ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE/STRUCTURE
Allegations made by past and present staff of the CACC raise substantial questions regarding the ability of the CACC's senior management and its Board of Directors to provide effective leadership. According to these people, ineffective leadership has fostered an organizational culture characterized by the distrust of individuals and groups important to the CACC's success. These include members of the public, advocacy and rescue organizations, and the CACC's own employees and volunteers. Allegedly, the CACC has floundered under poor management since its creation, and its difficulties have been compounded by its Board of Directors' inability or unwillingness to take affirmative steps. The inability to effect change may in fact be endemic to the Board's structure. This organizational culture and structure has allegedly adversely affected the CACC's performance in all of the operational and administrative areas addressed in this report and likely contributed to:
The CACC's allegedly contentious relations with numerous individuals and groups suggest a defensive and insular organizational environment. The CACC's response to this review of its performance by the Council is illustrative. For example, in response to a request for information from the CACC by Council Member Kathryn Freed, Martin Kurtz, Executive Director of the CACC, wrote:
It is my understanding that this investigation is limited to the "Contract Committees [sic] oversight function" relating to contract issues. Attempts to go beyond this scope into operational issues raise serious concerns regarding the motives behind any such investigation. [34]
Mr. Kurtz's suspicion of the Council's review has been echoed by other City staff coordinating the production of materials requested by the Council. On April 17, 1997, a representative from the Mayor's Office of City Legislative Affairs, noted the following in her response to a request for information by Council Member Freed:
As you know this contract is sensitive and any concerns Councilmembers and others have about it are important. However, it is necessary we engage in productive communication, and not resort to time consuming, fruitless investigations of the CACC to address the problem.The intrusive nature of these investigations may jeopardize the City's continued service of this provider. [35]
Long before the Council began its review and sought information from the CACC, animal advocates had been seeking information from the CACC regarding its activities. When such requests were made, the CACC's typical response was that:
The CACC is not subject to FOIL and as a result your request under FOIL is denied. Even if the CACC were subject to FOIL, your request would otherwise be objectionable. However, acting under the CACC's own corporate policy to allow access to public information to the maximum extent possible, your request for information is being considered under our own corporate policy and we expect to respond to you within two weeks. [36]
The CACC's reference to its own corporate policy allowing access to public information to the maximum extent possible appears to be entirely self-serving. In fact, Robert Freedman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government, Department of State, State of New York opined that "[b]ased on the relationship between New York City and the CACC and the judicial interpretation of the Freedom of Information Law, I believe that the CACC is an "agency" required to comply with that statute."[37] Mr. Freedman also stated that the CACC "is essentially a creation of governmentnot-for-profits are not [usually subject to FOIL], but in those situations where there is substantial government control, the courts have held that they are subject to the law."[38] In light of this opinion and the CACC's continued defiance of it, a coalition of more than 40 animal advocacy groups -- the Shelter Reform Action Committee -- recently filed a lawsuit against the CACC concerning its denial of requests made under FOIL and the Open Meetings Law.[39]
A defensive organizational culture within the CACC is further suggested by the CACC's self-imposed isolation from organizations and individuals with similar missions. Senior CACC staff have failed to take advantage of offers of assistance, including offers from established shelters in the metropolitan area. For example, the Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer of the ASPCA, indicated to the Council that the CACC did not take advantage of the ASPCA's offer to help the CACC with its operations during and after the September 1-December 31, 1994 transition period, when responsibility for animal care and control services was being transferred from the ASPCA to the CACC. [40]
In addition, the Director of Operations for the North Shore Animal League (NSAL), stated that he had invited CACC managers to visit his facility and to participate in NSAL training sessions.[41] In the two years since this offer was made, unfortunately, only two CACC staff members have ever visited his facility.[42]
There have been other offers of assistance which have not been fully acted upon by the CACC. For example, Drs. Peter Borchelt and Linda Goodloe, licensed Animal Behaviorists, offered pro bono services to the CACC, including educational staff seminars on animal behavior, and the development of support and counseling programs for staff. Only one seminar has been held.
In addition to failing to take full advantage of the resources offered by organizations and individuals who share a common purpose with the CACC, the CACC has fostered a work environment which has resulted in an apparently high turnover rate. Council staff identified seven individuals in management positions who either resigned or were dismissed from the CACC during the brief period from March to October 1996. These include individuals serving in the following positions:[43]
| March 1996 | Volunteer and Fundraising Coordinator |
| March 1996 | Deputy Director of Operations |
| May 1996 | Public Relations Coordinator |
| July 1996 | Manhattan Shelter Director |
| July 1996 | Rescue and Exotics Coordinator |
| September 1996 | Adoptions Coordinator |
| October 1996 | Volunteer and Foster Care Coordinator |
Three more senior CACC managers resigned or were dismissed in the last four months. These included the CACC's Executive Director and two other senior CACC staff persons:
| February 1997 | Executive Director |
| March 1997 | Manhattan Shelter Veterinarian |
| May 1997 | Manhattan Shelter Director |
In the past fifteen months, no less than ten senior CACC managers have been fired or resigned from the CACC. These departures have allegedly had an immeasurable effect on the morale of staff, as well as the CACC's ability to maintain good animal care and control programs in the face of constant change.
Compounding the deleterious effects of CACC's high staff turnover rate, the CACC has allegedly marginalized the role of rescuers and volunteers, individuals on whom many of the most successful shelters in the country rely. At the same time that more and more animals receive less of the loving attention which volunteers provide when they walk a dog or groom a cat, the ability of local rescue groups to remove animals from the CACC for private adoption has also reportedly declined. According to one local rescue group, the number of animal rescues have declined dramatically. The group claims to now have little contact with the CACC adoption staff, and that it is seldom if ever advised of special or needy cases.
The CACC's volunteer program has also suffered. The CACC's contentious relationship with its volunteers is best dramatized by its "firing" of six volunteers in the late Summer/early Fall of 1996, allegedly for publicly criticizing the CACC's operations. Mr. Kurtz wrote to one of the dismissed volunteers indicating the reasons for her eventual dismissal:
When you chose to publicly denounce CACC at a press conference... you effectively destroyed any trust that CACC had in you as a volunteer. With that act, you illustrated your unwillingness to work along with the dedicated volunteers and employees of our shelter, and instead chose to ally yourself with those who make unfounded attacks on CACC. [44]
This group of volunteers included two women who produced a cable access show featuring adoptable CACC animals, a woman who obtained approximately $50,000 worth of donated labor to construct a dog run at the Manhattan Shelter, a woman who walked CACC dogs almost daily, and a woman who said that she regularly groomed the animals to improve their chances of adoption. In fact, in the Summer 1996 edition of its newsletter, "Tail Notes," the CACC praised the same volunteers it "fired" three months later because they dared to criticize the CACC's operations:
A daily romp in the sunshine and fresh air is now part of the lives of CACC's Manhattan shelter dogs [The dog run] was only a dream until Jane Colton, a dedicated volunteer, let out a cry for help.
Since it originally aired on January 6, 1996, 'Save a Shelter Pet' has been responsible for hundreds of phone calls and visits from people interested in adoption and in volunteering for the CACC and, most importantly, has led directly to nearly a hundred adoptions. It was chosen Top 10 Cable Access Show by Channel Surfer USA, a newsletter and cable show, all thanks to the dedication and talent of Sara and Sylvia Lee.
Nothing on her volunteer application gave any indication of the gem that had come to the CACC. Kumiko Teroka has quietly made herself indispensable. Better than the U.S. mail, through rain, heat or freezing cold, Kumiko comes to the Manhattan shelter four or five days a week to walk dogs. She can coax out the shyest cowerer, handle the most rambunctious barker, and do a master juggling act with her charges in the dog run.[45]
Such a high turnover of staff and firing of volunteers--regardless of the reasons--suggests that poor leadership is partly to blame. In interviews with Council staff, former employees and volunteers were uniform in describing the CACC as an organization which lacked the capacity to nurture its staffs' strengths. Former employees as well as volunteers indicated that suggestions for improvement of conditions, policies, and practices were not welcome. In addition, they claim they were ostracized for having even raised such suggestions. Several people characterized the atmosphere of the shelters as one of fear, distrust and low morale. These criticisms were leveled at both the Executive Director and other senior staff. Most recently CACC employees circulated a petition criticizing the leadership and insensitivity of the Director of the Manhattan Shelter: Shortly thereafter, this individual left this position.
The alleged failure of leadership at the CACC appears to extend beyond the senior management to the Board of Directors. A review of abstracts of meetings of the Board reveals its failure to act on certain issues fundamental to the CACC's mission:
The CACC has begun planning and fundraising to build a spay/neuter clinic in the Manhattan shelter. At this clinic, the CACC could ensure that all animals would be spayed/neutered before they left the shelter, a major step in reducing the number of unwanted animals born in this city. These services would be financially affordable and readily available to all New Yorkers.[49]
In 1995, the CACC applied for and received a $25,000 grant from the NSAL to reimburse participating veterinarians for spay/neuter services provided to owners of animals adopted from the shelter system in conjunction with the CACC's spay/neuter certificate program.[50] At the January 30, 1996 meeting, Mr. Kurtz reported that the NSAL had offered the services of its architects and fund-raisers to create a CACC spay/neuter clinic. On May 29, 1996, the Board discussed establishing a CACC spay/neuter clinic in the Brooklyn Shelter. More than two years after this matter was first discussed by the Board, and despite the CACC's contractual obligation to spay/neuter animals prior to adoption, the CACC still does not have an in-house spay/neuter clinic.
The abstracts of the Board meetings do not reveal the views or votes of the individual members. However, the composition and By-laws of the Board-which is composed of three City Commissioners who serve as ex officio directors, and four directors appointed by the Mayor, ensures that control over important action is relegated to the three City Commissioners. Specifically, a vote to appoint or remove an Officer of the Corporation or to fix an Officer's compensation, to appoint additional Directors to the Executive Committee, or to amend the CACC's By-Laws or the Certificate of Incorporation must include the votes of all three ex officio Directors.[54]
Ex officio directors also have terms of office which are more favorable than those of appointed directors. They serve as a member of the Board until such time as they are no longer Commissioner of the agency which has a seat on the CACC Board. In contrast, the appointed members--whose terms run from one annual meeting to the next, and who continue until a successor is appointed, or until they resign--can be removed at any time, with or without cause, by the Mayor or the Deputy Mayor for Operations. This structure, which fails to provide the appointed members with fixed terms and places them in a position of being dismissed at any moment may have a chilling effect on the exercise of independent judgment.[55]
The Board of Directors is responsible for appointing the CACC's Executive Director, Secretary, Treasurer, and other officers, and through its leadership establishes CACC policies and priorities. To the degree that the Board's actions directly affect the CACC's performance, any assessment of the CACC's performance must necessarily include an assessment of the Board's leadership. As a matter of law, the obligation of reviewing the CACC's performance rests with the Department of Health. Pursuant to Procurement Policy Board (PPB) rules, the DOH, as the contractor agency, is required to perform annual evaluations of the performance of the CACC, including whether the CACC has complied with its contractual obligations.[56] Additionally, not less than 120 days prior to the expiration of the CACC's contract, DOH's Chief Contracting Officer is required to make a written determination as to whether the CACC's performance for the contract period was in compliance with the requirements of the contract.[57] Thus the DOH Commissioner, or his employee, is responsible for monitoring and reporting on the CACC's performance and contract compliance, matters for which the DOH Commissioner bears responsibility as a Board Member.
To the degree that any finding of poor performance by DOH of the CACC may reflect poorly upon the CACC's Board of Directors, and in particular upon the DOH Commissioner, DOH's role as manager and monitor of the CACC's performance poses, at the least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Even though it is highly unlikely that the CACC's performance is presently being monitored or may in the future be monitored by the DOH Commissioner personally, the current situation, at a minimum, creates the appearance that those individuals at DOH responsible for conducting oversight of the CACC may be less than vigilant.[58,59]
SPAY/NEUTER POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Spay/neuter practices are an important component of any municipal animal care and control program. A comprehensive and effective spay/neuter program can dramatically reduce the costs of animal care and control.
The contract between the City and the CACC requires the CACC to "provide, or cause to be provided, spay/neutering services to eligible animals prior to placing animals for adoption as a means of controlling the animal over-population problem in New York City."[60] The requirement that the CACC implement a comprehensive, pre-adoption spay/neuter program is consistent with the practices of other municipalities, and essential to reducing the City's animal overpopulation. In Los Angeles, California, for example, three spay/neuter clinics handled 144,530 animals in 1970-1971, the year they opened. Ten years later, 81,661 animals--a 43% reduction--were handled.[61] In 1973, the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, which includes the City of San Jose, opened a public low-cost spay/neuter clinic. Between 1976 and 1990 the number of animals handled at the Humane Society's shelter dropped by 41% from 63,805 to 37,791. [62] In Philadelphia, the Women's Humane Society instituted a public spay/neuter program in 1975. Between 1982 and 1990, the number of animals handled by their shelter dropped from 13,167 to 4,526--a 66% reduction.[63]
The experiences of these cities demonstrate that promotion of a comprehensive, low-cost spay/neuter program, will reduce the volume, and in time the cost, of animal care and control. In fact, a report by the Minnesota Animal Population and Control Study Commission estimated that an investment of $1 in low-cost spay/neuter services would generate nearly $10 of savings in animal care and control costs because fewer animals would have to be sheltered, fed and euthanized.[64] With inflation taken into account, it was estimated that each dollar spent on low-cost spay/neuter in 1989 would produce more than $18.00 in savings on animal care and control costs over a ten year period.[65]
Spay/neuter not only reduces pet overpopulation and with it the cost of animal care and control, it also provides a number of other benefits. "For instance, statistics show that intact animals are over two times more likely to bite than sterilized animals; in fact, unsterilized dogs account for 95% of all fatal maulings."[66] The spaying/neutering of animals also significantly improves the health of companion animals.
Despite these well-known benefits of spay/neuter, the CACC continues--in direct violation of its contract with the City--to release unspayed and unneutered animals to the public through its adoption program. The CACC allows adopters to take unspayed and unneutered animals from the shelter system if they agree to alter the animal at a later date pursuant to their adoption contract. Each animal not spayed or neutered prior to adoption is supposed to be accompanied by a certificate entitling the owner's pet to a free examination within 10 days of the adoption and a free spay/neuter procedure by a licensed veterinarian participating in the CACC's spay/neuter certificate program.
Approximately 50 veterinarians throughout the five boroughs participate in the CACC's spay/neuter program and accept the certificate as full payment for an initial exam and surgical alteration. New owners are responsible for contacting a participating veterinarian. Once the initial exam and alteration have been completed, the participating veterinarian submits the spay/neuter certificate to the CACC for reimbursement which ranges from $30 to $45 dollars, depending on the type and sex of the animal.[67]
This approach, however, makes the CACC's spay/neuter program essentially voluntary, and ineffective. The CACC does not have any comprehensive program to check on adopters to determine if owners fulfilled their obligation to spay/neuter their pet once they took their pet home.[68] However, the low redemption rate of spay/neuter certificates demonstrates that the CACC's program is a failure. Of approximately 8,800 certificates distributed to adopters during 1995 and 1996, only 3,395--or 38.6% have been redeemed.[69] Since most veterinarians not affiliated with the CACC certificate program charge from $60 to $250 to do a spay/neuter procedure, it is likely that most owners of adopted animals whose certificates were not redeemed have not absorbed this additional cost, but have simply failed to alter their animals. Accordingly, the CACC is responsible for releasing approximately 5,400 unaltered animals in New York City in the past two years--animals which may very likely reproduce and contribute to the City's costs in this area for years to come.
The CACC has tried other methods to ensure alteration prior to adoption, but their implementation has been problematic. For example, the CACC entered into an agreement with the Fund for Animals' Have-A-Heart Clinic to provide spay/neuter services.[70] In contrast to the post-adoption spay/neuter services provided by participating veterinarians, the Have-A-Heart Clinic performs alterations prior to adoption. Animals adopted on a Saturday, Sunday, or Wednesday are transported to the Have-A-Heart Clinic to be spayed/neutered. The Have-A-Heart Clinic is reimbursed by the CACC for the spay/neuter procedure it performs at the same rates as the veterinarians participating in the certificate program.[71] New owners pay the adoption fee and on the following Monday or Thursday evening pick up their new pet from the CACC.
The CACC's use of the Have-A-Heart clinic to perform spay/neuter procedures, however, has not been without controversy. Between September 17, 1996 and October 17, 1996, the CACC sent 76 dogs and cats to be spayed/neutered at the Have-A-Heart Clinic. After alteration, these animals were returned to the CACC and made available for adoption. Twenty-three of the animals were never adopted; they were euthanized.[72] Although the CACC no longer sends animals to the Have-A-Heart Clinic prior to adoption, the effectiveness of this program is limited because spaying/neutering can only be performed on certain days, and only so many procedures can be performed on any single day.
Pre-adoption spay/neuter procedures were also done, until recently, by the ASPCA clinic which operated in the Brooklyn Shelter. Animals adopted from the Brooklyn Shelter which met the relevant veterinary standards were taken to the ASPCA clinic in the same building to be spayed or neutered. The adopter then picked up her new pet at the Brooklyn Shelter one or two days later.[73] This arrangement proved to be beneficial to adopters and also helped the CACC conveniently provide spay/neuter procedures. In December, 1996 however, in the midst of negotiations over the ASPCA's rent for this space, the ASPCA received a letter from the CACC terminating the ASPCA's occupancy in the Brooklyn Shelter. The letter from the CACC to the ASPCA, stated:
As you may be aware, the City[-]owned Brooklyn and Manhattan Shelters operated by the CACC have been scheduled for capital improvements... This will require the ASPCA to vacate the space that it presently occupies at that time.... It is with regret that I must inform you of this especially in light of our current efforts to negotiate an arrangement to spay and neuter our animals at the Brooklyn Shelter. Although our negotiations must be placed on hold as a result of this, the CACC would still like to entertain the idea of having the ASPCA return.[74]
The "eviction" of the ASPCA Clinic has further weakened the CACC's piecemeal spay/neuter program.
While the CACC is still struggling with implementing an effective spay/neuter program, humane societies and animal control agencies in other cities, such as Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles and Seattle, are moving to further reduce animal overpopulation by instituting early spay/neuter programs.[75] Early spay/neuter is a procedure for animals between the ages of eight weeks and six months. Traditionally, even shelters which aggressively promoted spay/neuter allowed animals of this age to be adopted without being altered. Early spay/neuter was first endorsed by the American Humane Association (AHA) in 1991 and is now supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA), the American Kennel Club (AKC), and the Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA).[76] Early spay/neuter allows shelters which adopt out animals younger than six months of age, to insure that such animals are altered before they leave the shelter, instead of relying on adopters to voluntary comply with the spay/neuter clauses in their adoption contracts, as does the CACC.
The City needs an effective low-cost spay/neuter program. Thousands of animals are adopted from the CACC each year and thousands more are adopted or purchased from other shelters in the metropolitan area. Most, if not all of these animals need to be spayed or neutered. Were the CACC to ensure spay/neuter of animals prior to adoption and provide low-cost spay/neuter services to the public at large, it could significantly reduce the animal overpopulation and, over the long run, the cost of animal care and control.
The means to address this issue--an in-house spay/neuter clinic--has been discussed by the CACC for more than two years. At the March 13, 1995 meeting of the CACC's Board of Directors, Mr. Kurtz indicated that two rooms on the second floor of the Manhattan Shelter could be converted into a spay/neuter facility.[77] Converting this or another space to an in-house clinic would not require excessive capital investment. A former Manhattan Shelter Veterinarian at the CACC indicated that an in-house spay/neuter clinic would not mandate a large capital outlay, requiring only the purchase of approximately three large surgical tables, four anesthesia machines, oxygen tanks, surgical packs, suture materials, intravenous stands and recirculating water blankets. While additional staff would be required to implement this or an equivalent comprehensive spay/neuter program, it is required by the terms of the CACC's contract with the City.[78]
The CACC should:
ADOPTION POLICIES AND PRACTICES
While spay/neuter policies and programs are a means of reducing the continued growth of the animal overpopulation, a successful shelter adoption program is the key to ensuring the survival of the animals who arrive at the shelter every day. Numerous factors unassociated with the animals themselves, including a shelter's location and condition, its reputation in the community, and its hours of operation (all discussed in separate sections of this report) impact the number of potential owners who visit shelters. Once in a shelter, however, an animal's appearance and health have a significant impact on whether it is adopted. The CACC has failed in all of these areas.
Although the City's contract with the CACC requires it to "provide adoption services at the shelters and receiving facilities and... [to] promote adoption as a means of placing animals,"[79] the percentage of animals adopted from the CACC is low when compared to the shelter average nationwide and to individual shelters in urban areas. According to the CACC, in calendar years 1995 and 1996, it adopted out and transferred for adoption 17% and 18%, respectively, of the animals it received. In other words, fewer than one in five animals received by the CACC finds a new home.
In contrast to the CACC's 17% adoption rate in 1995, 24% of animals entering shelters nationwide were adopted.[80] Several municipal shelters significantly outperform the CACC and have better rates than the national average. For example, in San Francisco, 29% of the more than 18,000 animals which entered the shelter system in Fiscal Year 1996 were adopted.[81] Bergen County Animal Shelter in Teterboro, New Jersey achieved even better results--a 43% adoption rate.[82]
Moreover, the CACC's low adoption rate of 17% in 1995 and 18% in 1996 includes animals transferred to other shelters for eventual adoption as opposed to adopted directly from the CACC. The CACC currently transfers animals to the ASPCA, NSAL and other shelters, which in turn offer the animals for adoption to the public. In fact, for calendar years 1995 and 1996, these transfers accounted for 51% and 38%, respectively, of the CACC's total adoptions. Discounting the number of additional animals that may have been adopted by rescuers, direct adoptions by the CACC for calendar years 1995 and 1996 totaled 4,703 and 6,904, respectively.
The poor adoption rate at CACC are directly related to the extraordinary number of euthanasias it performs. In both 1995 and 1996, the CACC euthanized 71% of the animals which entered its shelters--totaling 85,716, or approximately 120 per day. The contrast between adoptions and killings is illustrated in the following graphs.
Source: CACC Monthly Animal Activity
Reports
Source: CACC Monthly Animal Activity
Reports
In light of the poor siting of CACC shelters, the CACC should do everything possible to ensure that their animals make the best impression possible on potential adopters who do visit its facilities. In addition to an animal's age and size, the likelihood of its being adopted is affected by its health and appearance. One can visualize a well groomed animal as a pet in one's home. At the May 22, 1995 meeting of the Board, the CACC's Adoptions Coordinator emphasized the importance of grooming to a successful adoption program.[83] Nevertheless, one of the volunteers "fired" by the CACC in the Fall of 1996 was a woman who stated that she had paid approximately $2,000 to put herself through the New York School of Dog Grooming and spent her time at the Manhattan Shelter grooming animals. To date, there is still no organized grooming effort within the CACC.
In addition to grooming, the health of an animal will also affect its adoptability. According to a former CACC veterinarian, disease control has been a problem at the Manhattan shelter, although it has improved lately. Four of the veterinarians participating in the CACC's spay/neuter certificate program who were contacted by Council staff confirmed that animals adopted from the CACC, which they had examined, suffered from illnesses such as parvo virus, heartworm, and diarrhea.
Rescuers have also noted problems with the health and appearance of animals offered for adoption by the CACC. In a letter to Council staff dated December 20, 1996, a representative of one rescue group claimed:
We had personally witnessed many unhygienic practices in the cat adoption room staff day to day, frequent unnecessary touching of cats for adoption (usually on the face and nose where illness rapidly transmits), use of ineffective and dangerous disinfectants like Lysol instead of veterinary disinfectants.[84]
Representatives of local rescue groups alleged that the majority of the animals they remove from the CACC are ill--most often with severe upper respiratory infection (URI) and distemper.
The CACC should: