Detailed Information on the
Animal Welfare Assessment

Collect baseline data for new performance measures, and adjust targets if appropriate.

Customize outreach activities provided to licensees and registrants to support the goal of ensuring the humane care and use of animals protected by the Animal Welfare Act.

Measure: Percentage of facilities in complete compliance at the most recent inspection. Because of the risk-based inspection approach that APHIS is introducing, this measure will no longer be used after FY 2008.

Explanation:The program has measured the percent of registered/licensed facilities in complete compliance (no violations of the Animal Welfare Act) as documented on the most recent inspection report for several years. Improvements in facililty compliance would reflect improvements in the welfare of the animals in the facility. The program would like to discontinue using the measure as currently stated and modify the measure to include all licensees and registrants, not just facilities. In addition, the program would like to expand the measure to include licensees and registrants either in complete compliance (no Animal Welfare Act violations) or in substantial compliance (only minor violations of the Animal Welfare Act). To complement this measure, the program would like to include a measure that focuses on reducing the percentage of licensees and registrants that have repeat significant violations, those entities that have animals most at risk.

Measure: Percent of licensees and registrants in substantial compliance of the Animal Welfare Act.

Explanation:The measure demonstrates the direct result of inspection and outreach activities on compliance and supports the program's mission of ensuring the humane treatment of animals. The measure represents all licensees and registrants who either have no documented violations of the Animal Welfare Act, or minor violations of the Animal Welfare Act included in the most recent inspection report. Examples of minor violations include gaps in perimeter fencing and improper storage of supplies. These items can be easily addressed with minimal cost and effort by the licensee/registrant.

Measure: Percent of repeat violators reinspected for compliance of the Animal Welfare Act within the prescribed timeframe to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

Explanation:The program will track timeliness of inspection for licensees and registrants with animals most at risk due to significant violations. The measure supports the program's mission of ensuring the welfare of animals, requesting the licensee/registrant to address the significant violations in a timely manner. The prescribed timeframe for reinspection varies depending on the impact to the welfare of the animals involved in the inspection. For example, items such as where the animals are excessively thin, severely injured or wounded, or have inadequate feed and water available will be reinspected for compliance within 45 days. Other items such as inadequate records are considered significant but will not need to be followed up within 45 days but several months. Iniitally, as the percentage of repeat violators are reinspected, the percentage who are found in violation (long term measure) should be reduced.

Measure: Percent of licensees and registrants with repeat violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

Explanation:The measure provides the program with information on the impact of inspection of licensees and registrants with significant repeat violations of the Animal Welfare Act and allows the program to monitor trends in repeat violations over time. The measure support's the program's mission of ensuring the humane treatment of animals by focusing on the animals most at risk. Reductions in the number of repeat violations would indicate an improvement in the treatment of animals, consistent with the goals of the AWA.

Measure: Percent of stakeholders who find outreach activities useful.

Explanation:The program will administer post-evaluations to monitor whether stakeholders found the outreach activity useful to them in conducting their daily business. Outreach activities are designed to promote the voluntary humane treatment of animals instead of relying solely on compliance inspection and are often targeted for issues/dicussion within a particular industry segment (i.e., breeders, exhibitors, research facilities, etc.) As the percentage of stakeholder who find outreach activities useful increases, we would anticipate that their treatment of animals would improve, and there would be fewer violatiosn of the AWA.

Measure: Number of inspections conducted annually.

Explanation:The measure indicates the number of inspections conducted by the program on an annual basis in support of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. The information is used to determine the percent of licensees/registrants in substantial compliance. The program also uses the information to support budget requests by demonstrating the increasing workload for inspection. Increases in the number of insections will increase compliance with the program, as shown in the long term measures.

Measure: Average cost of an animal welfare inspection.

Explanation:The measure tracks the average cost to perform each animal welfare inspection, representing the bulk of the program resources. In FY 2008, APHIS anticipates implementing new regulations that will require an estimated 10,000 new facilities that contain rats, mice, and birds not involved in research to be covered under the Animal Welfare Act. APHIS has requested additional resources in FY 2008 to address the increased workload related to these new facilities. APHIS will train the new inspectors, conduct pre-licensing inspections, work to determine the number of newly covered facilities in voluntary compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, and initiate activities designed to assure a high level of voluntary compliance with the new requirements. The program estimates that it will take each new inspector three years to reach full performance for the number of inspections conducted. Therefore, the performance target for FY 2008 increases slightly, a temporary decrease in efficiency, and begins to improve in the outyears.

Measure: Average cost of issuing animal welfare licenses and registrations.

Explanation:The measure will track the resources dedicated to issuing licenses and registrations over time. The number of licensees and registrants is used to monitor changes in the animal welfare universe. The less resources dedicated to the paper process, the more resources that can be applied to the inspection and outreach activities of the program.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Animal Welfare program is to provide leadership in determining standards of humane care and treatment of animals (as that term is defined in the AWA), to implement those standards, and to ensure compliance with those standards through inspection, education, and cooperative efforts. APHIS carries out regulatory activities designed to ensure the humane care and handling of animals used in research, exhibition, or the wholesale pet trade or transported in commerce across state lines. APHIS places primary emphasis on the inspection of facilities, records management, investigation of complaints, and training of inspectors in meeting the legislative requirements. The HPA prohibits the showing, sale, auction, exhibition, or transport of sored horses. Soring is a technique in which a trainer would irritate or blister a horse?s forelegs through the injection or application of chemicals or mechanical irritants; the technique is used by horse owners and trainers to gain a competitive edge and improve their chance to win at shows. Sponsors and/or management of shows, sales, auctions and exhibitions have responsibility (with APHIS oversight) under the HPA to prevent unfair competition and must identify and disqualify sored horses.

Evidence: APHIS Animal Welfare program protects and promotes the welfare of animals in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966 (7 U.S. code section 2131 2159) and the Horse Protection Act (HPA) (15 U.S. code section 1821). The legislation gives the Agency the authority to cooperate with private and public entities to protect the welfare of animals.

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

Explanation: Many American citizens place a high priority on ensuring the humane care and handling of animals. The Animal Welfare program is the only program in the Federal government whose primary mission is to promote and protect the welfare of animals, and in future years, it will not only continue to play an important role in the United States but will continue to represent the United States in an international community becoming more and more concerned with animal welfare issues. Animal welfare is increasingly recognized by the international community as an important topic that deserves a place in organizational structures and goals.

Evidence: APHIS has designed the Animal Welfare program to be a global leader in setting the standards for the humane care of animals as well as providing the enforcement and education activities necessary to ensure compliance of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. In addition, the World Animal Health Organization (OIE), whose guidelines are recognized by the World Trade Organization, recently published guidelines addressing animal welfare for the first time.

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

Explanation: APHIS' role in the area of animal welfare and horse protection is unique in authority, scope, and enforcement. Under the authorities of the AWA and HPA, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. The authority also provides for the humane care and treatment of animals bred for commercial sale, transported in commerce, used in biomedical research, and exhibited to the public by enforcing the AWA primarily through inspections of regulated entities. To ensure that compliance with the AWA is continually maintained, all facilities that keep animals regulated under the Act must be licensed or registered with APHIS. The Agency creates strategic alliances with stakeholders to accomplish program goals. Industry cooperation is cultivated through effective partnership agreements and open communication with stakeholders. APHIS - in partnership with other Federal, State, and local entities - has designed unique programs to positively affect the welfare of animals. APHIS has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with State and Federal entities to assure minimal duplication of effort and to provide a common framework of cooperation in addressing enforcement issues and complex situations involving regulated animals, while maintaining mandated authorities and keeping the best interest of the animals at the forefront.

Evidence: The Secretary of Agriculture has delegated the authority and responsibility to administer the AWA solely to APHIS. However, APHIS exists as part of a larger animal welfare community and works to develop productive and cooperative relationships within that community. APHIS has worked with Federal, State, and local entities to minimize any duplication of effort and works to maximize all resources dedicated to the welfare of animals. An example would be a formal Memorandum of Understanding between APHIS, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) to promote consistent guidance and information for persons responsible for the care and maintenance of marine mammals either under the jurisdiction of the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the AWA. APHIS also has a Memorandum of Understanding with the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) designed to reduce unnecessary duplication of services under the requirement of the federal AWA and the state MDA APHIS Facilities Act (ACFA).

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

Explanation: The AWA provides the authority for a programthatis flexible enough to accomodate the needs of industry when possible while still enforcing comprehensive animal welfare standards. Based on the goals set out by the AWA, the program is designed effectively and efficiently and without major flaws. The program focuses on using best practices to make science-based decisions on regulation and enforcement activities to promote the welfare and humane treatment of animals. While voluntary compliance with the regulations is the goal of the program, parties involved in the care and handling of animals may sometimes lack incentives to comply with animal welfare guidelines because their operations are not open to the public. Therefore, a regulatory program is the most practical way to protect animal welfare. Only a Federal program can address the movement of animals in interstate commerce and the movement of animals from and to the United States. The AWA provides the authority for a program that is flexible enough to accommodate the needs of industry when possible while still enforcing comprehensive animal welfare standards. The agency tried the approach of using inspection as the sole method of enforcing the AWA. However, they determined that a combination of voluntary compliance through education, followed by regulatory enforcement is a more cost effective approach. This approach showed an improvement in performance from FY 2001 to FY 2002, from the previous strategy of relying solely on inspections. The Agency continually assesses the program for effectiveness and efficiency to ensure that we are not imposing unnecessary requirements. For example, the Animal Welfare program employs a variety of outreach, education, and liaison activities to reach many of the licensees and registrants to the AWA in a non-threatening environment. APHIS has tried other approaches and found that the current combination of regulatory enforcement by APHIS inspectors and education and outreach activities is the most effective. For example, the Horse Protection program attempted to use a third party to improve efficiencies for the program. Specifically, the Designated Qualified Persons (DQP)'s managed by the Horse Industry Organization (HIO) would conduct the inspections at horse shows. This initiative proved not to be feasible because results showed that the HIO's often placed the goals of the membership over the standards of the Horse Protection Act, concluding that using APHIS personnel to conduct inspections is the best method. Congressional statements of policy in the introduction to the AWA note that "Congress finds that animals and activities which are regulated under this chapter are either in interstate or foreign commerce or substantially affect such commerce or the free flow thereof, and that regulation of animals and activities as provided in this chapter is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon such commerce??." Congress found that setting regulatory standards and providing humane care and treatment to animals used in commerce would protect owners of animals and that providing humane care and treatment to animals used in research can help meet public concern for the animals and thus allow important research to continue, among other things

Evidence: APHIS uses cooperation and partnership strategies to encourage informed compliance with regulations and statutes, but recognizes the need to address non-compliance vigorously when cooperative efforts falter. APHIS is sometimes able to use liaison activities with State and other Federal agencies to leverage resources to find comprehensive solutions to chronic animal welfare issues. An example would be the cooperative efforts with State and local officials to confiscate and/or place surrendered animals. The effort has allowed for the rescue of over 200 animals, ranging from dogs to big cats. The Animal Welfare program also employs a variety of outreach, education, and liaison activities to reach many of the licensees and registrants to the AWA in a non-threatening environment. Education activities on the process of regulations, standards, and best practices in animal welfare are used to prevent future compliance issues. For example, the program conducts informational meetings for the public, at no charge, across the country on topics such as big cat care, and canine care. Another approach tried by APHIS was to rely solely on inspections. However, when APHIS changed its approach to a combination of inspections and outreach, the number of facilities in complete compliance increased from 58% to 68% from FY 2001 to FY 2002.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Program funds are used to enforce and administer the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act in accordance with the mandates of the laws. Efforts include not only inspections and enforcement activities, but outreach and educational activities that are used to enhance voluntary compliance with the regulations and standards. Program resources are employed through a combination of targeted outreach and regulatory enforcement directed at those entities affected by the requirements of the AWA and HPA. Program operations are directly targeted toward those entities required to be in compliance with the AWA and HPA. Outreach efforts allow APHIS to provide information to our licensees and registrants in a collaborative setting. By advocating best practices instead of focusing on meeting minimum requirements, the program has seen positive results from providing current information in an accessible format. APHIS also continues its commitment to providing information and assistance to the public by responding to telephone and written inquiries. These communication vehicles and handling of correspondence and inquiries from the public allows us to disseminate information to and educate a broad spectrum of interested parties with critical information on the Animal Welfare Act, the Horse Protection Act, and our enforcement efforts. The program's beneficiaries are the animals protected by the AWA and the general public. No subsidies are provided to licensees and registrants, who may, in some cases, be required to expend additional effort or resources to meet the minimum standards of care and treatment outlined in the AWA. In certain cases, fines that have been levied to a licensees and registrant can be used to offset the costs of addressing the issues causing the noncompliance of the AWA to further promote and protect the animals under the AWA.

Evidence: APHIS developed a Risk Based Information System (RBIS) for inspection and risk categorization to ensure that resources are effectively targeted and that entities with the highest risk for noncompliant items are inspected more frequently. Measurable factors are used (in this case, non-compliant items [NCIs]) to continuously monitor inspection results. Risk categorization utilizes the standard risk formula, incorporating the probability of occurrence of NCIs and the potential for negative consequences, to determine the level of risk at a facility. Combined into the RBIS, the method and risk categorization provide a minimum inspection frequency for each facility thereby keeping program efforts focused on the facilities where they are most needed. Based on RBIS results, adjustments can be made in inspection frequencies to derive the greatest benefit from the program's limited resources and provide for continuous improvement of program delivery. APHIS responded to over 25,000 of telephone inquiries (headquarters and Regional offices), and answering over 8,000 pieces of correspondence, including regular mail, e-mail, faxes, and write-in campaigns reguarding the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection programs.

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: The Animal Welfare program promotes and protects the welfare of animals and enforces the Animal Welfare Act. APHIS is measuring its success in promoting and protecting the welfare of animals by tracking its progress in the percent reduction of repeat violators and by tracking the percentage of licensees and registrants in substantial compliance at their most recent inspection. The program is also measuring the usefulness of outreach activities conducted to provide additional guidance to licensees and registrants. While there are no requirements to participate in the various outreach activities available, these activities are beneficial because they help educate licensees and registrants instead of solely relying on enforcement efforts. They also allow APHIS to provide information to licensees and registrants in a collaborative setting by advocating best practices instead of focusing on just meeting minimum requirements. Both inspections and outreach activities should help reduce the number of repeat violations and address the facilities with animals most at risk. Outreach and education activities are also used to develop good working relationships with licensees, registrants, and research facilities before enforcement of the Act becomes necessary.

Evidence: The current performance measures for the Animal Welfare program are the number of animals affected by non-compliances as documented on inspection reports and the percentage of facilities that are in complete compliance of the AWA at the most recent inspection. The percentage of facilities in complete compliance only showed a portion of the picture. Not all facilities will be in complete compliance, and those that are not in compliance can range from minor to severe non-compliant issues. Performance data for the historic measures is provided. Baseline data for the new measures is currently being collected and targets will be set accordingly

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

Explanation: The program received a "no" because there was no baseline data for the new long term measures that were being proposed. Due to increasing program responsibility related to the inspection of rats, mice, and birds, APHIS has changed to a risk based approach, and has developed new measures. The reduction in target levels reflects the need to set up regulations related to new program responsibilities, train insectors and provide outreach to the public, which will take from two to three years, during which time performance will fall. However, by FY 2013 the new measure of the percent of licensees and registrants in partial compliance is projected to exceed the FY 2007 target. There is also stready growth in the targets for the new measure for the percentage of stakeholders who find outreach activites useful. The program assesses the workload and establishes the maximum amount of effort that can be accomplished with the available resources. When performance targets are achieved, the program reassesses future targets, and when applicable, increases that target.

Evidence: APHIS is currently in the process of transitioning the long-term measures from the number of animals affected by non-compliances as documented on inspection reports and the percentage of facilities that are in complete compliance of the AWA at the most recent inspection to the percent of licensees and registrants in substantial compliance after participating in outreach activities and the percent reduction of repeat violators. The new measures provide the program with information on how outreach activities impact compliance, as well as the impact inspection and outreach activities have on reducing repeat violators. The measures continue monitoring the program's progress in protecting and promoting the welfare of all animals. Baseline data is currently being collected; once established, the program will set appropriate targets. The program has been able to meet, and in some cases exceed, the targets set for the percentage of facilities in complete compliance at the most recent inspection. The percent of facilities in complete compliance grew over a six year period from 58 percent in FY 2001 to 70 percent in FY 2006 while the number of facilities grew. The ability to continue to meet these goals is becoming increasingly difficult because of the rapid growth in the number of new licenses and registrants. The number of licenses/registrants has climbed by over 50 percent since FY 2003. The increased ability of inspectors and others to understand the proper care of animals will result less animal suffering, more economic security for owners of AWA facilities, and a higher number of facilities voluntarily complying with AWA standards.

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

Explanation: The current annual measure is the number of inspections conducted. This measure demonstrates the program's workload and supports the long-term measures regarding the percent of facilities in compliance at the last inspection. However, the program tracks several other activities aimed at monitoring progress towards long-term program goals. Therefore, the program is proposing additional annual measures to demonstrate the impact of increased inspection and outreach activities on promoting voluntary compliance to the AWA and the resources devoted to re-inspection and the number of licenses and registrations processed. The program is implementing a measure on the percent of violators re-inspected for compliance within the prescribed timeframe to help reduce the number of repeat violators. The program is also implementing the percent of stakeholders who find outreach activities useful to take a proactive approach to ensuring the welfare of animals. By determining the best types of outreach activities that need to be performed, the program will ensure that compliance of the AWA can be maximized with minimal resources.

Evidence: The number of inspections is used to determine the percent of facilities inspected that have significant violations, and ultimately the percent of facilities in compliance. The program is also implementing the percent of violators re-inspected for compliance within the prescribed timeframe to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to help reduce the number of repeat violators. The program is also implementing the percent of stakeholders who find outreach activities useful to take a proactive approach to ensuring the welfare of animals. By determining the best types of outreach activities that need to be performed, the program will ensure that compliance of the AWA can be maximized with minimal resources.

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

Explanation: The program assesses the workload and establishes the maximum amount of effort that can be accomplished with the available resources. When performance targets are achieved, the program reassesses future targets, and when applicable, increases that target. Due to increasing program responsibility related to the inspection of rats, mice, and birds, APHIS has changed to a risk based approach, and has developed new measures. The reduction in target levels reflects the need to set up regulations related to new program responsibilities, train insectors and provide outreach to the public, which will take from two to three years, during which time performance will fall. However, by FY 2013 the new measure of the percent of repeat violators reinspected for compliance with the AWA is projected to exceed the FY 2007 target. However, because this is a new measure, there is no baseline data. However, unlike question 2.2, whihc received "no," this question received a "Yes." That is becuase, there is only one (new) annual measure that does not have baseline data, while there are three (new) long term measures that do not have baseline data.

Evidence: In FY 2006, the program conducted approximately 18,600 inspections for non-compliance, a 13 percent increase from FY 2005. The program has significantly increased the number of inspections conducted from initiation in FY 2003, when the program performed 14,197 inspections. The program also has met this increased target each year since inception with funding remaining relatively flat. Increasing the number of inspections conducted supports the long-term goal of compliance with the AWA, and reduces the percentage of repeat violators. Several new measures are currently being implemented to continue the efforts of ensuring the humane treatment of all animals. Once baseline data has been collected, the appropriate targets will be set. In FY 2008, APHIS anticipates implementing new regulations that will require an estimated 10,000 new facilities that contain rats, mice, and birds not involved in research to be covered under the AWA. As a result, APHIS will need additional resources to address the increases workload to train the new inspectors, conduct pre-licensing inspections, work ti determine the number of newly covered facilities in compliance with the AWA, and initiate activities designed to assure a high level of compliance with the new requirements. The program estimates that it will take each new inspector three years to reach full performance level for the number of inspections conducted. With the anticipated increase in funding, the number of inspections will increase slightly, but the average cost of inspection will also increase in FY 2008. Beginning in FY 2009, APHIS will show improved efficiencies by reducing the cost of each inspection, as each inspector is more familiar with the requirements of the new regulations.

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

Explanation: The AWA and APHIS regulations preclude the Agency from having program partners by requiring that all inspections be performed by Agency personnel. However, APHIS has had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) since 1994 establishing procedures designed to reduce unnecessary duplication of inspection services under the requirement of the AWA and the MDA Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).However, APHIS continues to work with the State Animal Response Teams to coordinate several activities including the development of: standard operating procedures for the transportation and sheltering of companion animals; a credentialing system for individuals and humane organizations involved in pet rescue and shelter activities; a requirement that animal facilities have contingency plans in the event of natural disaster; and a communication plan that encourages the public to include pets in their personal evacuation planning. Under the terms of the MOU between MDA and APHIS, APHIS agrees to forward copies of each inspection/re-inspection report of a facility located in Missouri in which dogs or cats are inspected for recordkeeping requirements, and to notify MDA when a formal investigation of a facility has been initiated on a facility located in the State of Missouri. Likewise, MDA agrees to notify APHIS of all complaints received by MDA involving a facility licensed by APHIS and to flag MDA records during periods of time when a Federal investigation is ongoing to ensure there are no violations of the Freedom of Information Act. The cooperation between agencies avoids duplication of efforts and ensures the welfare of animals.

Evidence: See the AWA (7 USC, 2131-2156), which provides the authority for promulgating and enforcing regulations to "the Secretary of Agriculture or his representative, who shall be an employee of the United States Department of Agriculture. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA), begiining in 1994 to reduce unnecessary duplication of inspection services under the requirement of the AWA and the MDA Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).

Are independent 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: This question received a "no," because it is not clear that the evaluations that are discussed meet all of the requirements for scope, quality and frequency required by this question. APHIS, in conjunction with Executive Order (EO) 12862 is in the process of conducting a survey to assess the stakeholder's satisfaction of the various services provided by the program. APHIS also plans to implement a customer satisfaction survey on a bi-annual basis. The program is subject to OIG audits each year on a frequent basis, varying in scope and emphasis. OIG is an independent office of USDA not connected with the program or APHIS itself. Its audits focus on the total effectiveness of the program and OIG auditors target areas that may need improvement in their recommendations. For example, the program was audited by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) regarding inspection and enforcement activities in 2005. In the audit report, a number of recommendations focused on the lack of pursuing enforcement actions, ensuring that the stipulation of fines is a deterrent to violators, and improving the monitoring of research facilities. In addition to OIG audits, the program also holds listening sessions and other informational meetings that allow for public comment on the various aspects of the program. The use of public meetings and listening sessions, as well as printed materials, enables all stakeholders to communicate and interact with APHIS, and promotes improved animal welfare through education and understanding of compliance. In addition, we provide an annual report to Congress that is posted on the APHIS website.In addition to OIG audits, which focus on the overall effectiveness of the program, APHIS also solicits and uses reviews and evaluations from participants in outreach and education sessions. Outreach sessions, though each focuses on specific areas of the AWA, are becoming an essential tool in the program's ability to increase voluntary compliance on the part of licensees and registrants. As part of the stakeholder outreach efforts, APHIS developed and held 9 symposia on dog care issues in FY 2006. In FY 2006, we also held 6 information meetings addressing the issues of microchipping of pets. We have continued to hold listening sessions and public meetings regarding the Horse Protection Act. We also participate in many local career fairs throughout the United States. These meetings/events were attended by over 2,000 participants, including Federal and state government representatives, licensees, and members of the general public. The overall response from these breeders participating in canine care sessions was that the information provided was relevant to improving their business practices, and the information was useful in improving techniques used. Most of the respondents felt that the "You Be the Inspector Segment" was most beneficial for the breeders because this help the breeder fully understand the needs for compliance of the AWA, and shows what items the inspector are looking for in conducting inspection of facilities. A majority of the respondents stated that they would continue to attend these seminars because of the things that they learned from this seminar. APHIS is under constant scrutiny from not only internal review programs and OIG, but from our stakeholders. We are held daily to the standards of performing effectively and achieving results. Working groups assigned to individual programs ensure that programs are operating effectively and meeting stakeholder expectations regarding results. They also offer avenues for ongoing improvement. Since FY 2004, there were 18 Canine Care Workshop Seminars held throughout the country to give breeders opportunities to improve their compliance activities and improve the overall care of the animals involved in breeding.

Evidence: APHIS maintains active liaison activities with other Federal agencies, including National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Marine Mammal Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Centers for Disease Control, and attends many meetings of the Interagency Research Animal Committee. APHIS serves on the ICCVAM (Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods) committee and the USDA Farm Animal Well-being Task Group. For example, the program in conjunction with Executive Order (EO) 12862, is in the process of conducting a survey to assess the satisfaction of the various services provided by the program. The Office of Inspector General issued a report in October 2005, APHIS Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities (Report No: 33002-03-SF), which reviewed the inspection policies covered under the AWA, their follow-up procedures on complaints of abuse and non-compliance, and their coordination with the Investigative and Enforcement Services where serious violations have been found.

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: The program budget is aligned with the program goals. The planning and budgeting process specifically identifies program results with changes in funding, policy, or legislative mandates. The program budgets for all costs allocated to and paid for by the Agency, and resource needs are presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget. APHIS budgets for all program costs, both direct and indirect, in developing and submitting requested program funding levels. The increased ability of APHIS inspectors and others to protect stakeholders and to understand the proper care of animals will result in less animal suffering, more economic security for owners of AWA facilities, and a higher number of facilities voluntarily complying with AWA standards. In the Explanatory Notes submitted to Congress as the Agency's official budget request, we specifically link funding requests to expected performance. For example, in FY 2008, APHIS estimates that 10,000 facilities that contain rats, mice, or birds not involved in research will begin to be regulated and requested funding to hire additional inspectors to increase the number of inspections performed due to the increase in the number of facilities. APHIS expects a significant increase in the percentage of facilities to be in substantial compliance after 2008 at the most recent inspection, as newly regulated bird facilities become more familiar with the requirements of the AWA, and are able to take advantage of the education and outreach offered by APHIS.

Evidence: The FY 2008 budget request for the Animal Welfare program specifically requests funds for additional inspectors to meet increasing demand for inspections associated with the expansion of the AWA to cover rats, mice, and birds not involved in research and explains how the request will allow the program to continue meeting its performance goals. See the increase request for the Animal Welfare program in APHIS' FY 2008 Explanatory Notes.

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

Explanation: The program regularly reviews progress toward meeting goals in conjunction with the strategic plan to address any deficiencies. If the program is not meeting targets, program management reviews all aspects of the program, including strategies and operational management plans.

Evidence: Even though the program has successfully met targets for inspection and compliance activities, management wanted to develop additional measures to further depict progress in ensuring the welfare of the animals by focusing on the increased outreach and educational efforts and inspections related to animals most at risk. APHIS held a performance workshop in October 2006 for animal welfare managers in which the program updated and validated the mission, vision, and program goals as well as mapping inputs and outputs to measurable outcomes. The result is a refined program mission statement to include promoting and protecting animal welfare instead of just enforcement, and the addition of several meaningful measures around high-risk facilities and the impact of educational efforts. The program is updating its strategic plan based on the results of the October and subsequent management meetings. The draft strategic plan should be available by July, 2007 on the APHIS website.

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: The AWA requires that entities that deal with animals covered by the Act provide the animals with care that meets minimum standards. Regulations are necessary for the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection programs to achieve their goals of protecting and promoting the welfare of animals covered under the AWA and HPA. Without regulations, the minimum standards of care and treatment currently afforded for most warm-blooded animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public would not be specified. All AWA regulations contribute to the achievement of the program's goals. Proposed and final USDA regulations published in the Federal Register have a preamble stating the goal of the program to justify the need for the regulation. Public review of proposed actions help to ensure that the program takes only those actions necessary to accomplish the goals of the AWA. All regulations appear in the Federal Register and are reviewed by APHIS regularly. Regulations for the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection programs state that the purpose of the program is to protect and promote the welfare of animals covered under the AWA and HPA. APHIS conducts inspections to administer and enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act and regulations issued under those Acts. The regulations are scrutinized by program managers, States and industry, and are amended as necessary to ensure the guidelines are as clear and up-to-date as possible. Final rules incorporate responses to comments from stakeholders, as required by the Administrative Procedures Act, including changes to the proposed rule when appropriate. All APHIS programs are committed to a rulemaking process that provides for full public participation to ensure that the goals of the program are being met. Additionally, APHIS conducts all necessary analyses, such as those required by the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts, as well as considers and responds to all comments received when finalizing regulations. These analyses ensure that the public fully understands how the regulations proposed are beneficial to compliance of the AWA. APHIS receives petitions for additional regulations, inclduing the regulation of elepphans, for birds, rats and mice and microchipping. However, they have not received requests to eliminate rulemakings. This would indicate that they are not "over regulating."

Evidence: In May 2005; APHIS published in the Federal Register the Rules of Practice for License Denial/Termination Hearings Under the AWA, and Revisions to Licensing Requirements, docket number 04102-1. The AWA regulations provide that a person whose license application has been denied or whose license has been terminated may request a hearing in accordance with the applicable rules of practice for the purpose of showing why the application for license should not be denied or the license should not be terminated. By strengthening the process to deny or terminate a license under the standards of the AWA, APHIS is able to improve the living conditions of animals. This regulation would ensure that dealers, exhibitors, or operators of auctions would be in compliance of the requirements of the standards in 9 CFR chapter I of not violating any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animal cruelty within one year of application; and that there are no violations pertaining to the transportation, ownership, neglect, or welfare of animals.

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: APHIS regularly collects performance information, including data from partners, and utilizes the data to improve program performance, allocate resources, and develop and prioritize future projects. The data is integral to program managers' decision-making abilities for the program. Program information is used to determine the allocation of resources based upon a risk analysis of the facilities inspected. This question also asks whether the program has collected baseline performance data to develop "meaningful ambitious program targets." The program has developed new performance measures. Since these are new measures, there is no baseline data. However, the agency has committed to providing baselines for these measures.

Evidence: See "measures, " which shows that baselines for new measures have not been developed. However, concerning the use of performance information, the program uses the Licensing and Registration Information System (LARIS) to track performance data related to the regulated facilities as well as inspection and compliance activities. Information regarding requests for a license or registration is entered into LARIS upon review and approval by the program. The information allows the program to track the volume and types of facilities requiring inspection. Information regarding inspection and compliance is entered into a report at the time of inspection, and captured in the LARIS system. The program uses the information to determine the risk associated with each facility and allocates resources accordingly. Performance information related to outreach activities is more varied. For example, when APHIS participates in a collaborative information session where post-evaluations are distributed, the results are often calculated and provided by the host of the session. The information is used by all parties to improve future sessions. Other outreach activities hosted solely in-house are analyzed and reviewed and used to improve the program. As a result of these outreach and education actions, we performed approximately 850 searches for unlicensed dealers and exhibitors in FY 2006. As a result, approximately 200 facilities were licensed and remain subject to the Animal Welfare Act regulations and standards. We are also continuing our increased efforts to register all carriers in the US that transport regulated animals. We notified the public and current and potential registrants about the coverage of foreign carriers bring animals into and taking animals out of the US under the Animal Welfare Act. We have increased airport inspections to help educate parties not previously registered as carriers and to safeguard the welfare of the animals being transported. As part of the stakeholder outreach efforts, APHIS developed and held 9 symposia on dog care issues in FY 2006. In FY 2006, we also held 6 information meetings addressing the issues of microchipping of pets. We have continued to hold listening sessions and public meeting regarding the Horse Protection Act. We also participate in many local career fairs throughout the US. These meetings/events were attended by over 2,000 participants, including Federal and state government representatives, licensees, and members of the general public

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The program managers are responsible for formulating plans and applying resources to achieve the goals and objectives of the program. Program managers are responsible for assessing and directing program policies and regulations to assure alignment with program goals and objectives. Inspectors are responsible for ensuring that inspections are completed within the goals and mission of the AWA and HPA and that the inspections are completed on a timely basis based on the risk associated with the licensee, registrant, or research facility. Status of funds reports are submitted monthly showing that spending for the programs are consistent with the goals of the program and each manager is held accountable for cost and performance results. Examples of research facilities that were held accountable for their actions was when, in February 2007, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation was issued an Official Warning, Violation of Federal Regulations, for violations to the AWA. The violations for the Official Warning were that the clinic failed to have Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IAUAC) review activities involving animals for a procedure conducted on a dog that was not done under an approved protocol; and to establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care that include the availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services to comply with the provisions provided. For each violation of the AWA, the act provides for penalties of up to $3,750. In an important case resulting from the enforcement of the AWA, the University of California at San Francisco paid a $92,000 fine assessed for AWA violations in FY 2006. The program also rescinded the license for C.C. Baird in a case involving numerous violations of the AWA. There are no program partners.

Evidence: The successes or failures of program performance are a direct reflection of program management at all levels and are reflected in employee performance evaluations. For the Animal Welfare program, good performance is indicated by a consistent increase in the percentage of licensees and registrants that are in substantial compliance of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. Good performance is also indicated by the reduction in the percent of repeat violations upon follow-up inspections. If the licensees and registrants are not abiding by program criteria, program managers are responsible for ensuring deficiencies are addressed appropriately. In addition, the Administrator holds APHIS Deputies accountable by having quarterly performance and budgeting meetings and having the reviews influence each Deputy's performance appraisal. For example, in June 2006, APHIS revised their Performance Appraisal Program from a two level pass-fail system to a four level system that differentiates excellent performance from marginal performance and links personal performance to accomplishment of program goals.

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

Explanation: Funds appropriated for the program were obligated in conjunction with their goal of protecting and promoting the welfare of animals covered under the AWA and HPA. APHIS monitors spending through its monthly status-of-funds process to ensure that funds are being spent in a timely manner and for their intended purpose. Additionally, each program develops allocation and spending plans at the national and regional levels, based upon the personnel nedd to operate the program. Not e that 80% of program costs is personnel related. In FY 2006, the program obligated of funds that were appropriated. On a monthly basis, actual data on expenditures is compared with planning data to ensure that funds are utiliized as planned. APHIS programs record spending as it occurs in a USDA-wide system, the Foundation Financial Information System. All Program expenses incurred by APHIS are reflected in another USDA system, the Federal Data Warehouse. APHIS programs use standard query mechanisms to review, research, and monitor funds. A monthly status of funds is prepared to reflect spending by each appropriation and program type. The Budget staff then briefs the Agency's Administrator each month on spending. APHIS accountants and program financial managers collaborate throughout the year and at the end-of-the-year close-out to ensure that spending estimates are accurate. In addition, special reports are prepared to monitor specific types of expenses. These tools are used by program level staffs to monitor spending and compare it to allocation plans made at the beginning of each year and by Agency level budget execution and formulation staffs. Program and Agency analysts research and address any questionable spending patterns as they occur. Because program personnel are the only personnel responsible for conducting animal welfare inspections, over 80 percent of the funding appropriated to the program is utilized for salaries and benefits. The remaining appropriations are used to cover the costs of travel, training, equipment and supplies for the personnel.

Evidence: Headquarters and regional program managers estimate spending at the beginning of the fiscal year. APHIS' financial managers track spending throughout the year. Each month, Program Financial Managers and APHIS' Budget Staff review current spending results and projections to assure funds are being obligated in a timely manner and for their intended purpose. Program funds are allocated for the purposes of the program, which include outreach/education and regulatory enforcement. In FY 2006, the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection programs obligated 100 percent of the funds appropriated to them. The Budget staf briefs the Agency's Administrator each month on spending. APHIS accountants and program financial managers collaborate throughout and at the end of the year close out to ensure that spending estimates are accurate. Because of the fact that program personnel are the only personnel responsible for conducting animal welfare inspections, over 80 percent of the funding appropriated to the program is utilized for salaries and benefits. The remaining appropriations are used to cover the costs of travel, training, equipment and supplies for the personnel.

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

Explanation: Efficiency measures are currently in place with the program to reduce the cost of an Animal Welfare Inspection, reducing the cost of issuing licenses and registrations, and reducing the cost of receiving and evaluating public comments. APHIS is continuing to develop a new database to handle our inspection and customer contacts. A Risk Based Information System (RBIS) is currently implemented to help the program determine the probability of non-compliant items and the potential for negative consequences, to determine the level of risk at a facility. The RBIS uses a low, medium, or high risk category to determine the number of inspections to be performed at a facility to maximize the utilization of resources to the program. Under this system, high risk facilities with high probability of AWA violations can be inspected every 45 days, and random source dog dealers will be inspected at least four times each year. This system is also able to assist the program to determine the best location to place inspectors depending on the likelihood of non-compliance by licenses and registrants. The program continues work to develop and implement a new database which will allow better monitoring of enforcement parameters and efforts. The current project is being implemented in conjunction with Agency information technology specialists to afford program oversight and enhanced development of the system using contractors. APHIS continues to employ information technology in its contact with customers, stakeholders, and other members of the general public. We maintain an e-mail box for headquarters and each of the regional offices, with contact information highlighted on our web page, and provided e-mail responses to over 1,000 messages per month. In FY 2006, we have responded to an estimated 20,000 e-mail inquiries. Although we do not currently record the numbers, our web page has traditionally received over 12,000 hits a year. In addition, we maintain an automated voice response service number for questions about traveling with animals. This 24/7 toll-free information system averages about 3,000 calls a year. These communication services allow over 35,000 parties per year to query the program and obtain information they would likely not request through regular correspondence. APHIS has developed a measure to calculate the cost of an animal welfare inspection (with baselines and targets) and a new measure of the cost of issuing animal welfare licenses and registrations (targets only). These are key program activities.

Evidence: The Animal Welfare program has significantly increased the number of inspections conducted each year since 2003 when the program conducted a total of 14,197 inspections. In FY 2006, the program conducted a total of 18,600 inspections, an increase of 31 percent from the 2003 figure with modest increases in funding. With the increased inspections, the program was able to reduce their unit cost from $1,147 per inspection in FY 2003 to $930 per inspection in FY 2006.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: APHIS cooperates with all interested parties, State, local, or Federal, that can use our expertise and presence to provide for the care and humane treatment of animals. APHIS also provides expert help to regulated parties and the communities in which they are found. APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) provides support to APHIS investigators in cases in which serious violations on noncompliance of the AWA and have been found in inspections. IES field personnel conduct comprehensive investigations, track unresolved cases, and coordinate investigative efforts for all APHIS programs and other Federal and State agencies. The Animal Welfare program is also working in conjunction with IES, the Office of General Counsel (OGC), and Legislative and Public Affairs (LPA) to streamline the processes necessary to allow for confiscations of animals, revoking licenses for facilities found to have serious compliance issues with the AWA, and improve the process for successfully building and prosecuting cases to stop the inhumane care and treatment of animals. Innovative enforcement of our regulations has led to an increase in confiscation and placement efforts for animals that are found to be suffering. Cooperative efforts involving USDA, humane associations, sanctuaries, and industry members have allowed for the voluntary placement of animals and the surrender of the licenses of the regulated parties; and, in FY 2006, the program confiscated/surrendered/placed approximately 150 animals. APHIS also participated in companion animal disaster planning efforts at the FEMA Joint Field Office in Louisiana as well as the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF). Agency personnel identified animal shelter locations adjacent to human shelter locations in Louisiana; assisted the LDAF in coordinating the development of contingency plans at the parishes; and developed technical requirements for trucks to transport animals during an evacuation, and organized a transportation/shelter team and a heat stress monitoring team to respond in the event of a hurricane in Louisiana. Each of these activities helps to ensure that the welfare of animals are promoted and protected under the AWA. APHIS has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with State and Federal entities to assure minimal duplication of effort and to provide a common framework of cooperation in addressing enforcement issues and complex situations involving regulated animals, all while maintaining our mandated authorities and keeping the best interest of the animals at the forefront. An example would be a formal Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between APHIS, The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) with the combined goal to facilitate and promote the consistent, effective, and cooperative implementation of all standards governing the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of marine mammals, both pursuant to their take or import, and during their captivity.

Evidence: In FY 2006, APHIS worked with IES to issue 249 letters of warning based on findings, and over $260,000 in fines were paid. The $260,000 in stipulations paid were a significant increase in the $160,000 paid in 2005, and $93,000 paid in 2004. In an important case resulting from the enforcement of the AWA, the University of California at San Francisco paid, in full, a $92,000 fine assessed for violations of the AWA. APHIS has also developed a formal MOU with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) with the combined goal to facilitate and promote the consistent, effective, and cooperative implementation of all standards governing the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of marine mammals, both pursuant to their take or import, and during their captivity. APHIS also has an MOU with the Missouri Department of Agriculture to reduce duplicative activities.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program uses strong financial management practices. The program receives an annual allocation and is held accountable for keeping its spending within this amount. Program financial managers track financial data through the existing accounting system (the USDA Foundation Financial Information System or FFIS). They also meet regularly with APHIS budget staff to review spending, obligation program status, and to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purpose. Procurement is based on established procedures, controls, and competitive practices. The USDA/Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts and supervises audits and investigations to prevent and detect fraud and to improve the effectiveness of USDA programs by recommending changes that will increase efficiency and reduce waste. The program has received clean audit opinions from the USDA Office of the Inspector General, which has stated that the program is free of material control weaknesses.

Evidence: APHIS reviews spending on a monthly basis, and our financial management system (FFIS) meets statutory requirements as well as those established by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program. Financial information from FFIS is downloaded nightly into our reporting system for tracking and analysis, and system assurance routines are run to ensure that the data is accurate. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) reviews all USDA programs each year. USDA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer reviews APHIS' financial statements on a quarterly basis. The program ensures that payments are made in accordance with the intended purpose to minimize erroneous payments. APHIS Review and Analysis Branch recently conducted audits of the program under the requirements of the Improper Payments Act. In conducting the audits, APHIS officials assessed the programs vulnerabilities to improper payment, the internal controls in place to prevent them, and (based on these identified vulnerabilities and controls) the programs level of risk of making improper payments. The auditors generally conclude that the programs are at low risk for improper payments because of internal checks and balances within the automated financial systems and in-house investigative reviews and audits of APHIS and employee misconduct.

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

Explanation: Program effectiveness is reviewed on a regular basis, and improvements to program management are made as needed. Some of the recommendations included the lack of pursuing enforcement actions, the stipulation of fines were not a deterrent to violators, and improving the monitoring of research facilities. Actions that APHIS has taken to address these issues include reviewing all cases where the program has declined to take enforcement actions against violators; eliminating the discount for calculating fines for repeat violators or direct violations; updating penalty assessments to calculate fines based on the number of animals affected per violation; and revising the Research Facility Inspection Guide (RFIG) to require VMO's to verify the number of animals reported in research facilities annual reports.

Evidence: Based on the recommendations provided in the OIG audit, issued October 2005, APHIS APHIS Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities (Report No: 33002-03-SF), APHIS has taken significant actions to improve the processes of the program and regularly provides OIG updates on the status of the progress.

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, on an ongoing basis about animal welfare issues of concern. All APHIS programs are committed to a rulemaking process that provides for full public participation. Additionally, APHIS conducts all necessary analyses, such as those required by the Regulatory Flexibility and Paperwork Reduction Acts, as well as considers and responds to all comments received when finalizing regulations. APHIS has published several rules amending regulations of the AWA to help ensure compliance. On July 14, 2004, APHIS published Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals taking into consideration a number of comments showing general support for the proposed rule and efforts to strengthen the licensing and renewal requirements. This final rule put into effect several changes to the Animal Welfare regulations to revise and clarify the exemptions from licensing requirements, and restrictions for the acquisition of dogs, cats, and other animals. The license exemption includes language stating that collective households with three or less breeding animals or research facilities with 24 or less dogs or cats are exempt from licensing requirements. Also, for both dealers and exhibitors, language was included to prevent the acquisition of live dogs, cats, or other animals by use of false pretenses, misrepresentation or deception, and that dealers and exhibitors cannot obtain dogs, cats, or other animals from an unlicensed person if that person is required to be licensed. Many felt that these changes would help improve the conditions of the animals. While the comments were considered, there is no scientific rationale to prove the welfare of the animals would not improve with the requirements. Throughout FY 2006, APHIS held four public meetings in various parts of the country for the purpose of drafting a copy of the Horse Protection Operating Plan for the FY 2007 -2009 seasons. In February 2007, in Tennessee, the Horse Industry Organization finalized the operating plan that will be used for the FY 2007 to FY 2009 show seasons. The Operating Plan can be found at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/hp_update.shtml. APHIS has been petitioned by several animal interest groups to bolster the AWA standards for elephants. APHIS has published the petition and opened the topic for public comment. After two comment extensions, the comment period has closed and APHIS is now reviewing the over 2,300 comments received to determine what actions may be necessary to undertake under for regulatory propagation. In an effort to not exclude any information from consideration, APHIS has stated on its web site that any comment submitted prior to the publication (clearance process for) of any proposed rule would be reviewed by the program, even though the official comment period has closed. APHIS drafted an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) intended to consider several changes to the regulations to help promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from coverage under the AWA. We recently completed a review of the approximately 7,500 comments received within the prescribed time period, and have drafted a blueprint of the regulatory changes for birds. APHIS is drafting the proposed regulations which together with obtaining the necessary legal clearances, is expected to take approximately one year before opening up the proposed rule for public comments. Another ANPR was drafted an to: (1) solicit comments from the public on proposed changes to the AWA regulation that would address the used of microchips for identifying animals covered under the AWA; and (2) advise the public that APHIS will be hosting a series of informational meeting on this subject in the coming months at various locations around the country. APHIS received a total of 1,028 written comments from the public.

Evidence: On July 14, 2004, APHIS published in the Federal Register Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals putting into effect several changes to the Animal Welfare regulations to revise and clarify the exemptions from licensing requirements, and restrictions for the acquisition of dogs, cats, and other animals. Throughout FY 2006, APHIS held four public meetings in various parts of the country for the purpose of drafting a copy of the Horse Protection Operating Plan for the FY 2007 -2009 seasons. In early February 2007, in Tennessee, the Horse Industry Organization finalized the operating plan that will be used for the FY 2007 to FY 2009 show seasons. The Operating Plan can be found on the APHIS website at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/hp_update.shtml APHIS has been petitioned by several animal interest groups to bolster the AWA standards for elephants. APHIS has published the petition and opened the topic for public comment. After two comment extensions, the comment period has closed and APHIS is now reviewing the over 2,300 comments received to determine what actions may be necessary to undertake under for regulatory propagation. In an effort to not exclude any information from consideration, APHIS drafted an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) intended to consider several changes to the regulations to help promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from coverage under the AWA.

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 regulatory impact, regulatory flexibility, and cost-benefit analyses when required by the cited acts and executive order. Most regulations for the Animal Welfare program are designated significant. Consequently, APHIS prepares regulatory flexibility analyses as required for all regulations. The program follows all laws, directives, and executive orders regarding the promulgation of regulations. All dockets that need these analyses are reviewed in depth and all required information is supplied for review by OMB and publication. Rulemakings always state the reason for the proposal, as well as alternatives. The discussion of this flexibility analysis also serves as the cost benefit analysis. Since June 2004, there have been two proposed or final ruled published in the Federal Register under Executive Order 12866 that have been reviewed by OMB. A significant regulation for the Animal Welfare program evaluated was Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals, docket number 97-121-3 published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2004. Another regulation published that was deemed to have significant implications was Animal Welfare; Definition of Animal, docket number 98-106-3, published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2004. For the Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals regulation, APHIS also performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, regarding the economics effects of this rule on small entities. This docket extended licensing exemption to small exotic or wild mammals, and the accompanying analysis concluded it should have little impact on small entities. With the extension of this exemption, some breeders who are now licensed would no longer need to be licensed. However, because APHIS has only recently begun to require licenses for breeders of small exotic or wild mammals at all, only a small number of breeders would be affected. For that small number, there will be cost savings in the amount of the annual license fee that would no longer be required. It is estimated that approximately 6,200 dogs and cats used in the research, testing, and teaching industries were obtained from persons exempt from licensing. In FY 2002, there were at least 248 exempt individuals who sold dogs and/or cats to Class B dealers. These exempt persons received, on average, $50 for a dog and $25 for a cat. Based on these values, the total revenue of all exempted individuals in FY 2002 is estimated to have been $271,000. This rule will have little impact on these individuals. This rule will make a number of changes to clarify the regulations and correct deficiencies we have found in enforcing the regulations. This rule will also amend a number of administrative procedures to make them more efficient. For instance, individuals applying for license renewal or change in license class will now be able to combine the license fee and application fee in a single form of payment. This rule should have little impact on licensees and should reduce APHIS' administrative burden.

Evidence: Since June 2004, there have been two proposed or final rules published in the Federal Register under Executive Order 12866 that have been reviewed by OMB. A significant regulation for the Animal Welfare program evaluated was Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals, docket number 97-121-3 published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2004. Another regulation published that was deemed to have significant implications was Animal Welfare; Definition of Animal, docket number 98-106-3, published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2004. For the Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals regulation, APHIS also performed a final regulatory flexibility analysis, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, regarding the economics effects of this rule on small entities. For a rulemaking that discusses the reason for the action, see "Animal Welfare" (Docket Number 98-106-3), dated June 4, 2004. Examples of alternatives for rulemaking include grandfathering the program or allowng an exemption from the application of the rule (see marine mammals). In 1998, "Swim With the Dolphins" considered the alternative of industry self-regulation.

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

Explanation: The regulations are designed to achieve the program's goal of protecting and promoting the welfare of animals covered under the Federal Animal Welfare Act. Each regulation must undergo regular economic analysis to ensure that its design yields the maximum benefits. The program seeks to make changes to the regulations that provide the maximum benefit to animal welfare while minimizing, to the extent possible, the impact of those regulations on affected entities. All of the program's regulatory publications are subject to an economic analysis that identifies potential impacts on affected entities, with a particular emphasis on effects on small entities, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In keeping with the program's goal of voluntary compliance with the regulations, APHIS regularly consults with affected industry to determine what requirements the program can impose that both effectively promote animal welfare and are practical for affected entities to implement. The relatively high rate of voluntary compliance with APHIS regulations is a testament to the effectiveness of its consultations. APHIS also considers alternatives approaches when selecting a regulatory course of action and documents this consideration in the rulemaking's economic analysis when appropriate. The Animal Care program seeks to make changes to the regulations that provide the maximum benefit to animal welfare while minimizing, to the extent possible, the impact of those regulations on affected entities. All of the program's regulatory publications are subject to an economic analysis that identifies potential impacts on affected entities, with a particular emphasis on effects on small entities, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In keeping with the program's goal of voluntary compliance with the regulations, Animal Care regularly consults with affected industry to determine what requirements the program can impose that both effectively promote animal welfare and are practical for affected entities to implement. The relatively high rate of voluntary compliance with the Animal Care regulations is a testament to the effectiveness of its consultations. APHIS also considers alternatives approaches when selecting a regulatory course of action and documents this consideration in the rulemaking's economic analysis when appropriate.

Evidence: Several examples of regulations published in the Federal Register include Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals, docket number 97-121-3 published July 14, 2004; Animal Welfare; Definition of Animal, docket number 98-106-3, published June 4, 2004; and Rules of Practice for License Denial/Termination Hearings under the AWA, docket number 04-102-1 published June 12, 2005.

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

Explanation: The program's goal is to protect and promote the welfare of animals and enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act. The program has made significant progress toward its mission of ensuring the humane treatment of animals by implementing new measures designed to quantify the impact of program inspection and outreach activities will have on compliance and repeat violations. APHIS has shown that it is able to maintain its goal of 70 percent of facilities in complete compliance at the most recent inspection, and has made significant improvement in reducing the number of animals affected by non-compliance as documented on inspection reports. The program is currently transitioning to performance goals that provide a wider picture of the effectiveness of program operations. However, this answer received a "small extent" because three of the four long term measures did not have baseline data against which to measure progress. This is not a reflection of the potential of the program, but a reflection of the fact that the program is instituting a risk based approach, which has necessitates the creation of three new long term meaaures and the retirement of the current long term measure (see measures tab).

Evidence: The number of animals affected by non-compliance has been reduced significantly - from approximately 590,000 in FY 2001 to less than 370,000 in FY 2004, a reduction of 37 percent. APHIS has also improved the percentage of facilities in complete compliance from 58 percent in FY 2001 to 70 percent in FY 2006. Because the current measures being used only showed a portion of the picture, APHIS has implemented new measures that will focus on the goal of voluntary compliance as opposed to relying solely on enforcement. One way in which success will be measured will be whether or not outreach activities had a positive effect on animal welfare. Outreach and education activities are used to develop good working relationships with licensees, registrants, and research facilities before enforcement of the Act becomes necessary. Outreach efforts allow APHIS to provide information to licensees and registrants in a collaborative setting by advocating best practices instead of focusing on just meeting minimum requirements. Performance data for the historic measures is provided. Baseline data for the new measures is currently being collected and targets will be set accordingly. The outreach activities are important because adjustments can be made to the program that would most effectively and efficiently reach the overall goal of promoting and protecting the animals instead of solely relying on enforcement efforts. In addition, not all facilities will be in complete compliance, and those that are not in compliance can range from minor to severe non-compliant issues. The program can measure the impact of inspection and outreach activities by the reduction of repeat violators and address the facilities with animals most at risk. Therefore, APHIS will measure the program's success in promoting and protecting the welfare of animals by tracking its progress in the percent reduction of repeat violators and by tracking the percentage of licensees and registrants in substantial compliance after participating in an outreach activity.

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

Explanation: The program has met its annual targets for the Animal Welfare program by increasing the number of inspections conducted each year. Several new measures are currently being implemented to continue the efforts of ensuring the humane treatment of all animals. Once baseline data has been collected, the appropriate targets will be set.

Evidence: The Animal Welfare program has significantly increased the number of inspections conducted each year since 2003 when the program conducted a total of 14,197 inspections. In FY 2006, the program conducted a total of 18,600 inspections, an increase of 31 percent from the 2003 figure with modest increases in funding. APHIS is proposing additional annual measures to demonstrate the impact of increased inspection and outreach activities on promoting voluntary compliance to the AWA, as well as reduce the need to re-inspect non-compliant facilities. An annual workload measure offered is the number of licenses and registrations processed. The program estimates that there licenses/registered facilities have increased by over 50 percent since 2004, so the need to process licenses and registrations is magnified. The number of public complaints received and evaluated as a response to the requestor and is often used for information to the public; and the number of outreach activities conducted to determine whether or not stakeholders found the information/outreach activity of value. For example, APHIS responded to over 25,000 of telephone inquiries answered over 8,000 pieces of correspondence, including regular mail, e-mail, faxes, and write-in campaign and served as the source for over 1,000 pieces of executive correspondence in FY 2006. APHIS also responded to approximately 800 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests for APHIS documents in FY 2006. The program is implementing the percent of violators re-inspected for compliance within the prescribed timeframe to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to help reduce the number of repeat violators. The program now plans to use the percent of stakeholders who find outreach activities useful as a performance meaure, in order to take a proactive approach to ensuring the welfare of animals. The program frequently holds stakeholder meetings to discuss topics of Canine Care, PAWS legislation, and by ensuring that stakeholders are finding these meetings useful will help ensure that they understand and comply with the regulations of the AWA. To continue to improve outreach activities, APHIS established two working committees to address improvement of our outreach efforts. One group focuses on outreach efforts aimed at our regulated community, providing education and information to industry groups and other interested parties. A second group will develop outreach strategies that target the general population as a whole, including media campaigns and development of materials for distribution, such as printed information, web-based information, and cd-rom packages.

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

Explanation: The program's efficiency measure of the average cost per inspection demonstrates that the program is becoming more efficient over time. The programs also use IT systems to increase efficiency and reduce the time it takes to collect and analyze data. Note that the program has established an additional efficiency measure ("Average cost of issuing animal welfare licenses and registrations") for which there is no performance data. The program uses a risk-based system to target facilities for more frequent inspection. This allows the program to use its resources efficiently, inspecting higher-risk facilities more often. The percent of facilities in compliance grew over a 6-year period from 58 percent in FY 2001 to 70 percent in FY 2006 while the number of facilities also increased.

Evidence: In FY 2006, the program conducted approximately 18,600 inspections for non-compliance, a 13 percent increase from FY 2005. The program has significantly increased the number of inspections conducted from initiation in FY 2003, when it performed 14,197 inspections. From FY 2003 to FY 2006, the program has managed to increase the number of inspections by 31 percent while funding has increased by only six percent. With the increased inspections, the program was able to reduce its unit cost from $1,147 per inspection in FY 2003 to $930 per inspection in FY 2006. The program also has met this increased target each year since inception with funding remaining relatively flat. Increasing the number of inspections conducted supports the long-term goal of compliance to the AWA and reduces the percentage of repeat violators. APHIS continues to strive for improved efficiencies and cost reductions and will do this by introducing several new measures for FY 2007. Additional annual workload measures include: the number of licenses and registrations processed so that licensees and registrants can move forward with appropriate action; the number of public complaints received and evaluated as a response to the requestor and is often used for information to the public; and the number of outreach activities conducted to determine whether or not stakeholders found the information/outreach activity of value. The program is implementing a measure based on the percent of violators re-inspected for compliance within the prescribed timeframe to ensure the humane treatment of animals and to help reduce the number of repeat violators. The program is also implementing a measure tracking the percent of stakeholders who find outreach activities useful to take a proactive approach to ensuring the welfare of animals. By determining the best types of outreach activities that need to be performed, the program will ensure that compliance of the AWA can be maximized with minimal resources.

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

Explanation: APHIS is the lead Agency in the determination and implementation standards of humane care and treatment of animals in the United States. Within the scope of its program, APHIS currently has Memorandums of Understanding with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Services) to share responsibility with APHIS for the administration and enforcement of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. APHIS also has an MOU with the Missouri Department of Agriculture to reduce the duplication of efforts of services covered under the AWA. APHIS' Animal Welfare program is unique in that it is the only Federal regulatory program charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act and protecting the well-being of animals used for commercial purposes (other than food production). However, because of the large number of dog breeding facilities in Missouri, that State has a similar program at the State level. The performance of APHIS program compares favorably to the Missouri one, as documented in an audit report by Missouri's Inspector General. There are several references in the Performance Audit of the Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Care Facilities Inspection Program, report number 2004-91, issued December 16, 2004, showing that the program APHIS administers in Missouri compares favorably to the State program. For example, the audit documents the difficulty State coordinators have in conducting surprise inspections of facilities because licensees are not available when the inspector shows up to inspect the facilities. Inspectors focus their inspections on what they feel are the high risk items because of the time constraints imposed. APHIS has a risk based system that provides at least annual inspections to all licenses facilities, and increases the need for inspection on those facilities that are at greatest risk for compliance issues. Additional items documented in the audit report are the number of inspections performed, the amount of fines collected, and number of violations reported. In FY 2003, APHIS fined a total of 13 facilities $22,805 for violations occurring, and six facilities with almost $9,200 in fines in FY 2004 as of June 30, 2004 (as reported in the December 2004 audit report). From 2001, until the same period in 2004, Missouri fined a total of six facilities, fining them a total of $3,800 for violations. In the period of 2002 and 2003, APHIS reported a total of 2,233 violations after inspecting 1,823 facilities, while Missouri reported 1,445 violations after inspecting 2,227 facilities. Since 2004, APHIS' Animal Welfare program and the Missouri program have been working closely together in the State; however, we believe the audit demonstrates that the Federal program compares favorably to the State program. However, the question received a "small extent" only one example was provided to demonstrate a favorable comparison.

Evidence: The program has sponsored and organized, with the aid of the Library of Congress, meetings between our program and the State veterinarians, as well as a national meeting of APHIS, , US Fish and Wildlife Service, and State wildlife officials. These seminars and meetings have been beneficial to the cooperation between State and Federal agencies. APHIS inspectors and staff have also participated in a multi- organizational task group on helping pets after natural disasters, FDA/CDC prairie dog follow-up on monkey pox, raccoon roundworm infection in potential pets, viral outbreak in lab animal supplier, State task groups on a variety of animal welfare issues, held mock inspections for veterinary students, participated in inspections with State officials, the Michigan Companion Animal Advisory Committee, Japanese MAFF audit of vendors, CWD joint project with PA Game Commission, biotechnology group, FEMA RRCC staffing, as well as participation in many program and APHIS committees and working groups. Under the terms of the MOU between MDA and APHIS, APHIS agrees to forward copies of each inspection/re-inspection report of a facility located in Missouri in which dogs or cats are inspected for recordkeeping requirements, and to notify MDA when a formal investigation of a facility has been initiated on a facility located in the State of Missouri. Likewise, MDA agrees to notify APHIS of all complaints received by MDA involving a facility licensed by APHIS and to flag MDA records during periods of time when a Federal investigation is ongoing to ensure there are no violations of the Freedom of Information Act. The cooperation between agencies avoids duplication of efforts and ensures the welfare of animals. There is also a formal Memorandum of Understanding between APHIS, The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS) for the following specific purposes: to ensure that these standards are applied to all such marine mammals while in the United States; to promote consistent guidance and information for persons responsible for the care and maintenance of marine mammals either under the jurisdiction of the MMPA or the AWA; to ensure that a foreign facility receiving a marine mammal that is or has been subject to U.S. jurisdiction meets standards for the care and maintenance of captive marine mammals comparable to those promulgated under the AWA; to promote the cooperation of the Parties in fulfilling their respective responsibilities relative to marine mammal care, handling, treatment, and transportation through the effective utilization of personnel and the unique capabilities of each Party, with minimum duplication of effort; and to ensure that an effective procedure is in place for the potential seizure, confiscation, euthanasia, or other disposition of marine mammals, under the direction of the responsible Party, when appropriate.

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

Explanation: APHIS is under constant scrutiny from not only internal review programs and OIG, but from our stakeholders. We are held daily to the standards of performing effectively and achieving results. The Office of Inspector General issued in October 2005, APHIS Program Inspection and Enforcement Activities (Report No: 33002-03-SF), which reviewed the inspection policies covered under the AWA, found that Animal Care employees are committed to enforcing the AWA and education research facilities and businesses on the humane handling of animals. The program made several recommendation that APHIS implemented that improved inspection and enforcement procedures to enhance the confidence of the public that regulated animals receive humane care and treatment. However, this question received a "no" because the program was unable to provide examples of independent evaluations that determined that it was operating effectively and achieving results. The OIG evaluation that was cited found problem areas. For example, the Report stated that the program "needed to improve its monitoring of research facilities;" that fines were "not always a deterrent to violators;" and that based on a "lack of clear National guidance, AC's Eastern Region is not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of the AWA." In addition, it is not clear that the OIG evaluation satisfied the criteria stated in question 2.6, which received a "no".

Evidence: Working groups assigned to individual programs ensure that programs are operating effectively and meeting stakeholder expectations regarding results. They also offer avenues for ongoing improvement. Since FY 2004, there were 18 Canine Care Workshop Seminars held throughout the country to give breeders opportunities to improve their compliance activities and improve the overall care of the animals involved in breeding. The overall response from these breeders was that the information provided was relevant to improving their business practices, and the information was useful in improving techniques used. Most of the respondents felt that the inspector segment was most beneficial for the breeders because this help the breeder fully understand the needs for compliance of the AWA, and shows what items the inspector are looking for in conducting inspection of facilities. A majority of the respondents stated that they would continue to attend these seminars because of the things that they learned from this seminar. APHIS has held several listening sessions and public meeting throughout 2006 regarding the Horse Protection Act. These meetings/events were attended by over 2,000 participants, including Federal and state government representatives, licensees, and members of the general public. In an effort to incorporate the most current technology in our enforcement activities, APHIS has invested in a GC/Mass Spec unit to identify foreign substances that may be used to sore horses. FY 2004 was a pilot testing year, and APHIS held over 5 public sessions to introduce and discuss the technology. In FY 2005 and FY 2006, APHIS used the technology at a number of walking horse shows. APHIS is currently using remote temperature sensing equipment and related software to help evaluate the general and micro-environments for captive animals in an effort to help determine enclosure features that will aid in maintenance of heat balance and thermoregulation in the animals. All of these activities serve to provide information to any member of the interested public. Through the forums mentioned APHIS continues to educate regulated and non-regulated entities on the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act and the Horse Protection Act, as well as eliciting the help of the public in reporting violations of the Acts and instances of possible unlicensed activity. APHIS employees remain involved in a broad range of related activities that promote animal care and welfare, and bring consideration of animal welfare to areas that may not have previously considered its importance and relevance. APHIS continues to use our Public Service Announcement (commercial) on safe pet travel, and to provide brochures (over 20,000/year), Live Animal labels, fact sheets, luggage tags, and pencils to the public all geared to support our Safe Pet Travel campaign. The information in the update Traveling with your pet printed brochure can also be accessed electronically on our home page. Materials are provided to schools, travel agents, the general public, State veterinarians, and distributed at a wide variety of meetings and training sessions.

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

Explanation: Through regulatory impact analyses of significant rules, APHIS ensures that its goals and benefits are achieved with minimum societal cost and maximum benefit. Through regulatory impact analyses of specific rules, APHIS ensures that its goals and benefits are achieved with minimum societal cost and maximum benefit. APHIS assesses how each additional regulation adds to the current level of regulatory requirements and strives to keep the regulatory compliance burden at a minimum. The program also strives to allow licensees, registrants and research facilities to minimize costs to comply with the AWA while also surviving financially. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, APHIS quantifies and reports the level of paperwork burden when publishing proposed rules and request comments on how we can further minimize the burden. While APHIS' primary concern in implementing regulations is to promote and protect the welfare of animals, it works with licensees, registrants, and research facilities whenever possible to assure flexibility. All AWA regulations seek to maximize net benefits. The program's goal is to ensure that animals protected by the AWA receive humane care and treatment, and all the program's regulations further this goal. The program is tracking its progress toward meeting the goal through the percentage of facilities in compliance at the last inspection. The compliance rate has increased from 58 percent in FY 2001 to 70 percent in FY 2006. This increase in compliance means that more animals are in facilities that meet the standards of care outlined in the regulations promulgated under the AWA. However, while all rules are not reviewed on a periodic basis, APHIS is reviewing the impact of its regualtions on three major constituencies: exhibitors, dealers and research facilities.

Evidence: APHIS assesses how each additional regulation adds to the current level of regulatory requirements and strives to keep the regulatory compliance burden at a minimum. Regulations are updated as needed based on scientific reviews of individual petitions filed. Also, in accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in each regulation rule has been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). APHIS also reviews burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act every 3 years as determined by OMB for all reporting and recordkeeping requirements under the AWA regulations and standards. APHIS is also committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. Enforcement of the AWA is based on random, unannounced inspections to determine compliance. In addition, APHIS uses a risk-based assessment to determine minimum inspection frequency. After inspection, all licensees are given an appropriate amount of time to correct any problems and become compliant. This cooperative system has been more effective than enforcement actions for each citation. Furthermore, a significant number of citations are for conditions that do not directly or immediately impact the health and well-being of the animals. Three examples of rules that have been published in the Federal Register include: Licensing and Inspection Requirements for Dealers of Dogs Intended for Hunting, Breeding, or Security Purposes; Animal Welfare, Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals; and Shift Cage Requirements.