2010: $190.4 million; 
2011: $148.6 million; 
2012: $136.1 million; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $567.9 million. 

Total, USDA programs; 
Fiscal year: 
2008: $29.900 billion; 
2009: $38.456 billion; 
2010: $34.884 billion; 
2011: $34.974 billion; 
2012: $34.511 billion; 
Total, FY 2008-2012: $172.725 billion. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. GAO-14-428. 

Note: Figures may not total due to rounding. 

[A] Obligations do not reflect the impact of offsetting collections, 
which are reflected in net outlays. 

[B] Use of program does not entail a new obligation. 

[C] Includes both direct and guaranteed loans. 

[D] Total includes on-farm loans only, as on-farm projects are not 
eligible for the grant portion of this program. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Assistance Programs 
Under Way during the Effective Period of the 2008: 

Farm Bill, the Types of Financial Assistance Offered, and the General 
Basis for Determining Eligibility: 

During the effective period of the 2008 farm bill, 60 U.S. Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) programs offered financial assistance to 
farmers. Some programs offered more than one type of assistance. Table 
3 categorizes USDA programs by the type of financial assistance they 
offered. 

Table 3: USDA Farm Assistance Programs Under Way during the Effective 
Period of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Types of Financial Assistance 
Offered, and the General Basis for Determining Eligibility: 

Programs and type of financial assistance offered: 

Programs that offered direct payments (3 total): 

1. Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program[A]; 
Agency: Farm Service Agency (FSA); 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

2. Direct Payments (DP) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

3. Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

Programs that offered loans or payments to support prices (6 total): 

1. Commodity Certificates; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

2. Dairy Product Price Support Program (DPPSP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

3. Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

4. Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

5. Nonrecourse Marketing Assistance Loans (MAL); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

6. Recourse Seed Cotton Loans; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

Programs that offered loans or payments to support revenue (5 total): 

1. Asparagus Revenue Market Loss Assistance Payment (ALAP) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

2. Average Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program[A]; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

3. Counter-Cyclical Payments (CCP) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

4. Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program (PGAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

5. Federal Crop Insurance Program; 
Agency: Risk Management Agency (RMA); 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

Programs that offered loans or payments to compensate for losses (13 
total): 

1. Animal Indemnity Programs; 
Agency: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

2. Plant Indemnity Programs; 
Agency: APHIS; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

3. Crop Assistance Program (CAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

4. Dairy Economic Loss Assistance Payment (DELAP) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

5. Dairy Indemnity Payment Program (DIPP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

6. Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish 
Program (ELAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

7. Hawaii Sugar Disaster Program (HSDP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

8. Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

9. Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

10. Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

11. Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments (SURE) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

12. Tree Assistance Program (TAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

13. Federal Crop Insurance Program; 
Agency: RMA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

Programs that offered loans or payments to compensate for costs (24 
total): 

1. National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP); 
Agency: Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS); 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

2. Plant Indemnity Programs; 
Agency: APHIS; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

3. Aquaculture Grant Program (AGP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

4. Downpayment Farm Ownership Loans; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

5. Durum Wheat Quality Program (DWQP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

6. Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

7. Emergency Loan Program (EM); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

8. Farm Operating Loans; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

9. Farm Ownership Loans; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

10. Farm Storage Facility Loan (FSFL) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced and costs incurred. 

11. Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

12. Reimbursement Transportation Cost Payment Program (RTCP) for 
Geographically Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

13. Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) for Farmers Program; 
Agency: Foreign Agricultural Service; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced and costs incurred. 

14. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI); 
Agency: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS); 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

15. Conservation Security Program (CSP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

16. Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

17. Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program; 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

18. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

19. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

20. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

21. Farm Labor Housing Loans; 
Agency: RD; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

22. Rural Energy for America Program (REAP); 
Agency: RD; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

23. Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG); 
Agency: RD; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

24. Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA); 
Agency: AMS, NRCS, and RMA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

Programs that offered loans or payments to encourage a specific action 
(22 total): 

1. Animal Indemnity Programs; 
Agency: APHIS; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

2. Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced and lands comprising farm. 

3. Conservation Loan (CL) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

4. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

5. Debt for Nature (DFN) Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

6. Emergency Conservation Program (ECP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

7. Farmable Wetlands Program (FWP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

8. Graze-out Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

9. Land Contract (LC) Guarantee Program; 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

10. Transition Incentive Program (TIP); 
Agency: FSA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

11. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

12. Conservation Security Program (CSP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

13. Conservation Stewardship Program (CStP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

14. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

15. Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

16. Water Bank Program (WBP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

17. Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

18. Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP); 
Agency: NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred and lands comprising farm. 

19. Advanced Biofuel Payment Program; 
Agency: RD; 
Eligibility based on: Commodities produced. 

20. Rural Energy for America Program (REAP); 
Agency: RD; 
Eligibility based on: Costs incurred. 

21. Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA); 
Agency: AMS, NRCS, and RMA; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

22. Grassland Reserve Program (GRP); 
Agency: FSA and NRCS; 
Eligibility based on: Lands comprising farm. 

Source: GAO analysis of USDA data. GAO-14-428. 

Note: The total number of programs exceeds 60 because some programs 
provide more than one type of financial assistance. Eligibility may be 
based on the current or historical production of commodities depending 
on the program. 

[A] ACRE offered two types of financial assistance to farmers--direct 
payments and payments to support revenue (see appendix III). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USDA: 
United States Department of Agriculture: 
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services: 
Farm Service Agency: 
Office of the Administrator: 
1400 Independence Ave. SW: 
Stop 0501: 
20250-0501: 
Voice: 202-720-3467: 
Fax: 202-690-9105: 

June 18, 2014: 

To: Anne-Marie Fennell, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 

From: [Signed by] Juan M. Garcia: 
Administrator: 

Subject: U.S. Department of Agriculture Comments — U.S. Government 
Accountability Office Draft Report, GAO-14-428, "USDA FARM PROGRAMS: 
Farmers Have Been Eligible for Multiple Programs and further Efforts 
Could Help Prevent Duplicative Payments" (361465): 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appreciates the opportunity 
to review the subject Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft 
report. USDA generally agrees with the report's findings and 
recommendations. 

USDA's Farm Service Agency and Risk Management Agency plan to evaluate 
different options on how to monitor Noninsured Crop Disaster 
Assistance Program payments and crop insurance payments to identify 
the extent to which duplicative payments may occur. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Anne-Marie Fennell, (202) 512-3841 or fennella@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Thomas Cook (Assistant 
Director), Cheryl Arvidson, Kevin Bray, Stephen Cleary, Barbara El 
Osta, David Garcia, Karen Jones, Beverly Peterson, and Anne Rhodes-
Kline made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] In this report, a farm is defined as any place from which at least 
$1,000 worth of agricultural commodities were produced or sold, or 
normally have been sold, in a year. 

[2] The term farm program is generally meant to include the commodity 
programs administered by the Farm Service Agency, as well as the other 
USDA programs that directly benefit farmers. 

[3] A farmer is a person who operates a farm, either doing the work or 
making day-to-day operating decisions for the farm. We define 
agricultural commodities as any crop, livestock, or other agricultural 
products, such as wool or honey, produced by a farm. 

[4] Pub. L. No. 110-246, 122 Stat. 1651. Many provisions of the 2008 
farm bill were set to expire in 2012, but in January 2013, Congress 
extended many of them through 2013. 

[5] Agricultural Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-79, 127 Stat. 649. 

[6] For this report, we include only those farm programs that provide 
some form of financial assistance to farmers and exclude programs that 
solely provide technical assistance. 

[7] Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-139, § 21, 
124 Stat. 29. 

[8] GAO, 2014 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce 
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial 
Benefits, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-343SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8, 2014); GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions 
Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve 
Other Financial Benefits, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-279SP] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 
2013); GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential 
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

[9] These annual reports also examined whether administrative 
efficiencies could be achieved by reducing fragmentation--that is, 
circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one 
organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of 
national need, and opportunities exist to improve service delivery 
among programs. Examining fragmentation among farm programs was 
outside the scope of this report. 

[10] USDA OIG, USDA Payments for 2005 Citrus Canker Tree Losses, Audit 
Report No. 50099-46-At (Mar. 23, 2011); and USDA OIG, Pasture, 
Rangeland and Forage Pilot Program, Audit Report No. 50601-18-Te (Aug. 
27, 2010). 

[11] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

[12] When we refer to crop losses in this report, we are also 
including livestock losses. 

[13] The six categories of financial assistance are direct payments, 
loans or payments to compensate for costs incurred, loans or payments 
to compensate for losses, loans or payments to support prices, loans 
or payments to encourage farmers to take a specific action, and loans 
or payments to support revenue. 

[14] The four functional payment categories differ from the six 
categories of financial assistance used in the program inventory 
because the data in ARMS are not collected in sufficient detail to use 
the same six categories. 

[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[16] We chose to primarily report obligations data as these funds are 
more indicative of a program's commitment to the farmer in a given 
year instead of outlays, which reflect what a program spent in a given 
year but may reflect financial commitments of prior years. Obligations 
do not reflect the impact of offsetting loan payments, which are 
reflected in net outlays. 

[17] The Agricultural Management Assistance program, which provided 
financial assistance to farmers in 16 states to address issues such as 
watershed management, water quality, and soil erosion control by 
incorporating conservation into their farming operations, was jointly 
administered by the Agricultural Marketing Service, NRCS, and RMA. The 
Grassland Reserve Program, which provided financial assistance to 
landowners and operators to protect grazing uses and related 
conservation values by restoring and conserving grassland, was jointly 
administered by FSA and NRCS. 

[18] In addition, farmers indirectly receive benefits from programs 
other than the 60, such as the Sugar Program, that provide payments to 
other entities, such as processors. We generally excluded such 
programs from our inventory. 

[19] This total obligations for FSA, NRCS, and RMA does not include 
obligations for two programs that were administered by multiple 
agencies, which were the Agricultural Management Assistance program 
jointly administered by AMS, NRCS and RMA, and the Grassland Reserve 
Program jointly administered by FSA and NRCS. 

[20] The Direct Payments Program was eliminated in the 2014 farm bill. 
(See appendix I.) 

[21] According to USDA officials, there were no obligations because no 
contract guarantees were made during this time period. 

[22] The total number of programs exceeds 60 because some programs 
provide more than one type of financial assistance. We were unable to 
break out obligations by the type of financial assistance provided 
because some programs provide more than one type of assistance. 

[23] Commodities may be covered under multiple programs, but a 
farmer's participation in some programs disqualifies commodities from 
coverage in other programs. For example, if a farmer enrolls a tract 
of land into ACRE, he is disqualified from enrolling the same tract in 
the Counter-Cyclical Payments Program. 

[24] Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of wheat and triticale. While 
some wheat growers were covered under APHIS's Karnal bunt quarantine 
and compensation program, there were no obligated funds during our 
review period. 

[25] When we report estimates of government payments received by 
farms, we are reporting estimates of outlays. 

[26] Gross cash farm income includes farm-related income, such as 
rentals of land and equipment, income from the provision of custom 
services such as harvesting and spraying, and income from agricultural 
tourism such as hunting fees and farm tours. Landlords' and 
contractors' share of production and landlords' share of government 
payments are excluded from gross cash farm income. 

[27] In 2012, the median household net worth of farms with annual 
gross cash farm income of $350,000 or more was more than $2.5 million, 
and the median household income for these farms was $208,485. In 
contrast, for 2012, the overall U.S. median household net worth was 
$38,786, and median household income was $51,017. 

[28] SURE payments supplement NAP and crop insurance payments. 
Therefore, we would only consider them to be duplicative if the SURE 
payment calculation did not properly consider NAP, crop insurance, or 
other program payments. 

[29] Under SURE, agricultural disaster assistance was authorized to 
farmers beginning with the 2008 crop year and ending with losses 
incurred on or before September 30, 2011. SURE was not renewed in the 
2014 farm bill. (See appendix I.) 

[30] Handbooks provide policy and procedures for administering 
programs for state and county FSA offices to follow. 

[31] Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program--American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, USDA OIG, March 12, 2012, Audit 
Report No. 50703-0001-31; and Fiscal Year 2012: Farm Service Agency 
Farm Assistance Program Payments, USDA OIG, July 2, 2013, Audit Report 
No. 03401-0002-11. 

[32] For the 2013 report, the OIG found 12 payment errors in its 
statistical sample of 80 payments (including 56 SURE payments) drawn 
from a universe of $759 million. Of the 12 errors, 11 were for SURE, 
and total improper payments for SURE were $77,980. For the 2012 
report, the OIG found 35 of 125 payment files had one or more types of 
errors. The 125 payment files were a statistical sample representing 
$2.6 million of SURE payments taken from a universe of $2.1 billion. 

[33] The OIG provided the amount of payment errors due to all errors, 
not the errors related to crop insurance indemnity payments. 

[34] FSA notices and handbooks provide information, guidance, 
policies, and procedures. Handbooks are focused on individual programs 
covering multiple years, and notices are issued weekly on different 
topics. 

[35] RMA regulations state that "Noninsured crop disaster assistance 
is available for loss of production or prevented planting of eligible 
commercial crops or other agricultural commodities ... for which 
catastrophic coverage is not available." 7 C.F.R. § 1437.4(a)(4). See 
also 7 U.S.C. § 7333(a)(2)(A). 

[36] The $188,000 that was identified represents less than 1 percent 
of the total AGR payments made over the same period, and AGR payments 
represent less than 1 percent of the total crop insurance payments. 
These data matching results cannot be used to make projections for 
duplicative payments for other types of crop insurance policies 
because policy characteristics and internal control activities for the 
programs vary. 

[37] USDA, RMA, Adjusted Gross Revenue Standards Handbook: 2007 and 
Succeeding Insurance Years, Handbook FCIC-18050 (Jan. 22, 2007). This 
handbook identifies the specific standards or requirements for 
underwriting and administering insurance policies, and adjusting AGR 
losses. 

[38] An improper payment is defined as any payment that should not 
have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including 
overpayments and underpayments) under statutory, contractual, 
administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. See GAO, 
Improper Payments: Remaining Challenges and Strategies for 
Governmentwide Reduction Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-573T] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 
2012). 

[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]. 

[40] The pilot covers annual forage crops that are used for grazing 
livestock and includes, for example, ryegrass and wheat that are 
planted each year. The pilot also covers livestock feed, such as hay. 

[41] The determination of lower than average rainfall is based on a 
rainfall index developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's Climate Prediction Center. The index reflects how 
much precipitation is received compared with the long-term average for 
a specific area and time frame. 

[42] Information Memo to Secretary Vilsack, Impact of RMA rainfall 
index annual forage policy on NAP eligibility, June 7, 2013. 

[43] See 7 U.S.C § 7333, 7 C.F.R. § 1437.4. 

[44] Direct payments continue at a reduced level for cotton in crop 
years 2014 and 2015. 

[45] Covered crops include wheat, oats, and barley (including wheat, 
oats, and barley used for haying and grazing), corn, grain sorghum, 
long-and medium-grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, other oilseeds, and 
peanuts. 

[46] The six categories of financial assistance are direct payments, 
loans or payments to compensate for costs incurred, loans or payments 
to compensate for losses, loans or payments to support prices, loans 
or payments to encourage farmers to take a specific action, and loans 
or payments to support revenue. 

[47] These annual reports also examined whether administrative 
efficiencies could be achieved by reducing fragmentation--i.e., 
circumstances in which more than one federal agency (or more than one 
organization within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of 
national need, and opportunities exist to improve service delivery 
among programs. Examining fragmentation among farm programs was 
outside the scope of this report. 

[48] These programs listed are described in appendix III. The 
financial assistance provided by the Federal Crop Insurance Program 
was not included in any of the payment categories used in our analysis 
of ERS's ARMS data because ARMS does not track premium subsidies to 
farmers. Our analysis examined the amount of crop insurance that 
farmers purchased. 

[49] Data in ARMS for tobacco transition payments, which we 
categorized as direct payments in appendixes III and V, are not 
collected in sufficient detail to separate them from other federal, 
state, or local agricultural payments. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
"E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]