Federal Veterinarians: Efforts Needed to Improve Workforce Planning
Published: 2015-05-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: USDA and HHS veterinarians perform crucial work for public and animal health and for emergency response to an economically devastating or highly contagious animal disease—where USDA has a lead role. In 2009, USDA and HHS committed to department-wide efforts to address veterinarian workforce challenges, such as recruitment. In 2010, OPM issued a strategic plan for federal veterinarians to help improve recruiting initiatives and emergency response plans.
GAO was asked to review workforce planning for federal veterinarians. This report examines (1) department-wide efforts USDA and HHS have made for their routine veterinarian workforces, (2) the extent to which USDA has identified the veterinarians needed for emergency response to an animal disease outbreak, and (3) the steps OPM and other federal agencies have taken to achieve the goals of the government-wide strategic plan for the veterinarian workforce. GAO reviewed USDA, HHS, and government-wide workforce plans and interviewed relevant officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has taken actions to ensure that component agencies include veterinarians in workforce planning efforts for meeting routine needs, but the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not done so. GAO has identified top leadership involvement as a key principle for workforce planning. For example, USDA provided guidance to its component agencies to assess and develop strategies for its workforce. In accordance with this guidance, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)—the agency that inspects slaughter plants—developed a workforce plan that included recruitment incentives and other strategies for veterinarians. HHS's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also included veterinarians in its workforce plans, but HHS did not provide guidance or direction to FDA or other component agencies to do so. GAO recommended in 2009 that USDA and HHS conduct department-wide assessments of their veterinarian workforces. The efforts of USDA and its component agencies met the intent of the recommendation. GAO believes that the recommendation to HHS is still valid. Direction and guidance from HHS could help integrate its component agencies' workforce planning efforts for veterinarians into a department-wide assessment.
USDA participated in a government-wide study to estimate the veterinarians needed to respond to animal disease outbreaks, but because of limitations in the study, the estimates are not reliable for purposes of effective emergency response planning. For example, the estimates were based on a USDA model that had not been verified or validated. Moreover, USDA has not developed a detailed plan to augment or train its workforce to respond to an economically devastating or highly contagious outbreak. Without reliable estimates of the veterinarians needed or how it will augment and train its workforce, USDA cannot ensure it will have enough veterinarians to adequately respond.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and other federal agencies have taken steps toward achieving the goals outlined in OPM's government-wide strategic plan for the veterinarian workforce, primarily through an interagency group OPM created. However, in each of the three goals, the interagency group did not follow through on next steps and made limited progress. For example, to improve recruiting, OPM granted government-wide direct-hire authority in 2009 to enable agencies to hire qualified veterinarians without regard to certain federal hiring requirements. However, OPM did not follow through on plans to review agencies' use of the authority. As a result, OPM cannot determine the overall impact on recruitment or whether the authority should continue or be modified. Monitoring and evaluating progress toward human capital goals is among the key principles GAO has identified for effective strategic workforce planning. According to OPM officials, the group did not consistently monitor progress toward goals in part because it did not have sufficient leadership support from participating agencies. OPM and group members, including USDA and HHS, recognize a need for a higher level of leadership but have not identified officials to serve in this capacity. Obtaining leadership support—including from USDA and HHS, the major federal employers of civilian veterinarians—and monitoring and evaluating progress could help emphasize the importance of completing work under these goals and better position OPM to ensure progress or take appropriate actions if progress is limited.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that USDA assess and address veterinarian workforce needs for emergency response to an animal disease outbreak, and that OPM review agencies' use of direct-hire authority for veterinarians and monitor and evaluate progress and obtain leadership support for achieving government-wide veterinary workforce goals. USDA partially agreed, noting that it has taken steps to assess its emergency needs. GAO believes the recommendation remains valid. OPM agreed with both recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Veterinarians employed at federal agencies make up a small portion— less than 2 percent—of the federal workforce but perform crucial work  related to public and animal health. For example, veterinarians at the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA) help protect and maintain the health of  American livestock and poultry on farms and ranches, inspect animals at  slaughter plants to help ensure the safety of meat and poultry products,  and oversee the humane treatment of food animals during slaughter.  Under the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Response  Framework for disasters and emergencies, USDA also has a lead role in  the emergency response to an animal disease outbreak, whether the  disease is naturally or intentionally introduced into the United States.  Veterinarians at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  conduct and support research related to animal and human health and  disease, including animal diseases that could spread to humans. Also,  HHS veterinarians oversee the welfare of animals used in research; and  ensure that animal drugs, animal feed, and food from medically treated  animals is safe. These two departments are the major employers of  civilian veterinarians in the federal workforce.
As with all professions in the federal government, departments and their  component agencies are responsible for hiring and maintaining  veterinarian workforces sufficient to meet their missions. We concluded in  2009 that the federal government did not have a comprehensive  understanding of the sufficiency of its veterinarian workforce.we found that USDA and HHS had not assessed the sufficiency of their  veterinarian workforces department-wide, even though their component  agencies had identified concerns about these workforces. Agencies’  concerns included challenges in recruiting veterinarians with specialized  qualifications, noncompetitive salaries, and a potential shortage resulting  from the number of veterinarians who would be eligible to retire. We  recommended, among other things, that USDA and HHS conduct  department-wide assessments of their veterinarian workforces based on  workforce assessments by their component agencies, and that the Office  of Personnel Management (OPM) determine, based on USDA’s and  HHS’s department-wide assessments, whether a government-wide effort  was needed to address insufficiencies in the current and future  veterinarian workforce.
The status of our recommendations is discussed later in this report. plans. OPM’s strategic workforce plan included the following three goals  to be addressed by TMAC: obtain a comprehensive understanding of the federal veterinary  workforce,  improve recruiting and retention results for the federal veterinary  workforce, and enhance efforts to identify the veterinary workforce needed during  emergency events.
You asked us to review issues related to the federal veterinarian  workforce. This report examines (1) department-wide efforts USDA and  HHS have made for their routine veterinarian workforces; (2) the extent to  which USDA has identified the veterinarians needed to augment its  workforce for an emergency response to an animal disease outbreak; and  (3) the steps, if any, that OPM and other federal agencies have taken to  achieve the goals of the government-wide strategic plan for the  veterinarian workforce.
To examine the department-wide efforts USDA and HHS have made for  their routine veterinarian workforces, we obtained and evaluated  workforce plans and other documents related to workforce planning from  USDA, HHS, and their component agencies that are major employers of  civilian veterinarians within each department. These component agencies  included USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), the Animal  and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), and the Agricultural  Research Service (ARS); and HHS’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention (CDC). We evaluated the documents to determine the extent  to which they assessed their veterinarian workforces and included  workforce planning strategies specifically targeting their veterinarian  workforces. We also examined the extent to which agencies followed key  principles GAO has identified for effective strategic workforce planning, in  particular, for assessing their veterinarian workforces and developing  strategies to fill any gaps. In addition, we interviewed department-level  and component-level human resources managers and component-level  program managers of veterinarians regarding their workforce planning  processes for veterinarians.
To examine the extent to which USDA has identified the veterinarians  needed to augment its workforce for an emergency response to an animal  disease outbreak, we reviewed regulations, plans, assessments,  scenarios, agreements, and training programs prepared by USDA and  DHS for emergency responses requiring a surge capacity of federal  veterinarians. We also interviewed USDA and DHS officials regarding  these efforts. We compared USDA’s efforts to guidance in DHS’s National  Response Framework for development of emergency response plans.
To examine the steps that OPM and other federal agencies have taken to  achieve the goals of the government-wide strategic plan for the  veterinarian workforce, we observed TMAC meetings; analyzed OPM and  TMAC documents, such as minutes of meetings and documents related  to each of the three goals in the government-wide strategic plan; and  interviewed OPM, DHS, HHS, and USDA officials about their participation  in TMAC. For additional perspectives on TMAC, as well as other issues  related to workforce planning for federal veterinarians, we interviewed  officials from three nonfederal organizations that OPM designated as  TMAC partners—the American Veterinary Medical Association, the  Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges, and the National  Association of Federal Veterinarians. We compared the steps OPM and  other federal agencies have taken to key principles GAO has identified for  effective strategic workforce planning, in particular, for monitoring and  evaluating the progress toward human capital goals.
We also obtained data on the number of veterinarians at USDA and HHS  from OPM’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration program—OPM’s  database for government-wide human resources information. We  determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for providing  information on the number of federal veterinarians employed as  veterinarians at the component agencies that we examined—FSIS,  APHIS, and ARS at USDA, and FDA, NIH, and CDC at HHS. We made  this determination by, among other things, performing edit checks in the  program that generated the data; comparing the number of veterinarians  USDA and HHS component agencies supplied to us with the numbers  from OPM’s database; and following up with agency officials to resolve  discrepancies, as needed.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2014 to May 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: USDA, HHS, and other federal agencies employ veterinarians under the  veterinary medical science occupational series, as well as other  occupational series. As of fiscal year 2014, federal agencies employed  about 2,100 veterinarians under the veterinary medical science  occupational series, according to data from OPM.were concentrated in three component agencies—FSIS, APHIS, and  ARS. Veterinarians at HHS were also concentrated in three component  agencies—FDA, NIH, and CDC. As shown in table 1, the specific  missions of the veterinarians vary by agency. Besides the routine  missions, APHIS is responsible for implementing an emergency   Veterinarians at USDA  response, including coordination of veterinary services, to an outbreak of  an economically devastating or highly contagious animal disease.
In 2001, we designated strategic human capital management, which  includes workforce planning, as a high-risk area of government  operations. In 2015, we retained the high-risk designation because  current budget and long-term fiscal pressures, coupled with a potential  wave of employee retirements that could produce gaps in leadership and  institutional knowledge, threaten the government’s capacity to effectively  address a wide range of national issues. OPM, individual agencies, and  Congress have all taken important steps over the last few years that will  better position the government to close current and emerging critical skills  gaps that are undermining agencies’ abilities to meet their vital  missions. However, the area remains high risk because more work is  needed to implement specific corrective strategies for addressing critical  skills gaps and evaluating the results of those strategies. In particular, in  our 2015 update, we found that OPM and agencies had partially met the  leadership criterion for removal from the High Risk List but need to  sustain senior leadership’s focus—for example, on defining and  implementing corrective actions to narrow skills gaps through talent  management and other strategies.
Strategic workforce planning addresses two critical needs: (1) aligning an  organization’s human capital program with its current and emerging  mission and programmatic goals and (2) developing long-term strategies  for acquiring, developing, and retaining staff to achieve programmatic  goals. We have recognized the following five key principles for strategic  workforce planning to address these needs:  involve top management, employees, and other stakeholders in  developing, communicating, and implementing the strategic workforce  plan; determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to  achieve current and future programmatic results; develop strategies to address gaps in number, deployment, and  alignment of human capital approaches for enabling and sustaining  the contributions of all critical skills and competencies; build the capability needed to address administrative, educational,  and other requirements important to support workforce planning  strategies; and monitor and evaluate progress toward human capital goals and how  human capital results have helped achieve program goals.
In addition, OPM provides information and guidance on a wide range of  strategies that departments and agencies can use to achieve and  maintain a workforce sufficient to accomplish their missions. OPM can  also authorize departments to use additional strategies to address  workforce shortage situations if standard strategies prove insufficient. For  example, OPM can approve agencies’ use of direct-hire authority when a  critical hiring need or severe shortage of candidates exists. Direct-hire  authority enables an agency to hire any qualified applicant without regard  to certain federal hiring requirements, such as competitive rating and  ranking and veterans’ preference.
Since we issued our report on the federal veterinarian workforce in 2009,  other organizations issued reports on the veterinarian workforce across  employment sectors, including the federal government. In particular,  according to a 2013 report by the National Research Council, the federal  veterinarian workforce faced an impending mass retirement, making  workforce planning in the federal government critically important.
section_title: USDA and Some Component Agencies Conduct Workforce Planning for Veterinarians, but HHS Has Not Done So Department-Wide
paragraphs: USDA has taken actions to ensure that component agencies include  veterinarians in workforce planning efforts for meeting routine needs, but  HHS has not done so. Direction and guidance from HHS could help  integrate its component agencies’ workforce planning efforts for  veterinarians.
subsections: section_title: USDA Has Provided Direction and Guidance to Component Agencies for Conducting Workforce Planning for Veterinarians
paragraphs: USDA has provided direction to ensure that its component agencies  include veterinarians in workforce planning efforts for meeting routine  needs. The efforts of USDA and its component agencies met the intent of  our recommendation for a department-wide assessment of its veterinarian  workforce. In addition, USDA human capital officials said they considered  the workforce planning efforts of their component agencies sufficient to  meet their commitment in 2009 to a Senate subcommittee to conduct a  department-wide assessment.
In particular, since our 2009 report, USDA has developed guidance on  workforce planning for its component agencies that have veterinarians,  and the department initiated a process to evaluate the component  agencies’ workforce plans. According to an official from USDA’s Office of  Human Resources Management, in December 2012, the Secretary of  Agriculture directed component agencies to create human capital and  workforce plans that would include veterinarians. USDA’s guidance  specified workforce planning steps for component agencies to assess  their workforces and develop workforce planning strategies, including for  occupations considered critical to agencies’ missions, such as  veterinarians. For example, the guidance called for agencies to analyze  the workforce needed to meet future workloads, identify any gaps in the  workforce to meet future needs, and develop human capital goals.  Human resources officials said that 2014 was the first year they began  reviewing component agencies’ workforce plans and that they will  conduct more formal reviews of the plans in 2015 to examine, for  example, whether agencies conduct workforce planning on a periodic  basis and whether their plans consider changes in mission and  technology.
As described below, USDA component agencies that consider  veterinarians to be critical to their missions—FSIS and APHIS—have  assessed and developed varying strategies for their veterinarian  workforces needed to meet routine needs.
FSIS. Veterinarians are one of four mission-critical occupations at  FSIS. The agency tracks short-term needs for veterinarians and  vacancies at slaughter plants on an ongoing basis, and retirement  eligibility is calculated over a 6-year time frame. For example,  according to the agency’s Director of Field Operations, FSIS tracks  the vacancy rate of veterinarians, which he estimated was about 10  percent in 2014. In addition, the agency’s recruitment plan for fiscal  year 2014 projected that about 43 percent of FSIS veterinarians would  be eligible to retire by fiscal year 2018. FSIS has developed multiple  workforce planning strategies to address needs identified through its  assessments. As a short-term strategy, the agency employs a group  of relief veterinarians—mostly full-time employees—who travel to  various plants to fill in when the veterinarian assigned to a plant is  absent for personal or other reasons, such as a position vacancy.  Other longer-term strategies include (1) recruitment incentives for  difficult-to-staff duty locations, (2) use of direct-hire authority, and (3)  agency attendance at veterinary conferences and career fairs to  attract students. The agency’s recruitment plan also includes efforts to  target veterinary students, such as visits to colleges of veterinary  medicine.
APHIS. Veterinarians are one of nine mission-critical occupations at  APHIS. The agency tracks attrition among its veterinarians on a  monthly basis and calculates retirement eligibility for a 5-year period.  For example, Veterinary Services—the agency’s operational unit with  the largest number of veterinarians—prepared a workforce plan for  2011 to 2015 suggesting that 45 percent of its veterinarians would be  eligible to retire by fiscal year 2016. In addition, the plan stated that an  expected national shortage of veterinary medical officers may impact  the unit’s ability to effectively meet mission requirements and respond  to animal health emergencies, and that the unit would need to  enhance recruitment and retention efforts to maintain current levels of  mission-critical occupations. In fiscal year 2014, the unit prepared a  staffing plan with a target level of 550 to 575 veterinarians and began  hiring veterinarians with the expectation that it would meet the target  level in fiscal year 2015. Another operational unit within APHIS  conducted a study and issued a draft report in April 2014 on its  veterinarian workload and staffing levels, helping the agency to  assess workforce needs. APHIS’ workforce planning strategies  targeting veterinarians include an internship program and use of  direct-hire authority granted by OPM. In addition, agency officials said  they are planning to initiate a cadre of veterinarians similar to the  FSIS group that can fill in temporarily when vacancies or other needs  occur, but the officials did not provide a time frame for commencing  this initiative.
Veterinarians are not considered to be a mission-critical occupation at  ARS. Instead, the agency’s draft human capital management plan  grouped veterinary medical officers together with other scientific  occupations at the agency. According to the plan, occupations within this  group may be targeted for priority human capital activity in the future. The  approach used by ARS is consistent with our key principles for effective  strategic workforce planning, in which the scope of agencies’ efforts to  identify the skills and competencies needed for their future workforces  varies considerably, depending on the needs and interests of a particular  agency. Agencies may elect to focus their analysis on only the skills and  competencies most critical to achieving their goals.
section_title: HHS Has Not Provided Direction or Guidance for Components Agencies’ Workforce Planning for Veterinarians
paragraphs: HHS does not have an approach similar to USDA’s efforts to guide its  component agencies’ workforce planning for veterinarians for meeting  routine needs. In 2009, we recommended that HHS conduct a  department-wide assessment of their veterinarian workforces based on  assessments completed by their component agencies. Key principles for  strategic workforce planning include involving top leadership to help  provide stability as the workforce plan is being developed and  implemented and ensure that planning strategies are thoroughly  implemented and sustained over time. Top leadership involvement can  also help integrate workforce planning efforts with other key management  planning efforts, such as succession planning, to ensure that such  initiatives work together to achieve the agency’s goals.
HHS has not conducted a department-wide assessment of its veterinarian  workforce even though HHS officials agreed to do so in response to a  question from a Senate subcommittee shortly after our 2009 report. In  addition, HHS officials did not provide department direction or guidance  for the development of workforce planning for veterinarians at its  component agencies. Furthermore, the department has not reviewed the  results of its component agencies’ efforts. As described below,  component agencies’ workforce planning efforts occur at the agency level  in FDA, and at the level of individual centers, institutes, or offices within  CDC and NIH. HHS leadership and direction could help integrate these  component agencies’ workforce planning efforts for veterinarians at the  department-wide level. For this reason, we believe our previous  recommendation to HHS remains valid and should be fully implemented.
FDA included veterinarians in its workforce plans, although HHS did not  provide guidance or direction to FDA or other component agencies to do  so. Within FDA, veterinarians are a mission-critical occupation together  with other scientific occupations, such as biologists and chemists.  Veterinarians within FDA are concentrated in the Center for Veterinary  Medicine, which prepared a separate human capital plan for fiscal year  2012 to fiscal year 2016. According to the plan, the center’s workforce  increased by about 30 percent since 2006, primarily due to a hiring surge  initiative that targeted selected science and medical positions, including  veterinarians. The increase supported the expansion of the center’s  regulatory responsibilities. The plan stated that the center would conduct  annual workforce planning to determine the workforce composition  needed to meet future requirements. The center’s recruitment and  retention strategies include use of direct-hire authority for veterinarians,  as well as exit interviews with departing employees to identify the root  causes of turnover and assist in the development of targeted retention  solutions.
In contrast, HHS component agencies that do not consider veterinarians  to be a mission-critical occupation—NIH and CDC—have not assessed or  developed agency-wide strategies specifically for their veterinarian  workforces. As discussed above, this approach is consistent with our key  principles for effective strategic workforce planning, in which the scope of  agencies’ efforts to identify the skills and competencies needed for their  future workforces depends on agencies’ needs. Accordingly, NIH and  CDC have assessed veterinarians together with other occupations as part  of the agencies’ overall workforce planning efforts. NIH and CDC officials  told us that workforce planning for veterinarians would instead occur at  the level of individual centers, institutes, or offices within their agencies.  Officials from both agencies said they had not gathered information or  evaluated whether their subcomponents had conducted workforce   NIH and CDC officials stated  planning for their veterinarian workforces.that not designating veterinarians as a mission-critical occupation did not  mean that they were not vital to the agency’s mission; rather, they said  that they only apply the mission-critical designation to professions or  occupational series involving a larger segment of the organizations’  workforce.
section_title: USDA Has Not Identified Reliable Estimates of Veterinarians Needed to Augment Its Workforce for Emergency Response to Animal Disease Outbreaks
paragraphs: USDA’s APHIS has not developed reliable estimates of the number of  veterinarians needed for emergency response to animal disease  outbreaks of various types. Instead, APHIS participated in a study led by  TMAC to determine the veterinarian workforce needed to respond to a  regional and a large-scale disease outbreak. However, because of  limitations in the study, the estimates of the number of veterinarians  needed are not reliable for purposes of effective emergency planning and  response. Moreover, APHIS’ plans for an emergency response do not  include details on how it will augment its workforce to respond to a large- scale emergency.
subsections: section_title: APHIS Has Not Developed Reliable Estimates of the Number of Veterinarians Needed for Emergency Response
paragraphs: Under the National Response Framework, USDA is the lead agency for  emergency response to significant incidents threatening the health of  animals. USDA has delegated its authority to act in response to such  incidents to APHIS. The National Response Framework stated that  response planning should address detailed resourcing, personnel, and   A key goal of APHIS is to ensure adequate  sourcing requirements.personnel to achieve the objectives of an emergency response to an  animal disease outbreak. APHIS’ plan for achieving this goal includes  determining the expertise needed, such as veterinary expertise, and the  number of personnel needed for each expertise type.
However, APHIS has not developed reliable estimates of the number of  veterinarians needed for emergency response to an animal disease  outbreak, such as a large-scale outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in  livestock or a limited outbreak of Newcastle disease in poultry.
Instead,  APHIS participated in a study led by TMAC to determine the veterinarian  workforce needed to respond to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak of  two different scales. Specifically, APHIS developed a model that TMAC  used to estimate that an outbreak in a single region would require at least  880 veterinarians, and that a national-scale outbreak would require  approximately 6,000 veterinarians. The model developed by APHIS  provides information about how many individuals might be required to  respond during each day of an outbreak, whether there are a sufficient  number of qualified personnel, and when shortages may occur.
The TMAC report, as well as APHIS and DHS officials involved in the  TMAC study, cited various limitations in the study’s estimates of the  number of veterinarians needed for emergency response, as discussed  below. Because of these limitations, we determined that the estimates are  not reliable for purposes of effective emergency response and response  planning, as called for under the National Response Framework.  Identifying expertise and other capabilities needed to prepare for an  outbreak is complex because the capabilities required will change  according to the outbreak scenario. Nevertheless, it is important to  provide a benchmark for planning purposes, particularly in the face of  uncertainty. According to DHS, such planning helps determine how  prepared we are as a nation, how prepared we need to be, and how to  prioritize efforts to effectively respond to an emergency. The limitations  in the TMAC study included the following:
The estimates were based on an early release of the APHIS model  that had not been verified or validated. According to APHIS officials,  the model would need to be further developed in order for the agency  to develop estimates it would consider useful, but they did not provide  any information on plans to further develop the model.
The geographic scope of modeling for both national-scale and  regional outbreaks was limited. For example, the national-scale  scenario did not include dairy or swine intensive states that, if affected  by an outbreak, would potentially increase the workload of a  response.
The estimates did not account for strategies APHIS may use during  an emergency response, such as assigning veterinarians to oversee  rather than directly perform vaccinations of livestock or other critical  activities. According to APHIS officials, such a strategy would reduce  the number of veterinarians needed for a response.
Other than the TMAC study on responding to outbreaks such as a foot- and-mouth disease scenario, APHIS has not developed estimates of the  number of veterinarians needed for an emergency response. APHIS  officials said they did not develop estimates because there are many  different scenarios an outbreak could take and many different responses.  For example, APHIS officials said that they could rely on veterinary  technicians and other personnel to a greater extent than contemplated in  the TMAC study. APHIS officials also said that the agency had not made  a greater effort to plan the number of veterinarians needed for an  emergency response because the agency considers other aspects of  planning for an outbreak, such as determining the supplies needed and  ensuring the right incident command is in place, to be a higher priority.  Such aspects are part of response planning, as discussed in the National  Response Framework, but are to be integrated with the personnel needed  to respond to incidents. Without reliable estimates of the veterinarians  needed for an emergency, it will be difficult for APHIS to be prepared and  have a sufficient number of veterinarians to respond to the most serious  animal disease outbreaks.
section_title: APHIS Plans Do Not Include Details on How to Augment Its Workforce for an Emergency Response
paragraphs: According to APHIS officials, the agency’s target level for the number of  veterinarians it employs—550 to 575 in fiscal year 2015—is based on the  agency’s routine workload and not on the needs of an emergency  response. As a result, even though it may ask or assign agency  employees to participate in a large-scale emergency response, the  agency may not have sufficient veterinarians to respond to an animal  disease outbreak. Moreover, according to the APHIS Deputy  Administrator for Veterinary Services, not all APHIS veterinarians could  be spared from their routine duties in order to be deployed during an  emergency.
APHIS officials recognize that they may need to augment their  veterinarian workforce during certain emergencies and have established  various arrangements to help their agency do so. However, APHIS  officials have not identified the number of veterinarians the agency  expects to be available under these arrangements in order to fill any gap  between the number of APHIS veterinarians onboard and the number that  might be needed during an emergency. Specifically,
National Animal Health Emergency Response Corps (NAHERC).
Under NAHERC, APHIS maintains a list of preapproved veterinarians  and veterinary technicians who are willing to become temporary  federal employees in an emergency. According to information from  APHIS, NAHERC had 971 veterinarians as of January 2015. A  NAHERC member’s decision to participate in an emergency response  when the corps is activated is voluntary, and APHIS officials said they  do not expect all members to be available in any given response. For  example, according to APHIS, about one-quarter of the veterinarians  responded to a request for immediate activation in an exercise  conducted in June 2012. In addition, an APHIS emergency response  official told us that the agency stopped processing NAHERC  applications in fiscal year 2013 because the agency’s human  resources staff needed to focus on hiring full-time employees to  replace positions lost due to reductions in the agency’s budget.  Information provided by APHIS showed that, as of January 2015, the  number of NAHERC veterinarians had not increased since the end of  fiscal year 2013.
Other federal agencies. Under an agreement with the Department of  Defense (DOD) signed in June 2006, APHIS can request  veterinarians—in particular, from the Army Veterinary Corps—for an  emergency response to an animal disease outbreak. However,  according to an APHIS emergency response official, DOD  veterinarians would provide at most a support role and would not be  available in numbers great enough to meet the potential need. For  example, the Army Veterinary Corps’ mission to support the national  military strategy could limit the number of Army Veterinary Corps  veterinarians available to assist APHIS in an emergency response. In  addition, as of March 2015, the agency had not finalized similar  agreements with other federal agencies, such as HHS, although HHS  officials said the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps  veterinarians would be ready to participate under the National  Response Framework without an agreement. According to APHIS  officials, veterinarians at other agencies—including other USDA  agencies—may not be available or have the training needed to  participate in an emergency response. For example, the APHIS  Deputy Administrator for Veterinary Services estimated that no more  than 10 percent of veterinarians at FSIS—the largest single employer  of federal veterinarians—would be available during an emergency.
Other countries. In May 2014, APHIS entered into a multilateral  arrangement with Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the  United Kingdom that established a framework for one country to  request veterinarians from another country to participate in an  emergency response to an animal disease outbreak. According to an  APHIS emergency response official, the veterinarians requested  under this framework would not provide an initial rapid response but  would instead provide a support role, although the agreement did not  provide this level of detail.
USDA and DHS officials said that, in addition to augmenting the APHIS  veterinarian workforce for an emergency response, APHIS needs to  ensure that responders are trained appropriately. According to the APHIS  training and exercise plan for emergency preparedness and response,  training provides the critical knowledge, skills, and abilities to respond to  emerging or other animal diseases. NAHERC veterinarians may choose  to take online training related to specific types of animal diseases and  various aspects of emergency response, such as on personal protective  equipment and vaccination. However, according to APHIS officials, the  agency has limited funds to pay for NAHERC veterinarians to participate  in exercises that could help them build skills and practice techniques  before an actual incident occurs. In addition, APHIS’ training and exercise  plan does not provide details on how the agency will ensure that  veterinarians from NAHERC, other agencies, and other countries have  adequate training and exercise opportunities for participation in an  emergency response to an animal disease outbreak. For example, the  plan does not indicate how APHIS will train NAHERC veterinarians—most  of whom, according to APHIS officials, are private practitioners who deal  primarily with small animals—to overcome a skills gap the agency has  identified related to handling large farm animals in the field. APHIS  officials said that they expect to obtain funding for training when an  emergency occurs. However, without planning for the training needed for  its veterinarian workforce and those that could augment its workforce, it  will be difficult for APHIS to provide reasonable assurance that it has the  workforce that is sufficiently equipped to handle an emergency response.
section_title: OPM and Federal Agencies Have Taken Limited Steps to Achieve Government- Wide Goals for Veterinarians
paragraphs: OPM and other federal agencies have taken steps toward achieving the  three goals outlined in OPM’s strategic government-wide workforce plan  for the federal veterinary workforce, primarily through their participation in  TMAC. However, in each of the three goals, TMAC did not follow through  on next steps and made limited progress in achieving its goals in part  because the group did not consistently monitor and evaluate its progress  toward achieving the goals.
TMAC’s efforts in each of its three goals were as follows:
Obtain a comprehensive understanding of the federal veterinary  workforce. TMAC’s primary effort toward this goal was a  government-wide survey of federal veterinarians administered in June  2012. The survey—the first of its kind for federal veterinarians,  according to the TMAC report on the survey—was an effort to collect  standardized data on the veterinarians employed at 13 federal  agencies, including information on their education and certifications,  their emergency response skills, and the challenges agencies face in  recruiting and retaining them. The survey was intended to serve as a  starting point for identifying workforce issues and opportunities to  collaborate across agency lines. However, several factors limit the  reliability and relevance of the survey results. In particular, officials  who conducted the survey said they no longer retained any  documentation about their methodology; therefore, we could not  evaluate the reliability of its results. Also, according to the survey  report, 69 percent of federal veterinarians did not respond to the  survey, and TMAC did not assess the potential for nonresponse bias,  thereby reducing TMAC’s ability to draw reliable conclusions about  the workforce as a whole. In addition, the survey did not address the  unique workforce planning needs of individual agencies, such as  component agencies within USDA and HHS. For example, the survey  identified recruitment and retention challenges for departments as a  whole and did not identify particular challenges or strategies to  address the challenges confronting component agencies, such as  FSIS, which has faced a shortage in veterinarian positions at  slaughter plants. Finally, as of February 2015, TMAC had not followed  through on next steps identified in the survey report, such as obtaining  data from senior agency leaders to validate the results of the  assessment. Without following through on such steps, OPM and  federal agencies will not know whether there are issues to be  resolved, where they exist, and how government-wide approaches  can be developed to resolve them.
Improve recruiting and retention results for the federal veterinary  workforce. OPM’s strategic plan identified several recruitment and  retention challenges, such as a limited number of veterinary school  graduates and competition for graduates from the private sector. To  address this challenge, TMAC considered marketing efforts, such as  using social media, to attract veterinary students and others to  consider careers in the federal government and discussed strategies  for improving recruitment and retention. TMAC did not follow through  on these discussions, however, by identifying the agencies using  these strategies or evaluating their success. Another initiative to boost  federal recruiting efforts, government-wide direct-hire authority for  veterinarians, has not been sufficiently monitored or evaluated to  determine its effectiveness. In its February 2009 memo approving the  authority, OPM cited various factors as justification for the authority,  including a severe shortage of candidates despite agencies’ use of  other recruitment initiatives, such as recruiting at veterinary colleges.  The memo also stated that OPM would monitor use of the direct-hire  authority, as well as the continued need for it, and that OPM would  modify or terminate the authority as appropriate. Without a review of  the use of the authority, OPM cannot determine the overall impact on  recruitment or whether the authority should continue or be modified if  shortages are limited to some agencies, as TMAC reported. For  example, an APHIS official told us that the agency uses direct-hire  authority to facilitate the hiring process, not because the agency faces  a shortage of applicants, suggesting that OPM could modify the  direct-hire authority by limiting it to agencies that face shortages.  Otherwise, standard federal hiring requirements can be circumvented  without just cause.
Enhance efforts to identify the veterinary workforce needed  during emergency events. TMAC’s primary effort toward this goal  was the study to determine the veterinarian workforce needed to  respond to an animal disease outbreak. As we discussed above, the  study’s estimates of the number of veterinarians needed are not  reliable for purposes of effective emergency response planning  because of several limitations, such as being based on a model that  had not been verified or validated. In addition, according to the TMAC  report on the study, an emergency response will require veterinarians  with varying skills, experience, and specialty training, but TMAC did  not follow through to identify the response needed by each veterinary  specialty, which the report had identified as an important next step. As  another step toward this goal, TMAC’s government-wide survey of  federal veterinarians included questions on federal veterinarians’  capability and willingness to respond to an emergency and their  related experience and training. The report on the survey included a  list of training needs; in a related effort, DHS initiated a project to  create an online training framework for animal agriculture emergency  responders, which is mainly aimed for the use of state officials.
A key reason that OPM and federal agencies have taken limited steps to  achieve these goals is that they did not consistently monitor and evaluate  progress toward achieving the goals. One of our key principles for  effective strategic workforce planning is monitoring and evaluating  progress toward human capital goals.progress toward human capital goals provides information for effective  oversight by identifying performance shortfalls and appropriate corrective  actions. According to OPM officials, the group did not consistently monitor  progress toward goals in part because the group’s membership did not  have sufficient leadership support from participating agencies. Monitoring  and evaluating the group’s efforts could better position OPM to ensure  progress is being made or assist it in determining appropriate actions to  take if progress is limited.
Currently, the OPM system for classification of federal employees allows for  identification of veterinarians in the veterinary medical science series (i.e., veterinarians in  the 0701 occupational series), but not of veterinarians who fill other types of positions,  such as managerial or interdisciplinary positions that are open to but not required to be  filled by veterinarians. As a result, OPM and federal agencies cannot easily identify all  federal veterinarians. require agencies to retroactively identify the veterinarians they employ  outside of the veterinary medical science series.
In a September 2014 TMAC meeting we observed, TMAC members  recognized a need for a higher level of leadership and agreed on a plan  to form an executive steering committee. The committee would include a  senior executive with veterinary subject-matter expertise from a  participating agency’s program office, as well as a human capital officer.  As of March 2015, TMAC members had not yet identified agency officials  to serve in this leadership capacity. OPM officials said that, given that  USDA, and to a lesser extent HHS, employ most civilian veterinarians,  the leadership support for TMAC should come from these departments.  Leadership involvement is among the key principles we have identified for  effective strategic workforce planning, and we have also found that  leadership involvement facilitates collaboration within interagency   Without leadership support from USDA and HHS, TMAC will  groups.likely continue to have difficulty ensuring progress toward group goals,  such as developing a way to identify all federal veterinarians.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: USDA has taken steps to provide department-wide guidance and  evaluation of its agencies’ veterinarian workforce planning; APHIS and  FSIS in particular considered veterinarians as part of their workforce  planning efforts for routine activities. However, HHS has not made similar  efforts or conducted a department-wide assessment. In 2009, we  recommended that HHS conduct department-wide assessments of their  veterinarian workforces based on workforce assessments by their  component agencies. Among the HHS component agencies, only FDA  developed a strategic workforce plan that considered veterinarians.  Department-wide guidance and evaluation and collaboration among all of  the department’s affected agencies, including individual centers,  institutes, and offices within CDC and NIH that conduct workforce  planning for veterinarians, could better position HHS to integrate its  component agencies’ workforce planning efforts, including efforts to  identify and address any gaps in its veterinarian workforce. Accordingly,  we continue to believe that our previous recommendation remains valid.
APHIS—the lead agency at USDA for an emergency response to an  animal disease outbreak—has made a limited effort to estimate the  number of veterinarians needed to respond to a large-scale outbreak. As  a result, APHIS does not know whether the number of veterinarians  currently available to respond is sufficient. Consequently, it does not  know if it needs to place a higher priority on increasing the number of  veterinarians available to assist in an emergency response—for example,  by resuming the processing of applications for veterinarians who can  volunteer to serve as temporary federal employees. In addition, APHIS  has not fully assessed the sources it can rely on in an emergency or how  to train this supplemental veterinarian workforce to be effective in an  animal disease outbreak. Without these assessments, APHIS may be  limited in its ability to mount an effective emergency response to an  animal disease outbreak, with potentially serious consequences for the  nation’s agriculture sector.
OPM and other federal agencies that participate in TMAC have taken  steps toward OPM’s government-wide goals for veterinarians—a  relatively small but important population of the federal workforce that is  spread among multiple agencies. However, without consistent monitoring  and evaluation of the group’s efforts, TMAC’s efforts to follow OPM’s  2010 government-wide strategic workforce plan for veterinarians have  fallen short of OPM’s goals. For example, the veterinarian workforce  assessment spearheaded by TMAC in 2012 was not detailed or rigorous  enough to answer basic questions about the specific challenges agencies  face, and TMAC did not follow through on next steps it identified, such as  obtaining data from senior agency leaders to validate the results of the  assessment. Similarly, in the absence of consistent monitoring and  evaluation, OPM and other federal agencies may not be appropriately  targeting their efforts, such as with government-wide direct-hire authority  for veterinarians that OPM granted in 2009. In particular, since granting  the authority, OPM has not evaluated how agencies are using it, and  whether its continuation is warranted. Without leadership support from  TMAC members—including USDA and HHS, the major federal employers  of civilian veterinarians—OPM may have difficulty ensuring progress  toward TMAC goals and taking appropriate actions if progress is limited.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making three recommendations to improve the ability of the  federal veterinarian workforce to carry out its activities.
To prepare for an emergency involving a large-scale animal disease  outbreak, we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the  Administrator of APHIS to assess the veterinarian workforce needs under  possible scenarios for an emergency response to a large-scale animal  disease outbreak. Building on TMAC’s efforts to determine the  veterinarian workforce needed to respond to an animal disease outbreak,  the assessment should include the number and types of veterinarians  needed, the sources required to have a sufficient workforce to respond,  and the training needed to carry out their roles.
To improve government-wide veterinarian workforce planning efforts, we  recommend that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management  initiate efforts to monitor and evaluate TMAC’s progress toward  government-wide goals for the federal veterinary workforce and work  with TMAC members to obtain leadership support, particularly from  USDA and HHS, for making progress toward the goals; and evaluate whether the need for government-wide direct-hire authority  for veterinarians continues to exist and modify or terminate the  authority as appropriate.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to USDA, OPM, HHS and DHS for their  review and comment. USDA and OPM provided written comments, which  appear in appendixes II and III, respectively. DHS and HHS provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
USDA partially agreed with our recommendation about having APHIS  assess the veterinarian workforce needs under possible scenarios for an  emergency response to a large-scale animal disease outbreak. In  particular, USDA agreed that APHIS could do more to improve its  estimates of veterinarian workforce needs for an emergency response to  an animal disease outbreak, but believes that it has made efforts to  assess its needs. For example, USDA stated that APHIS follows National  Response Framework principles in planning for animal disease  emergencies and described efforts APHIS has made to assess its  veterinarian workforce needs for an emergency response. According to  USDA, these efforts include using insights from real-world outbreaks to  improve planning models for an emergency response and developing  response strategies that can alter veterinarian workforce needs during a  disease outbreak, such as use of vaccines or quarantine.
We recognize that the efforts described by USDA are an important part of  response planning under the National Response Framework. However,  USDA did not provide documentation to demonstrate that it had assessed  its veterinarian workforce needs for an emergency response. Moreover,  as stated in our report, APHIS officials told us that the agency had not  developed estimates of the number of veterinarians needed for an  emergency response, other than one modeling effort for a TMAC study.  APHIS officials explained that the agency considered other aspects of  planning for an outbreak, such as ensuring the right incident command is  in place, to be a higher priority. As a result, we believe that our work fairly  and accurately describes what is known about the extent of the APHIS  efforts and what needs to be done. Reliable estimates of the veterinarians  needed for an emergency, combined with other aspects of planning for an  outbreak, will help APHIS to be prepared to have a sufficient number of  veterinarians to respond to the most serious animal disease outbreaks.
OPM agreed with our recommendation about initiating efforts to monitor  and evaluate TMAC’s progress toward government-wide goals for the  federal veterinary workforce and working with TMAC members to obtain  leadership support, particularly from USDA and HHS.  OPM stated that it  designed and will aid in establishing a Veterinary Medical Officer  Executive Steering Committee for TMAC to, among other things, provide  leadership and ensure progress toward stated goals.
OPM also agreed to evaluate whether the need for government-wide  direct-hire authority for veterinarians continues to exist. OPM further  stated that it periodically reviews direct-hire authority for veterinarians, as  specified under the regulation on termination, modification, and extension  of direct-hire authority. Under the regulation, OPM is to review agency  use of the authority on a periodic basis to ensure proper administration  and to determine if continued use of the authority is supportable. To  demonstrate that it has conducted such reviews, OPM provided us a list  of the number of times the authority was used by various departments  and agencies in recent years. However, OPM did not provide information  showing whether or how it had determined that continued use of the  authority is supportable. Moreover, an OPM official responsible for direct- hire authority told us in August 2014 that he was not aware of any  systematic review to determine whether direct-hire authority was still  needed for veterinarians. In our view, a determination that continued use  of the authority is supportable requires an evaluation that includes an  examination not only of the number of times the authority was used, but  also of other factors, such as whether there is a severe shortage of  candidates or a critical hiring need for veterinarians.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretaries of Agriculture; Health and Human Services;  and Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of Personnel  Management; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Departments, Agencies, and Other Entities That Have Participated in the Talent Management Advisory Council
paragraphs: Appendix I: Departments, Agencies, and Other  Entities That Have Participated in the Talent  Management Advisory Council Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Department of Defense (DOD)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Nonfederal entities  American Veterinary Medical Association  Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges  National Association of Federal Veterinarians  The Smithsonian is a trust entity of the United States with most funds coming from federal  appropriations.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Agriculture
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Office of Personnel Management
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Joseph Cook (Assistant  Director), Kevin Bray, Mary Denigan-Macauley, Patricia Donahue,  Jessica Lemke, Cynthia Norris, Katherine Pfeiffer, Terry Richardson,  Daniel Semick, Rebecca Shea, and Anika Van Eaton made key  contributions to this report.