Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Grants And Education To Advance Innovations In Sustainable Agriculture

Progress report for LNC16-377

Transitioning farm and ranch land from one family to another: Evaluating new strategies for profitable transfers and sustainable agriculture partnerships

Project Type: Research and Education
Funds awarded in 2016: $199,566.00
Projected End Date: 09/27/2019
Grant Recipient: Indiana University
Region: North Central
State: Indiana
Project Coordinator:
Dr. James Farmer
Indiana University
Co-Coordinator:
Dr. Julia Valliant
Indiana University
Expand All

Project Information

Summary:

Programs across the NCR are working to facilitate farm/ranch transfers from farmers who lack a family successor, or landowners who do not farm, to an unrelated farm seeker, who may be a beginning farmer. The consensus is that these “linking” programs may lead to few matches, due in part to an imbalance: farm seekers inundate programs with interest while farmer/landowner participation is low.  The ratio can be ten to one.  This project will assess lessons learned during the 20-year experience of the NCR’s linking programs to identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) for supporting farm transfer between unrelated parties.  The assessment will be enhanced by including other models for fostering collaboration between experienced and aspiring farmers.  We will assess 44 programs, most of which SARE has funded, an investment of $1.8 million.  Findings will be used to improve existing programs and develop frameworks for new programs.  The project will monitor effects of project outreach on farm transfer program models and landowner participation. The project will interview program leaders and survey/interview participating farmers/ranchers and landowners.  Recording case studies of four farms/ranches and StoryCorps interviews with 24 farmers will complete data collection.  Outreach will publish findings in an Extension manual and academic journals; deliver conference presentations and a webinar; and broadcast farmers’ stories of successful transitions to new owners via radio and podcast.  Findings will also inform frameworks for pilot program models in Kansas and Indiana, which have yet to launch a farm transfer venture. Outcomes include: NCR programs apply project findings, improving services Kansas and Indiana initiate the planning of farm transfer programs Farmers’ successful transition stories and models reach other farmers A 25% increase in landowner participation in NCR farm transfer programs from current levels 226+ farmers/ranchers will participate directly in the project and it will reach thousands more via radio/podcast outreach.  Farmers, non-farming landowners, and aspiring farmers will learn about models for farm transitions. Farmers and farm seekers will benefit from improvements that programs make in response to project findings.  The goal is for more families to be able to continue their farm by successfully transferring to a new farmer. Project partners: Indiana University (lead), Kansas Rural Center (Major Participant), Center for Rural Affairs (Nebraska), Purdue University, Land For Good (New Hampshire).  Outreach: StoryCorps, MOSES, Successful Farmer Radio Magazine, Earth Eats / Harvest Public Media, Farmer to Farmer Podcast.

Project Objectives:

Audiences

  • Farmers without a family successor
  • Non-farming landowners
  • Farm seekers
  • Programs, policymakers, and investors supporting farm transfers

Action outcomes

  • Kansas and Indiana initiate the planning of farm transfer programs
  • The NCR’s farm transfer programs apply Best Practices, improving services
  • A 25% increase in landowner participation in NCR farm transfer programs

Learning outcomes

  • Farmers’ successful transition stories reach project audiences
  • Identify models for transferring farms alternative to seller/buyer matches (mentoring, land trusts, work-in partnerships, incubators)

System change outcomes

  • More sustainable agricultural operations continue, or begin, on farms transitioned between unrelated parties

Cooperators

Click linked name(s) to expand
Mary Fund

Research

Hypothesis:

Research question: What are Best Practices among programs in the North Central Region that aim to facilitate farm/ranch transfer from owners to non-family members?

Materials and methods:

Activities and rationale

The project’s methodology was originally motivated by findings of a previous SARE study, which recommended a review of best practices among farm transfer programs in a region as highly agricultural as the NCR (GNE12-042). (To clarify terminology, we refer to farm transfer programs as “linking” or “land link” programs. These provide a range of services which are outlined in the Results section below, including listing, matching, beginning farmer state tax credits, and senior-junior farmer/rancher mentoring). Later, conversations with leaders of some NCR farm transfer programs suggested a set of common problems. These problems formed the research questions for a program review. The problems included first a struggle with how a linking program defines success. Given that the ultimate goal is very long term (complete transfer of a farm/ranch to an unrelated successor), what are medium-term successes a farm transfer program can track to monitor effectiveness? This was a gap in knowledge. A second problem programs found was often an imbalance between high demand for services from “seekers” looking for a farming/ranching opportunity of their own, but low demand for services from farm/ranch owners whose land could potentially transfer to an unrelated beginning farmer successor. This combination of elusive success and low landowner participation had led some programs to close. The study therefore aimed to learn from programs that have ended as well as programs that are still active, to collect their knowledge to inform next best investments in support of these outcomes: farm/ranch access for the next generation; secure, satisfying legacies for senior farmers and ranchers; and keeping land in agriculture. To explore these problems, we designed a two-phase assessment of the NCR’s programs.

 

The program assessment first learned directly from the leaders of programs in the NCR that assist in some fashion with farm/ranch transfers between unrelated parties. A second phase of data collection is now in the process of learning from farm/ranch owners and farm/ranch seekers who participate in the reviewed programs. A program assessment was an appropriate strategy to identify the lessons and best practices these programs as a group have discovered over their many years of experience. Then learning directly from farm/ranch owners and farm/ranch seekers allows the research to elicit a few things from their individual knowledge, primarily (1) their descriptions of what services would help them right now to transition as they hope, (2) ways in which services are, or are not, already helping them, and (3) their personal stories of attempted, completed, or imagined farm/ranch transitions.

 

The 29 assessed programs included 11 past NCR-SARE projects (an investment of $960,000) and 8 BFRDP projects ($2.8 million in BFRDP funding, including lead grantees and sub-contractors).

 

Materials

The research uses social science research methods rather than natural science research methods. Methods therefore include interviewing and surveying people about an area they know well, to then identify and report the patterns in what they say.

 

The main materials that go into social science research are researchers’ time and skill in designing and following protocols to elicit knowledge of program leaders, farm owners and farm seekers, and then to analyze, interpret, and report on the data gathered. Interviews involve taking extensive notes and audio recording the content to later transcribe verbatim and analyze. Online surveys collect quantitative data, and statistical analysis follows.

 

Two teams of advisors reviewed the content of the online surveys before they were launched. All improvements and clarifications they suggested were incorporated. One team of 4 farmer-advisors includes two in Indiana, one in Kansas, and one in Nebraska. A team of professional advisors represents the NGO’s Center for Rural Affairs and Land for Good as well as Purdue University Extension Indiana Beginning Farmers and Purdue University Institute for Family Firms.

 

Measurement strategies

  • Qualitative data collection (phone interviews with program leaders and farm/ranch owners)
  • Quantitative data collection (online surveys of (a) program leaders and (b) farm/ranch owners and seekers) – to quantify patterns of experience
Research results and discussion:

Data analysis is underway at the end of year 1.  Preliminary patterns from the program assessment are presented in the enclosed summary, with highlights below.  The summary enclosed is a living document, circulated to the programs that participated in the assessment. In year 2 we are revising in line with their feedback to prepare a technical manual for linking programs that project partner Purdue Extension will issue as well as journal articles. Analysis of the farm owner/seeker online survey is beginning now.

180228-NCR-SARE-farm-transfer-RE-summary-of-best-practices

 

Program review: data and provisional findings

Contacting a sample of 42 active and ended programs led to 29 programs completing a questionnaire and phone interview.  (Non-responders tended to be programs that took place longer ago). The sample of programs were headquartered in the 12-state North Central Region and met one or more of three conditions, being: (1) listed on the Center for Rural Affairs “Linking Farmers with Land” web page or on the (2) National Young Farmer Coalition Midwest Regional Listings web page; and/or (3) a past NCR-SARE project that addressed farm transfer and/or mentoring.

 

Leaders estimated that the reviewed programs serve a total of 2,371 farm/ranch owners and 3,898 farm/ranch seekers, for a total of 6,269 owners and seekers.

Table 1. Categories of service provided by reviewed programs (after: Land for Good. 2011. Farmland Access and Transfer: A Working Schematic about Services)

Bucket of services

Listing, Linking, Matching and/or Tax Credit

Listing (a managed list of available farm/ranch properties; may also list seekers)

Linking (a service providing contact information to seekers/owners, typically pre-sorted or pre-screened)

Matching (a service that facilitates a specific transaction between a seeker and an owner)

Tax credit for landowners and/or farm/ranch seekers

Mentoring (a service that facilitates formal connections between learners (who may be farm/ranch seekers) and mentors who are farm/ranch owners for advice and/or training)

Supporting services (general services that build seeker and/or owner competencies to engage in farm/ranch acquisition or transfer. May include: business/financial/acquisition planning, land use planning/ farm/ranch design, estate/succession/transfer planning, tenure option information, lease education, land protection/easements, landowner education/information)

Ancillary services (not directly related to farm/ranch acquisition or transfer. May include: general business / viability planning, marketing, employment/labor, production systems/practices, non-farm/ranch estate planning, financial management, land use planning/conservation)

 

Most of the programs reviewed (63%) are headquartered at non-governmental organizations (NGOs):

 

Table 2. Types of program institutions (n=30)

Non-governmental organizations (NGO)

63% / 19

Extension system / land grant university

17% / 5

State department of agriculture

10% / 3

Community college

7% / 2

Farm Bureau

3% / 1

 

 

Table 3.  Characteristics of programs assessed

Start year: median and range

2006 (1990-2017)

Program duration: median and range

10 years (0 to 27 years)

Programs still active

About 80%

Number of owners participating: median and range

38 (3 to 500)

Owner-operators or non-operator owners?

Owners participating in these programs are 3 times more likely to be operators than non-operators

Number of seekers participating: median and range

43 (3 to 1,000)

Service area
  • Half of programs serve one state
  • A quarter serve a multi-state region
  • 16% of programs serve a multi-county region within a state
  • 9% of programs are national

States served

Iowa – 4 programs – 9%

Illinois – 2 programs – 5%

Indiana – 2 programs – 5%

Kansas – 3 programs – 7%

Michigan – 6 programs – 14%

Minnesota – 4 programs – 9%

Missouri – 1 program – 2%

North Dakota – 3 programs – 7%

Nebraska – 9 programs – 20%

Ohio – 2 programs – 5%

South Dakota – 3 programs – 7%

Wisconsin – 5 programs – 11%

Number of transfers per year – median and range

Successful

Make some progress, but fall through

 

2 (0 to 50)

3.5 (o to 50)

 

 

Interpretation of findings

 

Table 4. Anticipated and actual preliminary findings of program review

What did we expect to find?

Did we find this?

No

Sort of

Yes

(1) Effectiveness of linking programs is challenging to demonstrate

Lesson:  Evidence of successful transfers facilitated by programs is hard to pinpoint since successful transfer is a long-term outcome. Therefore, programs that are tracking medium-term outcomes have a clearer understanding of program success. Medium-term metrics are usually tracked among a subset of participants.

  

X

  

(2) Linking programs can and do use medium-term metrics to track effectiveness

Lesson: Metrics in use are presented in Table 5. Typically these are monitored among seekers only.

    

X

(3) Farm/ranch owners demonstrate less demand for linking services than seekers do

Lesson: Programs suggest strategies for increasing landowner participation, see Section 4

    

Usually

(4) A mentoring relationship can instigate an eventual transition relationship between mentor and mentee

Surprising lesson: Programs are particularly enthusiastic about how much value senior farmers/ranchers can derive from serving as a mentor. Service as a mentor can help seniors transition toward retirement (see Section 4)

    

X

(5) Linking models are incompatible with seekers’ demand for smaller landholdings

Lesson: The review finds more similarity between owners’ and seekers’ priorities than we expected, see section 4 and the Appendix. This finding may be influenced by the number of programs serving beginning farmers preparing for commodity crop/livestock production

X

    

 

Unexpected or unanticipated results and the implications of these

Findings (1) and (2). Here is a pitfall to avoid: Some of the programs reviewed are either tracking no metrics or have no dedicated funding for the staff time necessary to build, run, and keep current a listing, linking, or matching service. Staff of these programs tend to be frustrated because it is unclear whether the program is successful and justifiable. Conversely, programs that are doing some tracking of the medium-term metrics suggested in Table 5, and/or that do have dedicated funding. The metrics in Table 5 can be adopted by programs and suggested by funders for program evaluation. Among the services that programs offer, their leaders give the highest importance to listing and mentoring.

 

Two categories of “beginners” are served by these programs. One set is moving into commodity crop/livestock production. The other is moving into non-commodity production (added value and/or specialty crops). Beginning commodity producers are often from farm backgrounds. They are working toward a farming opportunity of their own because their home farms cannot accommodate them. Beginning non-commodity producers are often from off-farm backgrounds. Programs reviewed tend to serve one set of beginners or the other, occasionally both, as presented in Table 6.

 

Finding (3). Analysis is clarifying participation levels across different categories of programs. In general, while some programs do report very high seeker to owner participation ratios (as high as 20 to 1), as a group the ratio is closer to 2 to 1. Interviews with program leaders do find some consensus in the strategies they recommend to increase landowner participation. The enclosed summary elaborates upon the following. To increase landowner participation:

  • Publicity and promotion is a constant need, well worth funds and staff time
  • Deliver “indirect” educational interventions to farmers’ advisors, specifically lenders, tax preparers, accountants, financial planners, and lawyers. Focus the education on opportunities owners have to transfer farm/ranch land and capital to next generation farm/ranch seekers.
  • Deliver general mentoring programs. Mentoring programs help mentors transition into retirement. Program leaders observe that serving as a mentor can help senior farmers/ranchers prepare to transition to retirement – even when that is not an objective of the mentoring program.  A general mentoring program can thus assist with intergenerational transfers. Having a very structured mentoring program with clear expectations, exchanges, and incentives supports this value. So does recruiting a rather advanced set of mentees who allow for the mentors’ “sophisticated knowledge to be well used” (in the words of one mentoring program leader).
  • Consider partnering with community/technical college agriculture programs, which farm/ranch owners may view as lessening the risk of working with beginners

 

Aspire to beginning farmer state tax credits like those of Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska. Beginning farmer state tax credit programs help in two ways. They attract landowners to make a long-term agreement with a qualifying beginner by providing a credit on state income and/or property taxes (of $5,000 per year on average, with quite a range). A new tax credit in Minnesota also incentivizes sale of land/assets to a qualifying beginner. A few hundred owners participate every year where these credits exist, in Iowa and Nebraska. In addition, the mere existence of a Beginning Farmer Tax Credit delivers a meaningful endorsement of beginning farmers and the need to support generations of agriculture on into the future.

 

Table 5. Catalogue of metrics: Medium-term indicators to track success of linking programs whose ultimate goal is long-term (successful non-family farm transfer)

 

Process indicators / program reach

  • # of seeker/owner program participants
  • # of inquiries from seekers/owners
  • # of acres offered / made available by landowners
  • # of mentoring pairings in place
  • # of succession plans developed in writing
  • # of unique hits to website
  • # of views / shares / likes on social media posts
  • Media coverage
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Medium-term outcome indicators

  • % of seekers who are farming
  • % of seekers farming as their main profession
  • % of seekers who have paired with an owner
  • % of seekers who say their operation is more stable
  • % of seekers who say their operation has grown
  • % of seekers still working the same ground
  • % of seekers who have acquired ground
  • % of seekers who say they are likely to acquire ground
  • % of seekers who have developed a new enterprise on an existing farm
  • % of seekers renting/leasing assets from an owner
  • % of seekers sharing crops, livestock, equipment, etc. with an owner
  • % of seekers purchasing assets from an owner
  • % of seekers employed on someone else’s farm/ranch
  • % of seekers who have developed a new farm
  • % of seekers in ownership positions
  • % of mentees who have become mentors
  • % of seekers who say the program was helpful
  • % of seekers who would recommend the program
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

Table 6. Type of beginning farmer served, with general program characteristics

Number / % of programs reviewed

Beginning commodity producers

  • Plains states ranching / Grazing Lands Coalitions
  • Community college agriculture programs
  • State beginning farmer tax credit programs
  • Linking programs at large institutions, such as state departments of agriculture, Extension systems, farm bureaus

11 / 38%

Beginning non-commodity producers

  • NGO’s
  • Beginning farmer training programs
  • BFRDP grantees
  • Farm incubators
  • Certified organic producers
  • Land conservancies

11 / 38%

Both commodity and non-commodity producers

  • Dairy farming training programs
  • Larger listing programs (with 640-1,200 listings)

7 / 24%

 

 

Preliminary recommendations to programs and funders: next steps and priorities

Top recommendation on a shoestring: A minimal program that can have positive effects

  • If you are tempted to start a seeker-owner, classifieds-style listing service for your area, consider first offering an online discussion forum such as a list-serv or a Facebook group, rather than a classifieds listing.  An online forum allows owners and seekers to communicate freely without having as much committed staff time.
  • Add a low-input owner-seeker mixer to an established event your organization is presenting anyway

 

Other recommendations for existing programs

  • For programs tracking no outcomes: start tracking medium-term outcomes, just among seekers.
  • If tempted to discontinue a classifieds listing, keep it going but figure out how to minimize staff oversight. The destination you are providing is valuable for people who need it.
  • As a strategy to increase landowner participation in linking programs, partner with a community/technical college agricultural program or other formal training program. Formal programs such as these seem to be sought out and valued by landowners and employers. Perhaps for landowners they help lessen the risk in working with a beginner.

 

Other recommendations for initiating new program lines

  • Considering offering a mentoring service?  Do it.  Make the program formal with clear expectations.  Recruit advanced mentees who have “earned the right to a mentor” (in the words of one program leader)
  • Deliver “indirect” educational programs to farm/ranch owners’ advisors about non-family transfer opportunities. Priority advisors include lenders, tax preparers, accountants and lawyers.
  • Research beginning farmer state tax credit programs to determine steps your state can take to pursue a similar program. Minnesota just passed such a law in 2017.
  • Consider offering one-off conversation facilitation as a service to owners
  • Extension systems should pursue creation of a full-time case management / facilitation position for farm transfers, following precedent by Iowa State
  • Explore alternative land ownership/leasing/land trusts/community foundations currently operating in your state or other states. Some of these offer mentoring programs/training for beginning farmers and/or land ownership opportunities for beginners
515 Farmers participating in research

Education

Educational approach:

The project has two main educational strategies. The major one will be a media campaign starting in year two. Radio and podcast partners will broadcast stories of successful non-family farm/ranch transfers to regional and national audiences. The aim of the campaign is to introduce more people in agriculture to such success stories, and to monitor any changes in landowner participation levels in the NCR’s farm transfer programs during the media campaign. Media outreach will involve commercial farm radio partner Farm Journal Report, Farmer to Farmer podcast, and public radio partners StoryCorps, Earth Eats, and Harvest Public Media.

 

A second educational approach focuses on the home states of the project’s lead institutions, Kansas and Indiana. Our states are two of very few that have no formal programs to assist with intergenerational farm/ranch transitions between unrelated parties. Organizations small and large in nearly every other state have started these, to help beginners onto the land, to keep land in agriculture, and to help existing agricultural operations to continue. An aim of the project is to collect lessons learned by established programs in the region to inform next conversations in our states about how to support these same objectives of helping beginners onto the land, keeping land in agriculture, and helping existing agricultural operations to continue.

 

To initiate program planning in Kansas and Indiana, we are convening a one-day meeting in each state of stakeholders in non-family farm transfer. Indiana’s meeting happened in year one and Kansas’s meeting will happen in year two. The objectives of the meetings are to define next steps for program development in our states.

Project Activities

Statewide meeting of stakeholders in non-kin farm transfer - Indiana
Map of My Kingdom performances and Legacy Letter Workshops
Presentation to Changing Lands, Changing Hands: National Conference on Farm Transfer
Poster Presentation at Indiana Small Farms Conference
Workshop at 2016 Kansas Rural Center annual conference

Educational & Outreach Activities

4 Published press articles, newsletters
11 Webinars / talks / presentations
2 Workshop field days

Participation Summary

168 Farmers
120 Ag professionals participated
Education/outreach description:

The above activities are described above under Project Activities, and include four published press articles / newsletters:

 

Year 2 outreach underway includes:

Upcoming workshops and presentations

  • 2018 MOSES conference workshop (2/24/2018, audience of 70)
  • StoryCorps conversations recorded between 24 farmers involved in farm transfer (Feb 24-25, 2018)
  • Kansas statewide farm transfer stakeholder meeting – to be held in April or May 2018
  • Kansas Ranch Institute mentoring and linking program planning meeting April 13-14, 2018
  • Webinar presenting project findings
  • Kansas Rural Center conference 2018 – at least two workshops will focus on farm transitions topics if not an entire track of 4 

Publications

  • Purdue Extension publication on tracking success in farm transfer linking programs
  • Journal article reporting program assessment findings
  • Journal article reporting findings of farm/ranch owner/seeker survey and phone interviews
  • Kansas Rural Center will publish stories in its quarterly newsletter on farm transitions in Kansas, plus provide coverage of the study survey summary, farmer case study profiles, and other examples of alternative land ownership explored in the study.

Fundraising

  • USDA NIFA AFRI Foundational Program proposal

Media

  • Farmer to Farmer podcast episode about non-family farm transfer
  • Earth Eats episode about non-family farm transfer (public radio program)
  • Farm Journal Report episode about non-family transfer (commercial radio program)

Learning Outcomes

Key areas taught:
  • Farmers' successful transition stories reach project audiences – project years 2 and 3
  • Identify models for transferring farms other than seller/buyer matches (mentoring, land trusts, work-in partnerships, incubators) – analyzing this data now

Project Outcomes

5 Grants applied for that built upon this project
1 Grant received that built upon this project
50 New working collaborations
Success stories:

From a Purdue Extension Educator after participating in the Indiana Non-Kin Farm Transfer Stakeholder Meeting 11/15/2017: “Julia, Good program today… I really did not know what to expect in advance but I am pleased with the cross-section of attendees as well as their willingness to speak their minds and I have high hopes for some positive outcomes… This is an area of rapidly growing need and I am a bit embarrassed by Indiana’s reluctance to address it more proactively. I always appreciate the work that you and James do and the opportunity to work with/ support you.”

 

From a farm owner and ag lawyer after participating in the Indiana Non-Kin Farm Transfer Stakeholder Meeting 11/15/2017: “Thank you again for the informative session and collaboration opportunities afforded yesterday.  It is an exciting opportunity to serve our clients while protecting the agricultural DNA of the state of Indiana.”

 

From a news article: “‘James and Julia are helping make Indiana a place where young farmers want to live and farm,’ said [the leader of] the Hoosier Young Farmers Coalition. ‘If we want more access to local food or more sustainable care of our farm land, we need to connect and strengthen our community of young farmers. More people will join that community — they will come home to Indiana to farm or decide to start farming here — if we have a way for them to find and access farmland.’ Farmer and Valliant are the lead researchers on a grant from the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The project’s goal is for farms to continue functioning as farms, rather than being sold in pieces at auction or to a developer, said Valliant, a research associate at the Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at IU Bloomington. She said this can also help new farmers access land, which can be a challenge.” – https://news.iu.edu/stories/2017/11/iub/inside/06-land-transfer.html

Recommendations:

Our project would be very happy to be invited to present on our project at future SARE / USDA events.

Return to Project Overview
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or SARE.