Prior Service Military Records, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Wisconsin Public Records Requests – Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs (.gov)

Report on Proposed VA Staffing Reductions and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report analyzes the proposed reduction of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) staffing to 2019 levels. It evaluates the potential impacts of these cuts in the context of increased veteran demand for services following the PACT Act and assesses the proposal’s alignment with key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

2.0 Conflict with SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The proposed staffing reduction presents a significant challenge to achieving SDG 3, which aims to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all. The core conflict arises from a sharp increase in demand for VA services clashing with a proposed decrease in capacity.

• Increased Service Demand: Following the PACT Act, the VA has experienced a record influx of claims. Over the past two fiscal years, the VA received 4,414,334 disability claims, a 29.8% increase over the prior two-year period.
• Impact on Mental Health (Target 3.4): Reductions in staffing and programs may increase stress for veterans seeking benefits and care. This could undermine recent progress in reducing veteran suicide rates. Maintaining robust support systems is critical to upholding the policy effective January 17, 2023, which provides no-cost emergency care to veterans in acute suicidal crisis, a cornerstone of promoting mental well-being.
• Access to Healthcare: A “chainsaw approach” to staffing cuts, targeting a numerical goal without assessing mission requirements, threatens to create significant barriers to essential healthcare services for an expanded population of eligible veterans.

3.0 Contradiction of SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

SDG 16 calls for effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. The proposed strategy of setting a numerical reduction target without a corresponding mission analysis is inconsistent with the principles of building a strong and responsive institution.

• Need for Data-Driven Governance: An effective institution would conduct a thorough evaluation to determine precise staffing needs. This involves analyzing underutilized services in some regions against over-burdened programs in others to achieve a strategic “right-sizing” that aligns resources with the mission.
• Proposed Alternative Model: A more sustainable approach, consistent with SDG 16, would involve:
  1. Utilizing skill-diverse teams and population models to plan staffing, similar to methodologies used for military treatment facilities.
  2. Engaging stakeholders in each clinical area to create accurate resource models.
  3. Conducting analysis with a focus on both mission readiness and the requirement to serve the veteran population effectively.
• Accountability and Transparency: An arbitrary cut of over 83,000 employees based on a numerical goal rather than mission requirements lacks the integrity, research, and analysis expected of a just and accountable public institution.

4.0 Implications for SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The PACT Act was a significant step toward reducing inequalities in healthcare access for veterans exposed to toxins. The proposed staffing cuts threaten to reverse this progress, potentially creating new disparities in service delivery.

• Risk to Newly Eligible Veterans: The largest outreach campaign in VA history successfully expanded eligibility to millions of veterans. A reduction in workforce capacity could disproportionately impact this new cohort, creating a significant inequality between their legal entitlement to care and the VA’s practical ability to provide it.
• Geographic Disparities: Without a strategic analysis, blanket cuts could exacerbate existing regional inequalities, leaving veterans in high-demand areas with insufficient support while services in other areas are unnecessarily reduced.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The author’s entire argument revolves around the potential negative impact of staffing cuts on veteran healthcare. Specific concerns include access to care, the quality of service delivery, and, most critically, mental health services and suicide prevention. The article explicitly states that the proposed cuts are “going to have a real impact on veteran health and well-being.”

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article critiques the decision-making process of the VA, a key public institution. The author questions the effectiveness and accountability of an institution that uses a “chainsaw approach” to staffing instead of a data-driven one based on “mission requirements.” The plea for “integrity, research, inclusion, discussion, TIME, and analysis” is a call for a stronger, more accountable, and effective institution.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  This goal is relevant through the focus on ensuring a specific population group—veterans—has access to essential services. The article highlights a policy that expands emergency mental healthcare to all veterans in crisis, including the “9 million Veterans who are not currently enrolled in VA.” This policy is a direct measure to reduce inequality in healthcare access, and the author fears that staffing cuts will undermine this progress.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The planned layoff of “a set number of employees (83,000+)” directly relates to employment. While the article’s main focus is on the impact on service delivery, such a large-scale reduction in the workforce is a significant issue connected to stable and decent work.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being

   The article has a strong focus on mental health, specifically veteran suicide. It mentions the VA’s progress in “reducing the incidence of veteran suicide” and emphasizes that the “decreasing rate of veteran suicide needs to continue.” The concern that staffing cuts will “increase stress experienced by veterans” directly relates to promoting mental health and well-being.

2. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including access to quality essential health-care services

   The author discusses the need to provide “essential services” and a “better veteran experience.” The expansion of care through the PACT Act and the policy providing “no cost” emergency care to all veterans in suicidal crisis, regardless of enrollment status, are clear steps toward achieving universal health coverage for this population. The core argument is that staff cuts threaten this access and the quality of care.

3. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels

   The author criticizes the VA’s top-down decision to “cut to that number regardless of mission requirements.” They advocate for a more effective and accountable process, citing their past experience using “population models to plan staffing” and working with “stakeholders in each clinical area.” This is a direct call for the VA to be a more effective and responsive institution.

4. Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social inclusion of all

   The policy that offers a “life-line to ALL veterans,” especially the “9 million Veterans who are not currently enrolled in VA,” is a direct example of promoting the inclusion of a specific group in essential services, thereby reducing inequality in access to life-saving care.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator 3.4.2: Suicide mortality rate

   This indicator is explicitly referenced. The author mentions the “decreasing rate of veteran suicide” and cites the “VA 2024 Suicide Prevention Annual Report,” which would contain data on this specific indicator.

2. Implied Indicator: Number of people accessing essential health services

   The article provides several figures that act as proxies for this indicator. It notes the PACT Act expanded the number of eligible veterans and led to “4,414,334 claims for disability compensation benefits” in two years. It also mentions the policy expansion aims to increase access for “up to 9 million Veterans who are not currently enrolled in VA.” These numbers measure the demand for and access to VA services.

3. Implied Indicator: Institutional capacity and responsiveness

   The article implies that the ratio of staff to the number of claims is a key measure of the VA’s capacity. The author notes a “29.8% more” claims volume, while the VA plans to return to “2019 staffing levels.” This discrepancy is used to argue that the institution’s capacity to be effective and responsive is at risk.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: news.va.gov