Dear David,
Thank you for your message. In stating the USDA has proposed cutting the ERS budget by so much, I should also have stated that Congress rejected the proposal last year and funded ERS in the current fiscal year as in FY18. For the proposed cuts of the ERS budget in FY20, the House has again rejected the cut and I would expect the Senate to do the same when they mark up their bills.
Since I'm writing, let me provide up an update on the ERS relocation. The employees whose positions are slated to move to KC by October 1 were required to respond to their relocation letters by Monday. The USDA announced yesterday that 99 ERS employees declined or didn't answer and 72 agreed to the relocation. If one makes the following assumptions, this represents 70% attrition for the ERS positions slated to be moved.
Together with the 76 on stay list, USDA's numbers released yesterday (99 and 72) sum to 247 people. If one uses FY2018 as the baseline when ERS had 320 employees, 73 positions are not accounted for. One could attribute the 73 missing positions to staff attrition having to do with the relocation/realignment announcement and the proposed budget cuts. If one includes the 73 positions omitted from the USDA numbers yesterday with the 99 No's, that is 182 people not going, out of the 244 on the total go-list which is approximately 70% attrition since FY18. One should also bear in mind that of the 72 who agreed to move, some of those could be in the process of transferring to other agencies but agreed to move to facilitate their transfer. There are also people whose positions were on the stay list who have left ERS.
Best Wishes,
Steve
------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2019 11:01
From: David Metcalf
Subject: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need --Katherine Wallman op-ed
As a followup to my one question from an hour ago, I did find time to look into the budget cut figures and to my amazement, those 60% and 50% figures are actual real budget cut numbers (as opposed to government math). Unfortunately, I am so used to being "tactically deceived" by the media and politicians, that my default these days is to just be skeptical of everything. To the point where I sometimes don't even bother fact checking since 99% of the time my fact check confirms my default skeptical position. The skepticism is good science, but the lack of bothering to check is not. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Sincerely,
------------------------------
David Metcalf
Research Statistician
Henry Ford Allegiance Health
Original Message:
Sent: 07-10-2019 22:30
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need --Katherine Wallman op-ed
Dear All,
Thanks to Matthew Robinson, Terry Meyer and Stan Altan for their comments. I will provide a quick response now to Matthew's and Terry's messages and would be happy to elaborate later. I'm sorry the list of articles I provided may have been overwhelming. I should also clarify the list of articles and op-eds were not meant to justify ASA's position only to illustrate the recent press interest and the concerns as articulated by the stakeholder community.
Let me start by address a point I think both Matthew and Terry made. The ERS is one of the thirteen primary federal statistical agencies. It is therefore part of the backbone of our nation's data infrastructure that we don't want to see diminished. As you likely know, ASA's support for the federal statistical agencies goes back to our founding in 1839.
I believe the June 13 ASA press release summarizes well the reasons for ASA's advocacy on this issue. To quote it, "The ASA and the broader community have been strongly opposed to Secretary Perdue's counterproductive moves for the following reasons: (i) the detrimental impacts to the agencies and greater USDA mission area; (ii) the lack of justification for the moves; and (iii) the lack of consultation with experts and the stakeholder community."
I'm happy to elaborate on any of these points, which the press release also does: https://www.amstat.org/asa/files/pdfs/pressreleases/2019-USDA_FinalistResponse.pdf. Besides the lack of justification, I believe it is important that other moves of the Secretary would weaken the agency or could jeopardize its independence. Namely, USDA has proposed to cut the ERS twice, first in FY19 by 60+% and then in FY20 by 50%. He also proposed to move it into his office to report to the Chief Economist, which doesn't provide the protections of independence that the chief scientist (where it currently reports) has. (They announced June 13 they would not pursue this.)
To make a last point for now, the ASA is the professional association for many government employees and so is also speaking up for the affected federal employees. Employees have been given one month to decide whether to relocate and then three months to move to a temporary location while the permanent location is being determined. Given that the agency could be located eventually anywhere in a three-county area, it makes it is difficult for an employee determine a good neighborhood with good schools and a workable commute by October 1. For those who do not accept the relocation, it's also being reported their federal employment record will show they were terminated.
Besides the press release, it may also be helpful to look at the December Board statement: ASA Board of Directors Statement of Concern for the USDA Economic Research Service and on the Vital and Unique Role of Federal Statistical Agencies. If you haven't already, I also encourage you to read Katherine Wallman's op-ed: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need.
Sincerely,
Steve
------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
Original Message:
Sent: 07-10-2019 17:02
From: Stan Altan
Subject: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need --Katherine Wallman op-ed
Thanks very much for posting the link to Katherine Wallman's oped and the associated materials. Clearly this is a concern from the perspective of supporting independence in data acquisition and interpretation by professionals, rather than politically driven bureaucrats. Thank you for spearheading ASA;s advocacy in this regard, it's critical to our institutional mission.
------------------------------
Stan Altan
Original Message:
Sent: 07-07-2019 22:34
From: Steve Pierson
Subject: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need --Katherine Wallman op-ed
Dear All,
I write to share an op-ed by Katherine Wallman, 1992 ASA president and Chief Statistician of the US for 24 years, in the Des Moines Register: USDA's plans threaten the integrity and viability of data that farmers need. Please share the piece with your networks, including on social media (Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc) using #ERS_Strong and #NIFA_Strong.
Katherine's article refers to Secretary Perdue's plans to relocate the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) from DC to Kansas City on a very fast pace in a process that seems to sidestep congressional authority and ignore expert input.
Since I'm writing, let me also provide some background and other updates.
USDA announced its plans in August, 2018 to relocate the two agencies outside of DC and then invited expressions of interest and received 137 by October. The USDA announced KC as the choice in mid-June. Employees were then given one-month to decide whether to be relocated and must move by September 30. (80 of ERS's 300+ positions will be kept in DC while only 20 of NIFA's 350+ will remain in DC.) Employees are being asked to report a temporary location while a permanent location is selected and prepared. Besides the short timescale the employees were given to decide whether to move and where in the KC metro area to which to move, they won't know if where they decide to live will end up being near the eventual locations in the three counties making up the KC region.
Both agencies are seeing very high attrition rates that are only expected to increase. A recent informal ERS employee survey indicated as many as four out of five employees will not make the move. Similar numbers are expected for NIFA. The ERS and NIFA that arrives to KC on October 1 is likely to be a small shell of itself. We are already hearing reports of NIFA lstraining to carry out their work.
As part of ASA's advocacy for evidence-based policymaking, federal statistical agencies, and robust science in general, we have been very active to keep ERS and NIFA strong and independent. There is one victory to be noted, which is that USDA dropped in mid-June its plans to administratively move ERS from the USDA research arm to the Secretary's office to be under the Office of the Chief Economist. Further the US House of Representatives has very strong language in its FY20 appropriations bill to block the ERS and NIFA relocation. However, the Senate is not expected to have such language in their bill. Even if it did or it agreed to the House's language in the final bill, USDA may have made the move before the FY20 USDA budget is decided. Moving the agencies before fiscal year 2020 begin is one of the ways USDA seems to be going around Congress. It also appears they are seeking to use non-federal funds to further skirt congressional oversight and input.
I should make clear ASA's opposition is not specific to Kansas City in any way. There are many valid concerns about moving the agencies away from their primary audiences, partners, collaborators, and activities in DC. Surpassing those concerns are the speed with which they are making the moves, the disregard for the federal employees involved, the motivation for the moves, the ignoring of scientific and administrative input and the already noted process. ASA's opposition is summarized in this June 13 press release reacting to USDA's June 13 announcement of KC as its choice for the new location: American Statistical Association Maintains Agriculture Secretary Perdue's Upheaval of USDA Research Arm Not in the Best Interest of Rural America, US Food and Agriculture.
The press interest in the USDA moves has grown considerably in recent months. Below are some hyperlinked article titles from the last few months, followed by op-eds on the issue going back to August:
- The USDA violated rules trying to move agencies out of D.C., new House report finds, Roll Call
- USDA staffers quit en masse as Trump administration eyes moving offices out of DC, Fox News
- USDA farms out economists whose work challenges Trump policies Politico
- USDA researchers quit in droves as Trump administration plans relocation WaPo
- Critics Say USDA Plan To Move Federal Agencies Could Hurt Research Vital For Farmers NPR
- Economists flee Agriculture Dept. after feeling punished under Trump Politico
- Unhappy With Findings, Agriculture Department Plans to Move Its Economists Out of Town, NYT
- After outcry, USDA will no longer require scientists to label research 'preliminary', WaPo May 10
- Trump administration plans to move USDA research divisions despite concerns, WaPo April 25
- USDA orders scientists to say published research is 'preliminary', WaPo, April 19
Op-eds
The ASA continue its advocacy for the strength and independence of the agencies and the integrity of USDA science.
Best,
Steve
------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------