This bill amends the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to reauthorize and reshape the Farmers’ Markets and Local Food Promotion Program. It increases the program’s authorized funding levels, imposes a 25 percent recipient contribution requirement (allowing cash or in-kind), creates a reservation of funds to seed new markets, and directs two public reports on program activity and fraud.
Practically, the measure aims to steer more federal dollars toward establishing new farmers’ markets and broaden participation by first‑time applicants, while adding a modest matching requirement intended to leverage non‑Federal resources. The reporting requirements give USDA and its Inspector General a formal deadline to publish data on applications, awards, first‑time grantees, and any fraud or impacts from the new match rule.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill changes grant rules for the Farmers’ Markets and Local Food Promotion Program: it requires grantees to provide a contribution equal to 25% of the Federal grant (cash or in‑kind) but exempts entities carrying out specified priority grants, increases authorized annual funding levels for a set period, and reserves a portion of funds for new market starts.
Who It Affects
Directly affected actors include organizations that apply for USDA local food and farmers’ market grants—nonprofits, producer cooperatives, local governments, and community groups—especially first‑time applicants seeking to create new markets. USDA will face new allocation and reporting duties.
Why It Matters
The combination of a temporary funding increase, a set reserve for new markets, and a match requirement changes incentives for applicants and the federal program’s targeting strategy—shifting attention toward market creation while imposing new compliance and financing needs on recipients.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites three core parts of section 210A of the Agricultural Marketing Act. First, it adds a firm 25 percent matching requirement: when USDA awards a grant under the program, the recipient must contribute either cash or in‑kind resources equal to one quarter of the Federal share.
That in‑kind option preserves flexibility—communities can count donated labor, equipment, or other noncash support—while the statutory language creates a clear floor for recipient contribution. The text also creates an explicit exemption from the match for entities that are carrying out certain priority grants identified elsewhere in the statute, which functionally prioritizes some categories of projects for full federal coverage.
Second, the bill raises the authorized annual funding level and fixes the program’s multi‑year funding profile. It replaces the prior $50 million annual authorization with $100 million for a specified multi‑year window, then sets a lower annual level thereafter.
For the post‑2026 authorization, Congress adds language making those funds remain available until expended, which changes the timing and obligational flexibility compared with ordinary annual appropriations.Third, the legislation directs the Secretary to reserve a fixed share—30 percent—of available funds in each year for certain priority grants aimed at entities that have not received a grant in the prior three years and that will use the award to establish a new farmers’ market. If enough high‑quality applications for those reserved awards do not materialize in a given year, the Secretary can reallocate the reserved dollars to the regular grant pool, giving USDA discretion to avoid underspending while still preserving a targeted reserve.Finally, the bill mandates two public reports to be issued within three years: USDA must publish counts of recent applications, first‑time applicants, priority‑grant applications, and awards; the Department’s Inspector General must publish a separate review identifying any fraud or abuse tied to the program in the same period and analyze how the new matching rule affected participation.
Those reports are the statute’s primary oversight mechanism and will inform whether Congress’s targeting and matching changes actually broaden access or unintentionally narrow it.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires grant recipients to provide matching funds equal to 25% of the Federal portion of any award; matches can be cash or in‑kind.
The 25% match does not apply to an eligible entity carrying out a priority grant described in the statute’s existing subparagraph (C).
It changes authorized funding so that $100 million is available for the program for fiscal years 2019 through 2026, then authorizes $50 million per year for fiscal year 2027 and each year thereafter.
Of each year’s appropriation, 30% must be reserved for priority grants to entities that have not received a grant in the prior three years and will use the funds to establish a new farmers’ market; the Secretary may reassign reserved funds if applications are insufficient.
Within three years the Secretary must publish application and award counts (including first‑time applicants and priority applications) and the USDA Inspector General must publish a report on any fraud and on how the match change affected program participation.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the New Markets for Farmers and Families Act. This is purely stylistic but useful for citations and cross‑referencing in future legislative or administrative materials.
Adds a 25% matching requirement with a priority‑grant exception
This change requires any eligible entity receiving a grant under the program to supply matching resources equal to 25 percent of the federal grant amount; the statute expressly allows recipients to meet that obligation with in‑kind contributions. The provision also carves out an exception for entities implementing a priority grant described elsewhere in the statute, shielding those targeted categories from the match requirement. Administratively, USDA will have to adopt guidance on acceptable in‑kind valuations and documentation to enforce the match while avoiding disputes over creditable contributions.
Increases the program’s authorized annual funding level
The bill replaces the prior $50 million authorization figure with $100 million for the program and thus raises the statutory ceiling for grants during the years covered by the following subsection. That change signals a temporary scaling up of federal support and can affect how USDA plans competitions and award sizes during the increased‑funding window.
Limits the higher authorization to a multi‑year window and creates a 30% reserve for new-market priority grants
The text confines the $100 million authorization to fiscal years 2019 through 2026, then sets a lower $50 million annual authorization starting in fiscal year 2027 and specifies that post‑2027 funds 'remain available until expended.' Separately, the bill requires that 30 percent of the each year’s appropriation be set aside for priority grants eligible to entities that haven’t received a grant in the prior three years and plan to establish a new farmers’ market. If the pool of qualifying priority applications is too small or weak, the Secretary can transfer the reserved funds back into general grant awards, giving USDA flexibility to avoid unused funds while keeping the program’s priority on market starts.
Mandates public reports by USDA and the Department’s Inspector General
Congress requires two public reports to appear on USDA’s website within three years: the Secretary’s report must disclose application counts, how many came from first‑time applicants, how many met priority‑grant criteria, and the number of awards; the Inspector General must report on any fraud or abuse connected to the program during the same period and analyze the matching change’s effects on participation. These reports are the principal accountability tools the statute imposes; their design and data detail will determine how useful they are for evaluating whether the policy changes achieved their intended goals.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Organizations seeking to launch new farmers’ markets: The statute reserves 30% of funds for applicants that haven’t received a grant in the prior three years and intend to start a new market, increasing their access to dedicated federal support.
- First‑time applicants and underserved communities: The targeted reserve and the statute’s emphasis on new market starts prioritize entrants and communities that previously lacked grant awards, which could expand local food access.
- Communities able to leverage in‑kind support: Entities with strong volunteer networks or donated facilities can meet the 25% requirement with noncash contributions, stretching federal dollars further and making awards more feasible for resourceful community actors.
Who Bears the Cost
- Small community organizations and cash‑poor applicants: The new 25% match creates a direct financing obligation that may be difficult for groups without ready cash, even though in‑kind is allowed, raising the barrier to entry for some applicants.
- USDA (program administration and oversight): The Department must implement valuation rules for in‑kind matches, track the 30% reserve and reallocation authority, and produce a public report—all of which require staff time and potential new systems.
- Existing grantees and program applicants: With a temporary boost to authorized funding followed by a lower long‑term baseline, and a large share reserved for new markets, incumbents seeking expansion or follow‑on awards could face stiffer competition for fewer available dollars after the multi‑year window ends.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The statute tries to accelerate new market formation and broaden participation while imposing a recipient match to leverage local resources; the central dilemma is whether targeting scarce federal funds at market starts and requiring a 25% contribution will best expand equitable local food access, or whether those same measures will disproportionately squeeze cash‑poor but mission‑critical community groups and shift resources away from sustaining existing successful markets.
The bill’s match requirement and its carve‑out create an implementation balancing act. Allowing in‑kind contributions preserves access for resource‑constrained groups, but USDA must issue clear guidance on acceptable items and valuation methods; without precise rules, disputes and inconsistent award decisions are likely.
The match could also discourage applications from organizations that lack a reliable volunteer base or donated assets even if those organizations serve high‑need communities.
The funding profile is another source of tension. Raising the authorization to $100 million for a multi‑year period and then dropping the baseline to $50 million thereafter creates a temporary surge in available resources that communities may use to launch projects—but it also risks a cliff effect that undermines multi‑year planning.
The 30% reserve for new markets prioritizes creation over maintenance or expansion of successful existing markets; reallocating reserved funds if applications are insufficient reduces waste but also reintroduces discretionary decision‑making that may advantage better‑resourced applicants. Finally, the required USDA and IG reports come three years after enactment; that delay could mean policy‑relevant findings arrive after many multi‑year grant cycles have closed, limiting Congress’s ability to swiftly adjust the program.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.