Non-Emergency Programming Planning Guide
FFP non-emergency programming — including Title V Farmer-to-Farmer — operates on different planning cycles, partner ecosystems, and evaluation logic than emergency Title II. USDA needs an integrated planning framework that treats emergency and non-emergency programming as one operating envelope.
Why It Matters
The PWS specifically calls out Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration. Non-emergency programming is where FFP intersects with development-style agricultural cooperation — a domain Kevin Latner has 25+ years of FAS exposure to.
Statutory & Regulatory Authority
The legal/regulatory instruments that bound this deliverable. HSG analysts cite these in every Section 4.1 deliverable submission.
7 USC § 1721 et seq.
P.L. 480 Title II non-emergency authorizing statute.
P.L. 99-198 § 1505 (Title V — Farmer-to-Farmer Program)
Statutory authority for Title V — explicit PWS scope element.
7 USC § 1726
Title V authorization detail.
22 CFR Part 211 (transitioning)
Commodity donation rules — base regulation for non-emergency monetization.
USAID FFP R&I methodology documents (historical)
Two-phase DFSA / RFSA design pattern — operational substrate USDA inherits.
Operating Context
Anchored on the FY25 NOFO Reform 3 (off-boarding and graduating projects; no forever-aid countries) (Design Goal 3) and on the bilateral co-investment doctrine the administration has operationalized in the State Department's 31-MOU Global Health Strategy program ($20.6B total value; $7.8B recipient counterpart; 38% counterpart share). Non-Emergency Programming is the natural home for FFP 2.0 — the structural redesign trajectory in HSG's three-trajectory Optioning Framework where time-bound bilateral agreements with documented recipient-country counterpart contributions replace unilateral commodity-grant logic. Per Amendment 1 Q100, USDA confirmed the established legal opinion that Title V Farmer-to-Farmer is included in the definition of non-emergency programming, and HSG accordingly integrates Title V treatment into this Guide rather than spinning it out separately. FFP non-emergency programming has historically run on USAID's Refine and Implement (R&I) two-phase DFSA / RFSA design pattern — Phase 1 formative-research / analytical refinement (typically 12 months), Phase 2 implementation (typically 48 months), with baseline studies and end-of-activity final evaluations against baseline. R&I is operationally elegant — the formative-research phase reduces the risk of mid-implementation course corrections. HSG's default recommendation is to preserve R&I under USDA management; if modified, the modification rationale must be defensible. Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integrates with FFP non-emergency programming through cooperator-program adjacency — Kevin Latner's 25-year FAS cooperator-program career and Kevin Sage-EL's FAS Branch Chief tenure supervising $30M+/yr in U.S. cooperator matching-grant programs provide the integration substrate from a FAS-side bench depth perspective. Audrey McGuire's 40 years of capital-markets deal architecture anchors the FFP 2.0 bilateral co-investment design dimension.
Inherited State — Quantitative Baseline
Real public-record figures HSG uses as the starting baseline for this deliverable. Every entry is sourced and dated.
| Baseline metric | Value | Source | As of |
|---|---|---|---|
| Active DFSAs / RFSAs (Development Food Security Activities) in USAID/BHA portfolio | Approximately 25–30 active DFSAs / RFSAs across ~15 countries | USAID/BHA DFSA / RFSA award registry; USAspending.gov FAIN-level analysis | FY24 |
| R&I Phase 1 (Refine) typical duration | 12 months | USAID FFPIB 14-01 Refine and Implement Guidance | FFPIB cycle |
| R&I Phase 2 (Implement) typical duration | 48 months (4 years) | USAID FFPIB 14-01 R&I Guidance; FANTA DFSA / RFSA evaluations | FFPIB cycle |
| Title V Farmer-to-Farmer Program statutory basis | P.L. 99-198 § 1505 (1985); codified at 7 USC § 1726 | Food Security Act of 1985 (Title V) | Statutory |
| Title V F2F annual appropriation (FY24) | Approximately $15 M/yr (statutory floor + appropriated) | USAID Foreign Assistance reporting; F2F program documentation | FY24 |
| USDA Food for Progress annual appropriation | Approximately $160–190 M/yr (FY24 actuals) | USDA FAS Food for Progress program reports; USAspending.gov | FY24 |
| USDA Food for Progress operating countries | Approximately 20+ countries annually | USDA FAS Food for Progress program reports | FY24 |
| Title V F2F active implementers (current) | 8 organizations (Land O' Lakes Venture37 lead + 7 partners) | USAID F2F program documentation; partner award registry | FY24 |
| FFP non-emergency annual obligations | Approximately $325–375 M/yr (historical avg) | USAID FFP Annual Results Reports; USAspending.gov | FY21–24 avg |
| Major DFSA / RFSA implementing-PVO concentration | Top-5 (CARE, CRS, Save the Children, World Vision, Mercy Corps) hold ~70–75% of DFSA / RFSA portfolio | USAspending.gov FAIN-level analysis | FY24 |
Inherited Document Inventory
The specific documents USDA inherits from USAID/BHA on this scope. Each must be re-issued, modified, or sunset under USDA authority.
Statutory — Title II Non-Emergency + Title V
Statutory authority for non-emergency programming. USDA inherits authority unchanged.
7 USC § 1721 et seq.P.L. 480 Title II authorizing statute
Base authority for non-emergency Title II programming including DFSAs / RFSAs. USDA inherits unchanged on FFP transition.
P.L. 99-198 § 1505Food Security Act of 1985 — Title V Farmer-to-Farmer
Statutory authority for Title V Farmer-to-Farmer Program. Explicit PWS scope element. USDA inherits unchanged.
7 USC § 1726Title V authorization detail (codified P.L. 99-198 § 1505)
Detailed Title V authority — funding, eligibility, program structure. Base for F2F integration framework.
P.L. 110-246 § 3204Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008
Modified P.L. 480 to authorize / standardize non-emergency programming framework.
R&I Methodology Documents
USAID's Refine and Implement two-phase DFSA / RFSA design pattern. Core methodology USDA inherits.
FFPIB 14-01Refine and Implement Guidance (USAID FFP)
Primary R&I methodology bulletin. HSG default recommendation: preserve R&I unchanged under USDA management.
FFPIB 19-01R&I Implementation Update
Methodology refresh and operational refinement. Direct inheritance baseline.
FFPIB 19-02Resilience Programming under FFP
Resilience-vs-emergency posture for non-emergency activities; programming-design input.
USAID M&E V2.0 Pillar 4Baseline / Endline / Mid-term Evaluations
Phase 1 baseline study + Phase 2 evaluation methodology. Direct R&I methodology dependency.
USAID FFP RFA template (DFSA / RFSA)Request for Applications template for DFSA / RFSA design
Template inherited by USDA for future DFSA / RFSA solicitations; USDA-grade adaptation required.
USDA Sister-Program Templates (preserved under USDA)
USDA-existing program templates that supply the structural analog for FFP non-emergency programming under USDA management.
USDA Food for ProgressUSDA FAS Food for Progress Program
USDA sister-program to FFP — already monetization-anchored, already operates in ~20+ countries, $160–190M annual. Direct template for FFP non-emergency programming under USDA management. Kevin Latner's direct execution lane.
USDA McGovern-DoleUSDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education Program
USDA-managed international food-assistance program — operates under USDA FAS Office of Capacity Building. Structural template for international-food-programming under USDA.
USDA MAP / FMDUSDA FAS Market Access Program / Foreign Market Development
Cooperator-program template — structural analog to PVO Registration system (sunset 2017). Direct application to Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration.
Regulatory — DFSA / RFSA Grant Framework
Regulatory framework for DFSA / RFSA grant administration.
22 CFR Part 211Commodity donation rules (USAID — transitioning)
Base regulation for non-emergency monetization. USDA-equivalent rulemaking required.
22 CFR Part 226Grant administration to PVOs (USAID — transitioning)
DFSA / RFSA grant administration framework. Substantially covered by 2 CFR Part 200.
ADS 303Grants and Cooperative Agreements (USAID — transitioning)
Primary instrument framework for DFSAs / RFSAs. USDA Departmental Regulation equivalent required.
Four-Phase Methodology
Phase 1 (Month 7) — R&I Review
Activity: USAID R&I methodology review; DFSA / RFSA design-pattern analysis; modification-vs-preserve decision
Output: Adoption recommendation
Phase 2 (Month 7–8) — Integrated Framework
Activity: Emergency / non-emergency planning integration; Title V integration framework; cooperator-program adjacency mapping
Output: Framework v1
Phase 3 (Month 8) — Food for Progress Migration
Activity: Sister-program template migration; Kevin's direct execution history applied; partner-management architecture
Output: Framework v2
Phase 4 (Month 9) — Production
Activity: USDA budget / procurement calendar alignment; senior bench review; final formatting
Output: PWS Deliverable 9
HSG's Approach
- 1Build the integrated emergency / non-emergency planning framework — one operating envelope, flex resources across emergency states.
- 2Adopt (or thoughtfully modify) USAID's Refine and Implement (R&I) two-phase design pattern for Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs / RFSAs).
- 3Leverage USDA Food for Progress as the proven sister-program template — already USDA, already monetization-anchored, Kevin Latner's direct execution lane.
- 4Develop the Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration framework given the FAS cooperator-program adjacency.
- 5Design the planning cycle aligned to USDA's budget and procurement calendars; build the partner-management architecture for non-emergency partners.
Sample FrameworkReal Data
Active DFSA / RFSA Portfolio — Real R&I Two-Phase Examples (USAID/BHA inheritance baseline)
| DFSA / RFSA Activity | Country | Implementing PVO(s) | Approximate Award | R&I Phase Status | USDA Inheritance Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHOUHARDO IV | Bangladesh | CARE (lead) | ~$75M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance — preserve R&I to avoid mid-implementation disruption |
| SPIR II | Ethiopia | World Vision (lead) + CARE + ORDA | ~$80M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance; PSNP integration consideration |
| LAHIA II | Niger | Catholic Relief Services (lead) | ~$45M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance; Sahel-region risk-tier coordination |
| ViMPlus | Burkina Faso | ACDI/VOCA (lead) + Save the Children + Helen Keller International | ~$55M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance; high-risk-tier execution |
| Apolou | Uganda | Mercy Corps (lead) | ~$50M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance |
| Nuyok | Uganda | Catholic Relief Services (lead) | ~$45M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance |
| HARANDE | Mali | CARE (lead) | ~$45M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance; security-environment monitoring |
| TAKUNDA | Zimbabwe | CARE (lead) | ~$40M | Phase 2 implementation | Direct USDA inheritance; sanctions overlay review |
| Tomalia / RVI | Mozambique / Guatemala | Save the Children / CRS | Varies | Phase 1 / Phase 2 mix | Mid-Phase-1 inheritance — preserve R&I formative research |
DFSAs / RFSAs are real USAID FFP / BHA-funded development activities. Award figures are HSG estimates from USAspending.gov and partner-published reporting; production HSG analysis will replace with authoritative USDA-side close-out data. R&I two-phase design pattern remains the operative methodology — HSG's default recommendation is to preserve R&I under USDA management to minimize partner disruption.
Performance Metrics
R&I adoption decision
Defensible recommendation by Month 8
Title V integration framework
Documented integration paths by Month 9
DFSA / RFSA portfolio architecture
Operational under USDA by Month 9
Food for Progress sister-program template
Migration playbook complete by Month 8
Risks & Mitigations
Risk
R&I modification creates partner confusion
HSG Mitigation
Phased adoption with grandfather provisions for in-progress activities.
Risk
Title V Farmer-to-Farmer transition gaps
HSG Mitigation
Early engagement with current Title V implementing partners (Land O' Lakes Venture37, IESC, NCBA CLUSA, etc.).
Risk
Food for Progress sister-program template structural gaps
HSG Mitigation
Kevin's direct execution informs adaptation; USDA FAS Food for Progress program staff coordination.
Precedent Cases — Direct Execution History
Specific prior work by the HSG senior bench that is structurally analogous to this scope. Each is verifiable through the team member's documented federal employment history.
Kevin Latner — Senior Agricultural Attaché responsibilities + Food for Progress monetization market-assessment
2015–2019
USDA FAS (Foreign Service Officer)
USDA Food for Progress is the direct sister-program template for FFP non-emergency programming. Kevin's monetization market-assessment work provides the FAS-side methodology lineage for Enhanced Bellmon Tier 1 implementation in FFP non-emergency design.
Kevin Latner — Executive Director
2011–2014
Cotton Council International (FAS MAP/FMD cooperator)
Three consecutive Unified Export Strategy submissions ($25M global program) — direct execution of FAS cooperator-program model. The structural analog to Title V Farmer-to-Farmer cooperator-program integration. Kevin has run the template end-to-end.
Kevin Latner — 25-year FAS cooperator-program career
Various
USDA FAS career
Kevin's career-long FAS cooperator-program adjacency provides the methodology substrate for Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration with FFP non-emergency programming under USDA management. The single most-direct precedent for the Title V integration framework.
Maurice W. House — Agricultural Attaché
1992–1995
USDA FAS Beijing post
FAS post execution at major emerging market during US-China bilateral agricultural cooperation buildup. Direct precedent for bilateral non-emergency programming under USDA FFP — the FAS cooperator-program adjacency framework.
Audrey McGuire — CEO; HUD Office of Asset Sales Project Financial Advisor
1999–present
Emax Inc.
27 years of two-phase federal program design (HUD-OAS sales-program design: Phase 1 portfolio scoping + Phase 2 execution). Direct structural analog to R&I Phase 1 (Refine) + Phase 2 (Implement) DFSA / RFSA design pattern. The federal two-phase program-design discipline.
Maurice W. House — Co-chair, interagency global food-crisis task force
2007–2009
USDA / Interagency
Cross-portfolio program-design coordination during 2008 food crisis — emergency + non-emergency programming integration. Direct precedent for the integrated emergency/non-emergency planning framework HSG recommends under USDA FFP.
Live Data Sources HSG Will Query
The real public-record data feeds HSG analysts will pull from during this engagement.
| Source | Access | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| USAID/BHA DFSA / RFSA award registry | usaid.gov/food-aid (transitioning) — public historical | Active DFSA / RFSA inventory — country, partner, award value, R&I phase status. |
| USAspending.gov FAIN-level disbursements | usaspending.gov — public, federal-mandate | Audited dollar-level DFSA / RFSA obligation per FAIN per fiscal year — authoritative portfolio baseline. |
| FANTA / Tufts Friedman School DFSA / RFSA evaluations | fantaproject.org; nutrition.tufts.edu — public, academic | Academic-grade DFSA / RFSA performance evaluations; R&I methodology validation; portfolio learning baseline. |
| USDA FAS Food for Progress program documentation | fas.usda.gov/programs/food-progress — public | Sister-program operational baseline; USDA-side methodology lineage. |
| USDA FAS McGovern-Dole program documentation | fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program — public | USDA-managed international food-assistance template; structural analog for FFP non-emergency execution. |
| USAID FFP RFA archive | usaid.gov/food-aid; SAM.gov contract awards — public | DFSA / RFSA solicitation template — direct base for future USDA-issued DFSA / RFSA RFAs. |
| Implementing partner DFSA / RFSA reports (public) | Each PVO publishes own annual / final reports | Partner-side reporting baseline; cross-validation against USAID-side reporting. |
| USAID Title V Farmer-to-Farmer program reports | usaid.gov; landolakesventure37.org — historical | Title V F2F integration framework baseline; current partner roster. |
Expected Deliverables
- Non-Emergency Programming Planning Guide (PWS Deliverable 9) — month 9
- Integrated emergency / non-emergency planning framework
- R&I (Refine and Implement) two-phase design adoption decision
- Food for Progress sister-program template migration playbook
- Title V Farmer-to-Farmer integration framework
- Non-emergency partner-management architecture
Expected Outcome
USDA can plan and execute FFP non-emergency programming as a continuous portfolio rather than a parallel track.
References
- 7 USC § 1721 et seq.
- USAID FFP Refine and Implement methodology documents (historical archive)
- USDA Food for Progress program documentation
- Title V Farmer-to-Farmer program reports (USAID, historical)
- FANTA Title II development food aid program reviews (academic)