Detailed Information on the
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring Programs Assessment

Funding for FY 2005 is $254 million, an increase of about $80 million from the FY 2004 enacted. Increases are related to Agricultural Defense, and to respond to the discovery of a cow that was infected with BSE (bovine spongiform encephalopathy)

Added an additional efficiency measure, such as the average cost of an investigation.

Updated the measures and accomplishments of this program.

Adding a new long term measure to quantify the value of damages prevented or mitigated by the Monitoring and Surveillance Programs.

Continuing to implement comprehensive swine disease surveillance system by advancing the design and implementation and completing the components for classical swine fever, swine brucellosis, and pseudorabies.

Developing a strategic plan to manage the Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey Process.

Measure: Number of significant introductions of foreign animal diseases and pests that spread beyond the original area of introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, or damage to the health of animals or humans.

Explanation:The goal of the Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance program is to identify, maintain, and enhance the health status of our country's livestock and poultry populations.

Measure: Number of foreign animal disease investigations

Explanation:This measurement was chosen because of the relationship between responding rapidly to a potential foreign animal disease outbreak and reducing the severity of animal disease incidents in the United States.

Measure: Percentage of known significant pest introductions, i.e. those that cause severe economic and environmental damage, detected before they spread from the original area of colonization

Explanation:

Measure: Number of exotic pests for which national surveys are conducted.

Explanation:In FY 2006, the surveys are being restructured to gather more in-depth data and allow cooperators to target pests that pose particular risks to commodities in their regions; the program will survey for fewer pests on a national scale.

Measure: The number of animal diseases for which there is a pure, safe, potent, and effective CVB-licensed product.

Explanation:This measure tracks CVB's performance in safeguarding animal health by ensuring that the appropriate pure, safe, potent, and effective veterinary biologics are available for current and emerging animal disease situations in the United States. A prime example is the licensure of a safe and effective West Nile virus vaccine in response to an emerging disease in the United States.

Measure: Number of doses imported with no foreign animal disease event related to product

Explanation:

Measure: Number of States and territories that meet animal health emergency preparedenss standards.

Explanation:The animal health standards are in line with Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 (Defense of U.S. Agriculture and Food), which determines states roles and resopnsibilities during an agricultural emergency.

Measure: Percentage of APHIS Veterinarians in charge who have completed the emergency management training curriculum

Explanation:

Measure: Number of States that can provide necessary Federal animal diagnostic services

Explanation:This measure tracks the number of states that have laboratories which can provide diagnostic services to supplement the services of NVSL--Ames, IA, and Plum Island, NY. The NAHLN is in an early development stage, so any money received for the state laboratories in FY 2004 will be concentrated on getting the 25 laboratories trained and provided with lab equipment, not adding an additional state.

Measure: Number of laboratories/tests approved to conduct animal movement, disease surveillance, and certification tests

Explanation:

Measure: Time it takes to investigate and resolve violations in cases settled through APHIS administrative procedures

Explanation:

Measure: Number of investigations conducted in support of APHIS' mission

Explanation:

Measure: Average cost of an investigation

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of APHIS Monitoring and Surveillance Programs is to identify, maintain, and enhance the health status of U.S. agriculture and to strengthen the domestic and international marketability of U.S. agricultural products.

Evidence: APHIS' monitoring and surveillance efforts are carried out by six programs. Authorizing legislation comes from the Animal Industry Act of 1884 as amended (21 U.S.C. 117), the Cattle Contagious Diseases Act of 1903 as amended (21 U.S.C. 111-115, 117, 120, 123, 125-127, 134), the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, Subtitle E, Animal Health Protection Act (PL 107-171), 21 U.S.C. 114; Animal Industry Act of 1884, the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act of 1913, amended in 1985 (21 U.S.C., Section 151 et seq.), the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701-7772, Section 431), and the ensuing regulations in Titles 7 and 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The U.S. continually faces the potential of outbreaks of foreign animal and plant pests and diseases and must respond to periodic actual outbreaks.

Evidence: There is a need for effective monitoring and surveillance efforts for the rapid detection, analysis, and reporting of foreign and emerging animal diseases, including those with public health and food safety implications. Recent outbreaks include Newcastle disease in poultry in four western states in 2003 and low pathogenic avian influenza in three eastern states in 2002 and 2003. The program responds to national level concerns while incorporating state level participation. Recently detected infestations of plant pests that pose significant threats to U.S. forest and lumber resources, such as the emerald ash borer and citrus longhorned beetle, demonstrate that continued survey efforts are needed on the plant side as well.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: APHIS' Plant and Animal Health Monitoring programs respond to national-level plant and animal health concerns while incorporating State-level participation. Program activities are conducted through partnerships with States, industry, and other Federal agencies. Because APHIS acts as the national coordinator in these efforts, our work does not duplicate other Federal, State, local, or private efforts. No other entity , Federal, State, or otherwise, coordinates national efforts related to animal and plant health emergencies or implements the provisions of the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act.

Evidence: The Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance program is mandated by the Animal Health Protection Act. No other Federal program coordinates national efforts or addresses technical issues related to animal health emergencies. The Veterinary Services Deputy Administrator holds quarterly conference calls with State animal health officials, including State Veterinarians and Laboratory Directors, to create consistency in approaches taken to address animal health concerns. The Pest Detection program coordinates pest survey efforts at the national level and cooperates with State departments of agriculture, other Federal agencies, and numerous universities to prioritize projects and conduct surveys. The National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) serves a unique role as the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) designated national and international reference laboratory for the U.S. The entire APHIS management team, including the Administrator and the Deputy Administrators, participates in monthly conference calls with the Commissioners of the State departments of agriculture (NASDA).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: By having a national direction, the Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance program achieves efficiency and the ability to enforce a uniform set of minimum standards with properly trained and equipped veterinary medical officers and technicians. The Emergency Management System program is currently being modified to meet the President's and Secretary's guidance to conform to the National Incident Management System. The Pest Detection program design allows for maximum effectiveness and efficiency. APHIS and its cooperators work together to select and accomplish survey projects, preventing resources from being used inefficiently or redundantly. The Veterinary Diagnostics program is making strides towards optimal design with the implementation of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN). While the basic infrastructure of a national laboratory network is in place, critical features to rapidly address new threats need to be addressed.

Evidence: Recent disease outbreaks in the United Kingdom, and other European countries, and in South Korea, Japan, and countries of the Asian Pacific rim demand that we maintain and upgrade our safeguarding efforts. Various reports such as GAO's report on foot-and-mouth disease have identified the need for a state-of-the-art national animal health laboratory network. The comprehensive regulatory approach of thorough evaluation of pre-licensing dossiers, testing of products submitted for licensure, facility and product inspections, investigations of non-compliance, and post-marketing surveillance is the most efficient and effective way to ensure only quality Federally licensed veterinary biological products are available to the U.S. consumers.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: All resources are expended to prepare for or respond to animal and plant pest and disease outbreaks. These resources either directly support State, Tribal, and local government emergency preparedness efforts or help the program coordinate these efforts. Pest Detection projects are prioritized through state, regional, and national committees based on the targeted pest's risk of entry and potential to cause significant economic or environmental damage. The Center for Veterinary Biologics targets its resources so that personnel can carry out activities such as policy development, licensing, product inspection, on-site inspections, post-monitoring surveillance, and investigations.

Evidence: APHIS has successfully eliminated more than 15 endemic diseases from the U.S. and has prevented many foreign animal diseases from entering the U.S. Having national program coordination on the plant side allows APHIS to direct survey funds to cooperators who are located in areas where the surveys are to be conducted. The Emergency Management System program signs cooperative agreements with states, tribes, and local governments; has established area emergency coordinator positions; holds training sessions to teach emergency response methods, and publishes guidelines on how to respond to animal health emergencies. By having trained and equipped investigators stationed throughout the country, the program is able to investigate potential violations effectively and in a timely manner.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: APHIS has developed a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program, which is to protect the Nation's animal and plant resources against foreign and domestic pests and diseases. These measures were chosen by program analysts and program managers as the best overall indicators of the program's effectiveness. The measures had to be general enough to cover a wide swath of activities, but specific enough to be meaningful to the actual program.

Evidence: The Pest Detection program's long-term performance measure is the percentage of known, significant pest introductions detected before they spread from the original area of colonization. The Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance program's long-term measure is the number of significant introductions of foreign animal pests or diseases that spread beyond the original area of introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, or damage to the health of animals or humans. This measurement was chosen because it relates to both our monitoring effectiveness and the health status of the U.S. herd. APHIS' Veterinary Diagnostics and Biologics programs, its Emergency Management System, and its Regultatory Enforcement program support the monitoring and surveillance work performed by the Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance and Pest Detection programs.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: APHIS' monitoring and surveillance programs have ambitious targets and timeframes for their long-term measures. At least one line item, Emergency Management Systems, hopes to set the world standard for animal health emergency management within the decade. Others are striving for excellent scores (e.g., 0 introductions, 97 percent detection rate), within the next 3 years. These are ambitious, yet achieveable, long-term goals.

Evidence: The Pest Detection target for fiscal year (FY) 2005 is 97 percent of known significant pest indtroductions detected before they spread from the original area of colonization--a very ambitious target. The Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance target for FY 2005 is 0 introductions of foreign animal pests or diseases that spread beyond the original area of introduction and cause severe economic or environmental damage, an ambitious target given the increasing amount of global trade and travel that occurs annually. Other measures include the number of diseases for which there is a pure, safe, potent, and effective product licensed by the Center for Veterinary Biologics, and the number of States and Territories that meet animal health emergency preparedness standards;

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: These measurements were chosen because of the relationship between responding rapidly to potential foreign animal disease and plant pest outbreaks and reducing the severity of animal and plant disease incidents in the United States.

Evidence: The annual performance measure for Pest Detection is the number of exotic pests for which national surveys are conducted. The annual performance measure for Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance is number of foreign animal disease (FAD) investigations. Other measures include the number of doses imported with no foreign animal disease event related to the product, and the percentage of APHIS veterinarians in charge who have completed the emergency management training curriculum.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: APHIS' monitoring and surveillance programs have baselines and ambitious targets for their annual measures. Almost all of the annual targets increase from year to year, and they tie back to long-term goals. Achieving these targets requires a great deal of organization and cooperation between APHIS and cooperators in the States and industry. APHIS' ability to meet its annual targets provides a good indicator of how well the Agency is progressing towards meeting its ambitious long-term goals.

Evidence: The Pest Detection baseline is 9 exotic plant pests. The target for FY 2005 is an additional 20 plant pests. The Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance baseline is 837 investigations. The target for FY 2005 is 650 disease investigations. (The number of FAD investigations conducted in FY 2002 was an anomaly because of the foot-and-mouth disease situation in the United Kingdom. Completing 650 investigations in FY 2005 would be a 69 percent increase over FY 2000). The NVSL baseline is 1,356 labs/tests approved to conduct animal movement, disease surveillance, and certification tests. The target for FY 2005 is 1,427 labs/tests. Please see Measures tab for more information.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: APHIS maintains strong ties to its stakeholders, including other Federal agencies, States, and industry. They all work together toward meeting the annual and long-term goals of the program. The Cooperative Agricultural Pest Survey program (part of Pest Detection) and the Trichinae Herd Certification Program (part of Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance) are good examples of cooperative efforts among Federal, State, and industry partners. All participants work towards the annual and long-term goals of the program. These efforts are representative of the way APHIS conducts its monitoring and surveillance programs.

Evidence: The Pest Detection program provides State cooperators with enough funds to hire full-time plant pest survey coordinators. Having full-time coordinators allows States to focus on early detection and to meet program goals. The Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance program consults with States and industry in developing uniform methods and rules, herd/flock certifications, and program standards for animal health programs. Many of these programs are cooperative State, Federal, and industry efforts administered by the State and supported by industry and the Federal Government.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality are conducted as needed to support program improvements and evaluate program effectiveness and relevance to APHIS' interest in safeguarding American agriculture from pest and disease outbreaks. The content of all regulations, uniform methods and rules, herd/flock certifications, and program standards may be amended as needed.

Evidence: Since 1999, both the National Plant Board and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture have conducted extensive evaluations of APHIS' plant and animal health safeguarding programs. These safeguarding reviews have provided a foundation for revising the national safeguarding system on both the plant and animal sides. For example, the Pest Detection program has adopted a three-tiered committee approach to improve its ability to target pests of concern, and a national surveillance director position has been established to help coordinate certain animal health monitoring activities.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Monitoring and surveillance program budgets are tied to program goals. The APHIS planning and budgeting process specifically relates program results to changes in funding, policy, or legislative mandates. APHIS' FY 2004 Explanatory Notes indicate that the Pest Detection line item received approximately $7 million in FY 2002. The Notes also indicate that with these funds, program officials and cooperators were able to detect 85 percent of the known pest introductions that could cause severe economic and environmental damage before the pests spread. Because the program was requesting such a large increase in the next fiscal year (total funding to equal $27.3 million), the Notes indicate that officials hope to find 95 percent of the pest introductions in FY 2003. The FY 2003 Ex Notes include a written justification of this funding increase in the white pages that follow the line item breakout.

Evidence: Agency planning and budget documents. Program managers track spending and budget requests monthly to ensure targets are accomplished for annual and long-term performance goals. APHIS' FY 2004 Explanatory Notes also indicate that the Emergency Management Systems line item received approx. $4 million in FY 2002. With these funds, 5 States were brought into compliance with standards for State animal health emergency management systsems. Because the program was requesting such a large increase the next fiscal year (total funding to equal $11 million), the Ex Notes also indicate that officials hope to bring 30 States into compliance in FY 2003. The FY 2003 Ex Notes include a written justification of this funding increase.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Following reviews by the National Plant Board and the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, APHIS made changes in its programs to make them operate more efficiently. APHIS is unaware of any strategic planning deficiencies at this time.

Evidence: The programs regularly review their strategic plans to address any deficiencies and believe there are no serious deficiencies at this time. Program managers meet periodically with stakeholders to discuss any issues of concern. "NA" SINCE NO DEFICIENCIES WERE IDENTIFIED

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Agency regularly collects timely and credible performance information. The 6 monitoring and surveillance programs discussed here maintain individual databases to collect performance information.

Evidence: The data collected by the programs is used by program managers to evaluate performance, allocate resources, and develop and prioritize future projects. Data collected by the Pest Detection program is used each year to plan the next year's surveys and to allocate funds for pests such as the imported fire ant, gypsy moth, and pink bollworm.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers and program cooperators are held accountable for cost and performance results.

Evidence: Management is held accountable for formulating plans and applying resources in the most effective and efficient manner to achieve program goals and objectives, and to accomplish program goals within resources allotted. Managers are evaluated annually. To receive a "fully successful" rating, manager must "..provide effective leadership and timely action in establishing, implementing, and achieving program goals and objectives." Program cooperators are held accountable through the terms of cooperative agreements, which require cooperators to report back to program managers at specific intervals.

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The program obligates funds and leaves little or no unobligated balance in its line-item account.

Evidence: APHIS Budget staff meets monthly with program managers to review spending results and projections to assure funds are obligated timely and for the intended purpose. For FY 2000, 0.14 percent of funds for the Plant and Animal Health Monitoring programs were unobligated. For FY 2001, the year of the world-wide foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks, APHIS used all funds available for monitoring and surveillance efforts. For FY 2002, 0.4 percent of monitoring and surveillance funds were obligated.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Program complies with agency and Federal requirements to maximize cost-effectiveness in purchasing and procurement. Database management, enhanced Web sites, teleconferencing, and training programs have improved program delivery and efficiency. The Pest Detection program is currently developing an initiative to reach out to and involve volunteer organizations (Nature Conservancy and Master Gardeners) and the CSREES network of extension agents in early detection efforts. NVSL constantly refines standard diagnostic techniques and uses other laboratories to supplement USDA testing capacity. CVB is moving to electronic document submissions.

Evidence: Major purchases such as vehicles and computers are aggregated by GSA and purchased through a "bulk buy" competitive procedure that assures maximum cost effectiveness and efficiency. Plant pest survey equipment is purchased through a national procurement officer to ensure cost-effectiveness. Supplies and equipment for animal health monitoring activities are purchased following pilot projects, which allows equipment to be tested and compared to equipment used in other programs before large orders are placed.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: APHIS conducts monitoring and surveillance activities in cooperation with the States and academic partners. APHIS programs also cooperate with related Federal agencies, other USDA programs, law enforcement agencies, and foreign governments, where appropriate.

Evidence: The Pest Detection, Emergency Management, and Animal Health Monitoring programs conduct cooperative activities with State departments of agriculture, other Federal agencies, and university partners to ensure that agricultural pests and diseases are detected quickly and that APHIS and its State partners are prepared for emergencies. The APHIS Regulatory Enforcement program cooperates with all APHIS programs and USDA's Office of General Counsel and Office of Inspector General.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The programs use strong financial management practices, and are not aware of any material internal control weaknesses. The six programs covered here each receive an annual allocation which includes funding for program support, and are held accountable for keeping spending within this amount.

Evidence: Procurement actions are handled by non-program specialists in accordance with established procedures, controls, and competitive practices. Spending is reviewed on a monthly basis in the APHIS status-of-funds process to assure that the funds are properly managed.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: When deficiencies are identified, the programs address them.

Evidence: Based on both internal and external reviews processes, the programs evaluate their operations on a regular basis and make improvements to increase management efficiency and effectiveness. For example, following a review conducted by the National Plant Board, the Pest Detection program organized planning committees at the State, regional, and national levels to improve its ability to prioritize projects effectively.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: APHIS consults with State, local, and tribal officials, as well as industry associations, on an ongoing basis about issues of interest to them and is committed to a rule-making process that provides for full public participation. APHIS routinely proposes significant actions for public comment prior to putting new regulations into effect. The Agency considers all comments submitted and responds to each issue raised, explaining why it is adopting some suggestions and not others.

Evidence: Potential new regulations that propose significant actions are first published in the Federal Register as proposed regulations. This allows for public comment prior to putting new regulations into effect. The Agency considers all comments submitted and responds to each issue raised, explaining why it is adopting some suggestions and not others. Then a final regulation developed and published in the Federal Register or the proposed regulation is withdrawn. APHIS received 70 comments on its proposal, "Foot-and-Mouth Disease Payment of Indemnity, Update of Provision" [Docket No. 01-069-1], and is currently making changes to the proposal based on concerns raised by the public. For example, we have recevied numerous comments on the rates for particular types of livestock and will be making changes based on these concerns.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: APHIS prepares a regulatory impact analysis that comports with OMB guidelines whenever a rule is deemed significant. Economic analyses always receive peer review outside of the program, for example, from economists of the Policy and Program Development staff, from USDA's Office of Budget and Program Analysis, and Office of the Chief Economist.

Evidence: RIA (regulatory impact analyses) and CBA (cost benefit analyses) are prepared to all proposed regulations as required.

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: APHIS reviews its regulations on an ongoing basis to ensure consistency in accomplishing program goals.

Evidence: Ongoing review to ensure effective regulation is part of management responsibilities. Recently, for example, the Emergency Management program proposed to update the rule regulating payment of indemnities for foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) to ensure the success of a control and eradication program in the event of an FMD outbreak in the United States. Also, APHIS conducts cyclical reviews of existing significant regulations in accordance with Executive Order 12866, Section 5, to determine whether the regulations are still needed. Based on such a review, we removed certain user fees in connection with the veterinary diagnostic program in 1997.

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: Regulations are designed to achieve program goals by ensuring that the intent of laws enforced by APHIS is carried out. Rule-making aimed at protecting and ensurng the health of U.S. agriculture is guided by benefits and costs of preventing and controlling pest and disease risks. In certain regulations, APHIS provides statistics on industry compliance, burden, and cost. For example, for a proposed scrapie program rule on the interstate movement of sheep and goats, APHIS estimated the costs associated with the rule's identification requirements and the number of hours associated with the record-keeping requirements. This information was included in the proposed rule.

Evidence: APHIS regulations protect the health and value of U.S. agriculture and help keep consumer costs for food and other agricultural items from rising. The FMD rule mentioned above lists several specific benefits, such an encouraging fully committed participation by affected parties (uncertainty about whether to report one's animals due to indemnity concerns could cause delays in an eradication program).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: The Plant and Animal Health Monitoring programs have demonstrated progress to a small extent in achieving their long-term performance goals. Of the six line items, two met their targets; one was not fully successful. The others were establishing new measures.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report results and Peer Reviews. For example, the Emergency Management System program estimates that 5 states and territories met the standards in 2002 (evaluations are conducted biannually). Although not all States meet the new standards yet, dramatic progress has been made in increasing state preparedness for animal health emergencies.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Programs have mostly demonstrated progress in achieving long term outcome goals. For example, APHIS believes that the Emergency Management System line item program reached it annual performance goal of the number of States fully meeting animal health emergency preparedness standards in FY 2002. APHIS has recently set targets for the percentage of veterinarians in charge and state veterinarians who must complete emergency management training. It also has set targets for the number of training exercises that must be conducted. The Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement program exceeded its target of conducting 1,600 investigations in FY 2002.

Evidence: While programs mostly demonstrated progress, there were some challenges including laboratory personnel shortages in Center for Veterinary Biologic (CVB) which affected the center's ability to achieve the 113 new licenses/permits targeted for FY 2002. CVB is rebuilding the infrastructure (hiring and training new personnel as one example) needed to move forward. The number of adverse events reported in FY 2002 was lower than expected. In April 2003, our main source of adverse event reports (United States Pharmacopia) discontinued the service of collecting reports. This will impact the ratio in FY 2003 and FY 2004. For the Pest Detection program, the FY 2002 target was to conduct national surveys for 11 exotic pests. Surveys were conducted for only 9, partly because of a lack of State interest. The planning process was improved in FY 2002 to allow States greater input in the pest prioritization process (the three-tiered committee system was implemented), and this problem should not recur.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The programs demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year. For example, the Veterinary Diagnostics and Veterinary Biologics programs are improving efficiencies by constantly refining standardized diagnostic techniques, using new technologies, using other laboratories to supplement testing capacity, and partnering with others, including foreign regulatory agencies and our stakeholders. The Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement program continues to strengthen operations through business process reengineering to increase productivity. Improved efficiencies are gained by the Pest Detection program by cooperating with other USDA agencies such as CSREES, and moving towards partnering with volunteer organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy.

Evidence: Each year, the programs identify ways to improve the quality of services while increasing efficiencies. For example, the Emergency Management System program recently opened the Emergency Operations Center at APHIS headquarters in Maryland. Teleconference monitors were installed at the Center to facilitate in training exercises and outbreak situations and reduce the amount of necessary travel. The program has also instituted an incident command system to help better manage disease outbreak situations. In addition, the Veterinary Biologics program is moving to electronic submission and workflow of several processes that will increase the stakeholders ability to access appropriate information and increase efficency for the serial release process and export certificate process. The Pest Detection program is currently developing an initiative to reach out to and involve volunteer organizations (such as the Nature Conservancy and Master Garders) and the CSREES network of extension agents in our early detection efforts.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Diagnostics, Emergency Management System, and Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance programs are unique in purpose and function toward goal accomplishment. While similar programs exist to the Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement and Pest Detection programs, APHIS has not conducted evaluations to compare these programs. The programs that the Pest Detection program works with complement each other and, taken together, provide a national picture of pest populations.

Evidence: In Section 10402 of the Animal Health Protection Act and Section 402 of the Plant Protection Act, Congress cites the necessity of the prevention, detection, control, and eradication of plant and animal pests and diseases and charges the Secretary of Agriculture with facilitating agricultural trade, among other things. This authority has been delegated to APHIS. The data collected through APHIS' monitoring and surveillance programs provides the evidence necessary for our trading partners to allow the import of U.S. agricultural products. APHIS is the only Federal agency recognized by the Office Internationale des Epizooties and the International Plant Protection Convention to certify the health of plant and animals and plant and animal products. Additionally, APHIS is the only Federal agency that implements the Virus, Serum, Toxin Act. In carrying out the provisions of the Virus, Serum, Toxin Act, APHIS ensures that the veterinary biologics available for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of animal diseases are pure, safe, potent, and effective.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evaluations of the Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Diagnostics, Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance, and Pest Detection programs indicate that the programs are meeting the majority of their goals, or program adjustments are being made to ensure results are achieved. For the Emergency Management System program, continual self-evaluations are conducted and input is received from the joint state-federal-industry National Animal Health Emergency Management System Steering Committee. Based on comments in the Animal Health Safeguarding Review, the program has greatly enhanced emergency response capabilities by building a response system that is shared by local, State, Federal, and Tribal entities. OIG has reviewed the Animal Health Regulatory Enforcement program and determined that the program is largely successful in meeting its goal of providing timely and effective enforcement services.

Evidence: Annual Performance Report results, OIG reports, and Peer Reviews. For example, the Veterinary Biologics program continues to evaluate the purity, safety, potency, and effectiveness of veterinary biological products and issue licenses to those meeting set standards. The Emergency Management System program has recently implemented an incident command system in responding to avian influenza in Virginia in 2002 and exotic Newcastle disease in California and other states in 2003. State, Tribal, and local government cooperators were brought on-board quickly to help contain the situation and eradicate the disease. The Pest Detection program has implemented the National Plant Board's recommendations for pest detection and continues to review its operations through performance measures, among other things.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: Program goals were achieved at the least incremental societal cost with maximum net benefits. For example, the Animal Health Mmonitoring and Surveillance program achieved these goals by promulgating minimum and not maximum standards for animal inspection and testing for surveillance and monitoring, combined with regulatory impact analysis of significant rules.

Evidence: See RIAs for veteinary biologics, veterinary diagnostic user fee services, and national animal disease control and eradication programs. These programs are representative of all the line items included in this comprehensive PART.