The following letter provides the HSUS guidelines which municipalities may use to set local funding levels for animal care and control.
NYC's current levels (approximately 67¢ per person annually) falls far below HSUS's $3-5 recommendation. The results are tens of thousands of unnecessary euthanasias performed each year in NYC.
HSUS
The Humane Society of the United States
(202) 452-1100 FAX (202) 778-6132
March 16, 1995
Barbara Travis
Dear Ms. Travis:
I enjoyed speaking with you on the telephone today. As promised, here is a brief "history" of our recommendation regarding per capita animal-control costs.
As I indicated, we do not have an item-by-item breakdown of what our recommended funding levels should pay for. We instead tell governments that it should pay for a "full-service" program, one that includes much more than basic animal impound services. Every municipality, for example, should provide at least some funds for spay/neuter promotion and/or services with an eye toward reducing long-term costs. For one city, that can mean a public low-cost spay/neuter clinic supported entirely by user fees and public funds. For another, it can mean educational programs or low-cost programs with cooperating private veterinarians.
The HSUS has for many years recommended $3 to $5 per person per year for effective, full-service animal care and control programs. The formula we routinely provide local government officials is this: "Population of service area X $3.00 = Low-end budget. Population of service area X $5.00 = High-end budget."
Based on the limited archival information The HSUS Companion Animals section has from the 1970s and early 1980s, our best guess is that the recommendations were developed in the late 1970s when the original Management Information Service report was prepared for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Incidentally, those figures have never been adjusted for inflation.
The $3 to $5 recommendation presents local governments with a funding range for what effective animal control programs generally need . While we're sure there are programs that run well on shoestring budgets, clearly most are not as effective as they could be. The HSUS believes it is government's responsibility to fund animal care and control services that include programs such as humane education, spay/neuter promotion and programs, responsible shelter adoptions, and other services. Our budgeting recommendations to local government decision-makers are made with that belief in mind.
It is important for government officials to remember that such programs not only do a better job of protecting public health and protecting animals, but they also reduce animal control costs over the long term. It's also important to note that while monies from the general fund must be used to pay for animal care and control services, a large proportion of costs can be recovered through dog and cat licensing, impoundment fees, citation fees, adoption fees, and other fees.
The latest update of the ICMA's Management
Information Service report, published in September 1993, presents the many
rationales for full service animal care and control services, highlights many
successful programs in the
Also enclosed is a one-page tabulation of results from a 1992 survey
(showing data from fiscal years 1989-1990) done by the
I hope this information helps. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely
/s/ Geoffrey L. Handy
Editor
Shelter Sense
Companion Animals section
Enc.
ANIMAL CONTROL COMPARABLE STUDY
FY89-90
|
County |
|
Animal Control Providers w/in Count |
Population Served |
|
Animal Control Budget |
Budget per capita |
% General Fund Support |
Staff per 100,000 pop |
Animals Rec's at Shelter |
Households |
Pop |
Animal Pop Estimate |
|
|
729,000 |
(1) |
729,000 |
|
$2,350,000 |
$3.22 |
100.00 |
10.84 |
30,812 |
264,395 |
591 |
251,175 |
|
|
706,000 |
(1) |
616,000 |
|
$2,455,300 |
$3.99 |
79.36 |
10.06 |
19,514 |
282,236 |
152 |
268,124 |
|
Pima, AZ |
640,600 |
(1) |
640,600 |
|
$2,020,159 |
$3.15 |
47.53 |
10.30 |
22,249 |
253,200 |
28 |
240,540 |
|
|
610,500 |
(1) |
610,500 |
|
$1,468,436 |
$2.41 |
81.63 |
7.21 |
16,053 |
235,200 |
258 |
223,440 |
|
|
570,000 |
(1) |
570,000 |
|
$1,200,000 |
$2.11 |
62.92 |
7.37 |
21,500 |
170,000 |
168 |
161,500 |
|
|
568,700 |
(1) |
568,700 |
|
$1,822,670 |
$3.20 |
71.98 |
7.56 |
19,726 |
240,800 |
559 |
228,760 |
|
Pierce, WA |
547,000 |
(1) Tacoma/Pierce Humane Society |
500,000 |
|
$1,280,065 |
$2.56 |
42.93 |
7.00 |
36,363 |
208,600 |
125 |
198,170 |
|
|
500,000 |
(1) City of |
485,000 |
|
$2,488,000 |
$5.13 |
82.98 |
12.90 |
16,440 |
178,407 |
338 |
169,487 |
|
|
610,500 |
(6) |
380,000 |
|
$1,407,000 |
$3.70 |
92.15 |
4.21 |
18,665 |
248,300 |
32 |
235,885 |
|
Kern, CA |
543,000 |
(6) |
350,000 |
|
$1,730,967 |
$4.95 |
78.89 |
10.57 |
37,259 |
170,000 |
26 |
202,933 |
|
Averages |
602,530 |
|
544,980 |
|
$1,822,260 |
$3.44 |
74.04 |
8.80 |
23,858 |
225,114 |
228 |
218,001 |
Notes:
1. The "Population Served" category reflects the actual population
served by the county animal control program.
2. Cities designated (*) operate their own animal control program in addition
to the county.
3. Counties designated (**) are not comparable in population, but are often
used in comparisons.