FACILITY LOCATIONS AND HOURS OF OPERATION
Shelters which are centrally located have greater value because of their convenience and accessibility to potential adopters. Customer amenities, such as close proximity to public transportation, extended hours of operation and the adequacy of parking are essential to attracting adopters, especially at poorly located facilities.
The location of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Shelters, in areas of the City which lack substantial pedestrian traffic and other customer amenities was largely predetermined. According to the New York City Zoning Resolution, animal shelters and receiving facilities are classified as semi-industrial uses of space and are restricted to C8 commercial zones of the City.[85]
The Manhattan Shelter is located in a mixed commercial and residential area on East 110th Street. It is the primary adoption center for Manhattan residents, yet it is not centrally-located within the borough. It is far from major shopping and business districts, therefore there is little pedestrian traffic. Its neighbors include a Con Edison facility and parking lot, and a number of auto body shops. The shelter is close to the FDR Drive, but there is limited on-street parking.
The Brooklyn Shelter, the CACC's second major adoption facility, suffers a similar fate. It is located in an industrial area and surrounded by large-scale recycling operations. The shelter is the primary adoption center for Brooklyn residents, yet it is not centrally-located within the borough. The last stop on the Number 3 train is approximately seven blocks from the shelter. Parking is available in a CACC lot. Its location and appearance also make it less than desirable as an adoption center.
Not only are these shelters located in inconvenient areas, they are also located in areas which have some of the highest crime rates in the City. The Manhattan Shelter is located in the 23rd NYPD Precinct. In 1995, the 23rd precinct had the second highest number of felony arrests among the 21 Manhattan precincts.[86] The Brooklyn Shelter is located in the 75th Precinct. The 75th Precinct had the highest number of felony complaints and the highest number of felony arrests of all 23 Brooklyn precincts in 1995.[87]
The Bronx Receiving Facility is located in a commercial area. It is on the ground floor of a medical complex and across the street from Fordham University. Most of its neighbors serve the medical community. The facility is approximately seven blocks from a C and D subway stop. Parking is very limited.
The Queens Receiving Facility is located in a commercial area located at the intersection of a highway and several major roads. It is housed in a below ground floor space, and is difficult to see from the street. The facility is approximately two blocks from the nearest G and R subway stop. Parking is limited.
The CACC has compounded the effects on potential adopters of the poor siting of its shelters by failing to maintain hours and days of operation for adoption which are convenient to most residents. Only the Manhattan Shelter and the Staten Island Receiving Facility are open seven days per week. The other three facilities are closed either one or two days per week. In addition, only the Manhattan Shelter and the Staten Island Receiving Facility are open for adoptions weeknights--until 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. respectively. Adoption hours at the other three facilities conclude at either 3:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m.. Thus, persons who work and want to adopt a pet have yet another reason to avoid the CACC.
In contrast, the ASPCA is open for adoptions until 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The ASPCA's Vice President for Animal Services in New York City informed Council staff that the adoption rate is higher between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. than earlier in the day.[88] Extended hours are also the norm at NSAL. It is open for adoptions until 10:00 p.m. every day of the year, except Thanksgiving and Christmas. According to Michael Arms, Director of Operations at NSAL, 50% of his facility's weekday adoptions take place between 7:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.[89]
While the CACC is solely responsible for its hours of operation, it clearly inherited its poor locations. However, there are ways to mitigate poor locations which the CACC has apparently failed to fully develop. For example, the CACC could form partnerships with pet-related commercial establishments and offer pets for adoption from their retail locations. There are more than 150 pet supply stores distributed across the City's five boroughs.[90] In contrast to animal shelters, pet stores are classified as general retail stores and can be located in C1-C2, C4-C6, and C8 commercial zones.[91] To generate a profit, these stores are located in areas and maintain hours of operation which are convenient for their customers.
According to CACC's Deputy Director for Operations, two pet supply stores recently began offering off-site adoptions of CACC animals. The CACC delivers animals to these stores on Fridays and retrieves them on Mondays. These partnerships have reportedly proven extremely successful. For example, during its first weekend offering CACC animals for adoption, Pet Superette in the Bronx completed 22 adoptions.[92] In comparison, the Bronx Receiving Facility only generated an average of 17 adoptions per month between January and September, 1996.[93] This very successful venture has yet to be expanded by the CACC to other locations, even though it has received offers from additional pet supply and grooming stores to perform adoptions of shelter animals within or in front of their stores.[94]
FACILITY CONDITIONS AND ANIMAL CARE
Poor construction and age-related deterioration have made the Brooklyn and Manhattan Shelters ill-suited for the provision of humane and sanitary care, to the animals received by the CACC.
According to Dr. John Kullberg, former President of the ASPCA, when the ASPCA decided to build a new Manhattan Shelter, it also decided to separate the shelter from the new headquarters it planned to construct. It launched a search for a new location and ultimately selected 326-332 East 110th Street as the site of its new shelter. This shelter was intended to meet the animal care and control needs of three of the City's boroughs pursuant to the ASPCA's contract with the City, by receiving animals from the Bronx, Queens, and Manhattan and by providing animals for adoption to the ASPCA's new headquarters on East 92nd Street.
According to Dr. Kullberg, the 110th Street location was attractive because it was already appropriately zoned. The ASPCA also planned to purchase an adjacent piece of property at 322-324 East 110th to widen the original lot and provide access to East 109th Street. The entire site was also convenient to the Bronx and Queens via the FDR Drive and the Triborough Bridge. According to the Real Estate Directory of Manhattan, the ASPCA purchased the 326-332 East 110th Street property on April 7, 1989 for $1.9 million, and the 322-324 East 110th Street property on November 26, 1991 for $425,000--bringing the total cost of land for the new Manhattan Shelter to $2.325 million.[95]
The 110th Street shelter is a two-story masonry building, which had special plumbing, kennel, and heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems installed. Reported costs of construction have varied. For example, the cost affidavit submitted to the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) by the construction manager, George A. Fuller Company, on December 4, 1990, listed the cost of the project as $2,556,000.[96] In contrast, the cost affidavit filed with DOB by the ASPCA on June 11, 1993 reported the actual cost as $2,795,998.[97] The sum of the construction costs listed in the ASPCA's cost affidavit, which includes the reported cost of the land and construction, totals $5,367,980.[98]
The ASPCA moved into its new Manhattan Shelter on February 10, 1992. Ordinarily, such a move would have been a cause for celebration. In this case, however, "failures in the [new shelter's] design soon became apparent. Poor ventilation and ill-conceived drainage systems combined to make parts of the shelter reek and ooze with animal waste."[99] Only one week after moving into the new facility on East 110th Street, ASPCA workers were "cleaning out dog cages by hand because low water pressure [had] rendered an automated flushing system useless."[100] According to Herman Cohen of the ASPCA's Law Enforcement Division in 1993, the amount of water pressure was 15 pounds per square inch less than was required to operate the automatic cage cleaning and flushing system in the shelter.[101]
By September, 1993, the Director of the Manhattan Shelter for the ASPCA, described the facility as "dysfunctional;" and the kennels system, as "to put it mildly a disaster" According to Ms. Morris, the floors in the kennel wards were improperly pitched, resulting in large pools of water and urine collecting in some cages. In addition, the drains malfunctioned on a daily basis rendering it impossible to properly clean the cages, which were stacked one on top of the other. Instead, Ms. Morris indicated water, urine, and feces ran from the top cages to the bottom ones, and horizontally to adjacent cages. In addition, the cages which had been constructed of galvanized instead of stainless steel as a cost-saving measure, proved to be unsafe for the animals who cut themselves on the rough wire. According to Ms. Morris, the flushing and ventilation systems were not fully operational. Runoff from wards being cleaned on the second floor leaked through to the first floor, requiring the closure of at least one ward and creating a major space problem. Ms. Morris also stated that air exchange in the building was unsatisfactory, resulting in an odor problem and that heat was also inadequate.[102]
In response to these problems, in November 1993, Mr. Cohen took a surprising and unorthodox approach--he served his own organization with eight citations for mistreatment of animals.[103] "Specifically, Mr. Cohen cited the ASPCA for keeping animals in cages awash with excrement."[104] According to the New York Post, the cost of the repairs to the one and one half year old facility was estimated to be $400,000.[105]
Soon thereafter, the ASPCA performed some of the needed repairs. For example, in April, 1994, it contracted with T-Kennel Systems, Inc., to replace all existing kennels at the shelter. Ironically, the ASPCA had originally rejected the T-Kennel system as too expensive to be included in the original shelter design and instead gerry-rigged a T-Kennel-like system.[106] In addition, an entirely new HVAC system was designed for the ASPCA by an architect who specializes in shelter design. According to the architect, the original HVAC system was "not designed for the specific needs of an animal holding facility" and was simply not adequate.[107] The redesigned system included new outdoor air/exhaust air heat exchangers.
Despite these repairs, however, the problems in the Manhattan Shelter have outlasted the ASPCA's tenancy and continue today. A former director of the CACC's Manhattan Shelter cited serious problems with inadequate ventilation leading to the spread of disease, deteriorating cages, and insufficient drainage capacity resulting in weekly clogging of the drainage system.[108] According to the CACC, the HVAC system has not always functioned efficiently. The problem was attributed primarily to inadequate maintenance by the contractor selected to provide maintenance.[109]
When the City assumed responsibility for animal care and control in 1995, it inherited a shelter which had already undergone significant repair. However, the City was well aware of the shortcomings of both the Manhattan and Brooklyn Shelters. Early in the summer of 1993, the City had solicited the aid of two respected experts to assess the ASPCA's facilities, Carl Friedman, the Director of the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control, and Kenneth White, the Vice President of Companion Animals and Field Services for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Mr. Friedman and Mr. White agreed to perform an evaluation of animal care and control needs and resources in the five boroughs, and visited the City in February, 1994.
On February 28, 1994, Mr. Friedman and Mr. White submitted their report to the Deputy Commissioner of Environmental Health Services for DOH. The twelve page document, "Regarding the Transfer of Animal Care and Control Service Responsibilities from the ASPCA to Municipal Government" painted a particularly grim picture of the Manhattan Shelter as a facility with major problems even though it had been in use for less than two years. Mr. Friedman and Mr. White documented puddles of water in hallways and rooms, leaking pipes, chipping paint, flies, excessive noise, water damage, an unreliable disinfectant delivery system, and two-tier cages.[110] The two experts opined that given the brevity of their visit:
[I]t would be surprising if other major...problems would not be discovered on a more in[-]depth examination.... [Even corrective measures] will not be adequate to bring [the Manhattan Shelter] up to the level of standards appropriate for a major municipal humane program.[111]
Notwithstanding this warning, the City purchased the Manhattan and Brooklyn Shelters in 1994 for use by the CACC. According to The New York Post, the City made a preliminary payment to the ASPCA for the properties of $4.1 million in 1994.[112]
Later, in February 1996, approximately one year after the CACC assumed occupancy of the Manhattan Shelter, the New York City Department of General Services (DGS) commissioned Urban Associates, Inc. to prepare a schematic study of possible renovations of the Manhattan and Brooklyn Shelters. The completed study covered the architectural, electrical, plumbing, and HVAC needs of the facilities. In sum, the study confirmed that the Manhattan Shelter was still plagued by problems which dated back to the original design and construction, and revealed that in the five years since it opened, major parts of its infrastructure had deteriorated even further.
Specifically, Urban Associates found that blockages in the plumbing system caused floor drains to back up, inundating occupied animal wards, resulting in unsanitary conditions. In addition, the report stated that whenever the second floor ward 9AS was in use, water leaked into a conference room and an animal ward on the first floor. The study also found peeling epoxy flooring in the corridors and concluded that it needed to be removed and replaced. Moreover, the study indicated that animal noise, particularly barking from dog holding wards, was audible throughout the shelter and suggested the installation of sound baffles to reduce the noise level. Urban Associates' review of the performance of the HVAC systems led it to recommend that the existing systems be balanced, that dampers and/or control devices be repaired or replaced and that shelter staff be trained in the proper operation of the systems. Finally, the study documented exposed and hazardous wiring conditions and noted that "[t]he majority of the existing lighting fixtures [were] in poor condition with dirty, cracked lenses and lamps that need replacement."[113]
Visits to the Brooklyn and Manhattan Shelters by Council staff confirmed many of the findings described above. The site visits to the Brooklyn and Manhattan Shelters were made on January 14, 1997 and January 21, 1997 respectively. In both cases, Council staff toured the administrative and kennel areas, and observed the cleanliness of cages, kennels, and other areas, the provision of food and water and the operation of the HVAC systems. Both site visits commenced at 9:00 a.m.. According to the CACC's management, major cleaning of the facilities occurs in the morning at the beginning of the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift, and again in the afternoon at the beginning of the 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. shift.[114] In between, spot cleaning of individual cages is performed as necessary.[115]
During both site visits, staff observed kennel workers in the midst of their major morning kennel cleaning and noted a very strong odor throughout the building. In addition, on the day of staff's site visit, January 14, 1997, the Brooklyn Shelter's HVAC system was being serviced. Several wards were very cold while others were uncomfortably warm. In different wards, staff noted that the temperature on the wall thermometers ranged from approximately 40 to nearly 80 degrees Fahrenheit.[116] At the Manhattan Shelter, CACC management acknowledged that the shelter's HVAC system mixed air from animal wards with air from human areas.[117]
During both site visits, Council staff noted empty water bowls, feces and urine in cages, and a lack of matting in cages. In addition to being unpleasant for the animals, these conditions apparently also violate the CACC's contract with the City.[118] Some, but not all, of these conditions could be attributed to the time of day (between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.) during which staff toured the shelters. DOH claims that it conducts weekly inspections of all CACC facilities and addresses any issues that arise in the course of those inspections immediately on-site.[119] Yet, Council staff observed deficiencies in the conditions in which animals are housed during scheduled site visits to multiple facilities. If DOH were conducting such weekly inspections, one would expect significantly cleaner facilities and healthier animals than Council staff observed.
Moreover, the observations of deficiencies in the CACC's facilities contrasted sharply with staff's observations of conditions at other local shelters, including the ASPCA, Bergen County Animal Shelter, Bide-A-Wee, HSNY, and NSAL. For example, Bide-A-Wee has a cleaning schedule similar to the CACC's. Bide-A-Wee staff perform a major cleaning every morning and spot cleaning throughout the day as necessary.[120] During Council staff's visit to the Bide-A-Wee facility on February 16, 1997 (between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.), they did not observe dirty cages, and it appeared that spot cleaning was being performed diligently. All animals had water and matting and there was little or no odor in the building.
Council staff also toured the current NSAL facility and found it to be--in stark contrast to the Manhattan Shelter--in excellent condition. The mobile cages and fixed dog runs were clean, the drainage systems operated well, and the building did not have an excessive odor. The differences between the two facilities become even more glaring when one considers that the NSAL facility was built at about the same time as the Manhattan Shelter at a cost of approximately $4.6 million--approximately $1 million less than the cost of the Manhattan Shelter.[121]
The ASPCA, Bergen County, and HSNY facilities were also clean and well-ventilated. One of the major differences between these facilities and the CACC's shelters is the sound level. The ASPCA, Bergen County, Bide-A-Wee, HSNY, and NSAL animal shelters are all significantly quieter facilities. During Council staff's visits to these shelters, the animals appeared calmer and the dogs barked less often than in the CACC's shelters. Overall, the animals in these facilities appeared consistently cared for physically, medically, and emotionally.
The CACC is aware of the shortcomings of its Shelters' physical plants. According to the DOH, $3.3 million in capital funds have been designated for renovation of the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters.[122] Renovations at the Brooklyn shelter commenced in Spring 1997.
Renovating the Manhattan and Brooklyn Shelters is a costly option which should yield improved shelter space. In light of the litany of deficiencies enumerated above, however, it is unclear whether these renovations will adequately correct the many problems of these shelters and whether these renovations represent the best use of the City's capital funds.
PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
To fulfill its responsibilities to control animal overpopulation, promote humane animal treatment and the adoption of animals it receives, a shelter charged with municipal animal care and control must conduct extensive public and community relations efforts. Animal care and control is a vital service which residents, businesses, and City agencies should know how to access. The Council's review revealed that the CACC has failed to adequately inform the public about its role in animal control and the other services it provides.
The CACC's contract with the City requires the CACC to "conduct education and community outreach concerning animal control and public health issues related thereto."[123] However, the CACC's efforts in this area have been so limited that even City agencies that deal with animal control issues on a daily basis believe that the ASPCA still provides such services. In fact, the 1996-1997 Official directory of the City of New York, lists the ASPCA as the organization to call for assistance with stray animals. The telephone number provided in the Green Book, however, is the CACC.
The CACC's efforts have been so ineffective that the majority of New York Police Department (NYPD) precincts, a primary resource for New Yorkers in a time of crisis, are not aware of the CACC and its responsibilities. Between November 22, 1996 and December 3, 1996, staff administered a telephone survey to all 76 New York Police Department (NYPD) precincts in the City using the telephone number provided in the "Government Listings section of the NYNEX White Pages for each borough.[123] Callers posed as the owner of a lost dog and asked for a referral.
Seventy-two percent (72%) of the precincts referred callers to the ASPCA. Only 22% of precincts referred callers to the CACC. Twenty-three percent (23%) of the precincts which referred callers to the ASPCA provided a CACC telephone number, displaying a lack of clarity about the roles of the two organizations. Given that one of the three ex officio members of the CACC Board of Directors is the NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Community Affairs, the Police Department's lack of knowledge of the CACC's role is especially troublesome.
A review of the CACC's budgets demonstrates the low priority accorded this contractual requirement. In 1996, the CACC spent $1353 on public education materials and events. In calendar year 1995, the CACC spent $528--in the same category. [125,126]
While a comprehensive public outreach campaign clearly requires more money than the CACC has expended, effective public and community relations campaigns can be mounted with moderate funds. For example, in February of this year, the CACC invited Mayor Guiliani to promote its Adoptathon '97. The CACC requested the Mayor's presence on May 3, 1997 at its Manhattan Shelter, or alternatively, a press availability at City Hall during the preceding week.[127] On February 27, 1997, the Mayor's Director of Scheduling informed the CACC that the Mayor was unable to accept the invitation.[128] Although the CACC's request was rejected, the Mayor accepted an invitation from NSAL to launch its Pet Adoptathon, and on May 1, 1997, he appeared in Central Park accompanied by several Commissioners.
The CACC has failed to capitalize on other avenues of free publicity. For example, many not-for-profits aggressively market themselves and their mission through free public service announcements. Council staff examined the advertising policies of local radio and television stations for not-for-profit organizations. Between January 30, 1997 and April 8, 1997, staff telephoned radio and television stations in New York City. Seven radio stations indicated that not-for-profit corporations can submit a script and/or recorded announcement to be broadcast free of charge to fill dead air time. Six television stations indicated that they also accept PSAs from not-for-profit organizations. Although PSAs are a cost-effective means of creating name recognition within local communities, none of the radio or television stations could confirm that the CACC had ever attempted to place an announcement.
Other not-for-profits also make extensive use of volunteers to assist in community outreach and public relations. The CACC's 1995 Annual Report appears to acknowledge this by stating that, "[v]olunteers and staff of the CACC made it a priority last year to visit New York City schools, reaching as many school children as possible to teach humane education." [129] While the CACC's efforts in the City's school in 1995 could not be confirmed, it is clear that the CACC has abandoned this low budget effort. CACC staff confirmed that the CACC undertook no such program in 1996 and none currently exists.[130] In fact, a representative of the United Federation of Teachers Humane Education Committee indicated that to her knowledge the CACC had never contacted them about collaborating on any humane education project in the City's schools.[131] When asked, the CACC's Director of Public Information told Council staff that the CACC did not have any programs in the City's schools.
The need to conduct extensive public and community relations is not unique to New York City. HSUS emphasizes the importance of an informed and cooperative public to the success of all aspects of an animal care and control program:
Public education is probably one of the most enjoyable and creative aspects of the total animal control program. It can range in scope from a simple flyer to scheduled interviews, programs, and articles in the local broadcast and print media. It is important to remember that the well-rounded public education program must reach people of all ages, economic levels, and interests.[132]
Many municipal shelter systems have learned how to develop and to capitalize on public and community relations opportunities. For example, the Animal Foundation International (AFI), a non-profit organization responsible for sheltering animals for the City of Las Vegas, visits local schools and nursing homes.[133] The Director of AFI estimates that her organization reaches 9,000 first through sixth grade children each year. This campaign teaches children at an early age how to be responsible pet owners. Another proactive municipal shelter program is administered by the City of Houston's Animal Control Bureau. It collects vaccination information from local veterinarians, mails license applications to pet owners, and conducts door-to-door visits to the homes of owners of unlicensed pets and to neighborhoods with the highest stray populations.[134] These practices are intended to raise the rates of licensing, rabies vaccination, and spay/neuter to decrease the animal overpopulation.
In San Francisco, the Department of Animal Care and Control places advertisements in The San Francisco Chronicle and the Voter's Handbook and at bus shelters throughout the City, and regularly distributes PSAs to local television and radio stations.[135] In addition, the Department participates in The Bird Affair, the San Francisco Spiders Child Safety Day, and the Gay Pride Parade--and coordinates Pet Pride Day. These extensive advertising and community outreach efforts increase awareness of the municipal animal shelter and the many services it provides to the City.
There are countless other examples of innovative programs which promote responsible pet ownership:
The Montgomery County (Maryland) Humane Society, Inc. which operates the animal control shelter gives first-time animal control law violators the opportunity to avoid a fine by attending a one-evening training session in animal control offered at the shelter.... The City of Toronto's Animal Control Services has a special Ambassador-at-large who has four legs and weighs 145 pounds. Murphy, a Newfoundland dog, helps promote both responsible pet ownership and the animal control agency at schools and events throughout the city with his owner, an animal licensing clerk.[136]
In the New York City metropolitan area, NSAL and Bide-A-Wee conduct much more extensive public and community relations programs than the CACC. For example, NSAL public relations mainstays include paid advertisements in the classified sections of the Daily News and Newsday seven days per week, in the classified section of the New York Post twice per week, and in TV Guide weekly. In addition, NSAL distributes a new PSA to local television stations once per year.[137]
The creative efforts of other shelters described above, have led to greater awareness by the public of their mission. This level of outreach and awareness enables shelters to increase their adoption rate, and initiate programs to address animal overpopulation and decrease the number of animals that are euthanized. An effective public and community relations program also attracts volunteers and most importantly, donations. The CACC must develop and implement a comprehensive public and community relations program.
The CACC should:
USE OF VOLUNTEERS
Many animal care and control entities, especially shelters that provide services to municipalities, supplement or expand the services they provide through the use of volunteers. In fact, the assistance of volunteers can often make the difference between a shelter that treats animals humanely and has a successful adoption program, and one that does not. The CACC is the model of a shelter which has failed to develop an effective and comprehensive volunteer program.
While the CACC's contract requires it to enlist the aid of volunteers, the experiences alleged by former volunteers suggest that its actions are directed to discourage them.[138] One factor which may be contributing to the current state of the CACC's volunteer program is the high turnover among its Volunteer Coordinators. Between May 1995 and June 1997, the CACC employed four different Volunteer Coordinators. Three of the four individuals resigned and the person currently holding this position has only been with the CACC for approximately six months. The shortest tenure of a person in this position was six days; the longest tenure was nine and one half months.[139]
While the CACC has had difficulty retaining Volunteer Coordinators, it has had even more difficulty retaining volunteers. As was previously discussed, six volunteers were "fired" by the CACC in the late Summer/early Fall of 1996. Those interviewed by Council staff reported that they believed they were asked not to return because they publicly criticized the CACC for inhumane conditions, incompetent management, and a lack of commitment to and innovation in saving animals' lives. A letter from Mr. Kurtz to one of the volunteers indicated the reason 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.[140]
Even volunteers who have not been dismissed and continue to give their time to improve the lives of animals in the New York City shelter system are affected by the CACC's apparent distrust of outsiders. In an anonymous letter to the CACC Board of Directors a current volunteer indicated that at a new volunteer orientation on March 22, 1997, it was announced that volunteers could not work in a CACC facility on two consecutive days.[141] The volunteer further stated that:
The reason given was that volunteering at the CACC is too stressful for members of the public and should therefore be limited. It is obvious that this restriction is not motivated by a concern for stress experienced by volunteers but rather by a deeper consideration, namely that volunteers are noticing the number of animals being euthanized and they ask questions.... A shelter that cares about and appreciates [its] volunteer effort would have employed other methods of dealing with volunteer stress, such as providing a forum for communication and better understanding. Instead the CACC chose a tactic which drastically cuts the level of volunteer involvement. This is an unusual precedent for a not[-]for[-]profit charity to set, volunteers after all are the lifeblood of charitable organizations.[142]
In materials recently submitted to the Committee on Contracts, the CACC admitted that it had dismissed an additional four volunteers since January 1, 1995.[143]
It is difficult to fathom why individuals who are willing to devote their time and energy to caring for animals are being denied the opportunity to do so. The enthusiasm volunteers bring into a shelter is good for improving staff morale and the love they give animals can make their dreary kennel lives bearable. As importantly, their networking skills are an invaluable resource for cultivating adoptions.
Given the commitment and skills which volunteers and animal advocates in New York City have demonstrated over the years, the CACC's volunteer program should be one of the largest in the country and the envy of every other shelter. Instead, the CACC has only "approximately 50 active volunteers presently participating in its program at varying degrees of involvement."[144]
Differing philosophies of animal care and control alone do not explain the CACC's dearth of volunteers. Between February 4 and March 4, 1997, four Council staff persons submitted volunteer applications in person at the Manhattan Shelter. Their affiliation with the Council was not disclosed on the application. After approximately three months, only one of the four staff persons had been contacted. Two others telephoned the CACC on multiple occasions yet never received a return call. One of the staff persons who was not contacted by the CACC had extensive experience with animals. The CACC's failure to even contact persons who submit volunteer applications reflects the organization's lack of commitment to its volunteer program.
In contrast, other shelters recruit and utilize volunteers in creative and meaningful ways. For example, San Francisco's Department of Animal Care and Control manages a single municipal shelter with approximately 38 employees and maintains a corps of 80-90 volunteers.[145] The volunteers walk dogs, socialize and groom animals, and provide lost and found services and adoption counseling.[146] The Bergen County Animal Shelter, with a total of 23 paid staff members, enlists the aid of 60-80 active volunteers to walk dogs, conduct obedience classes, groom and foster animals, and raise funds.[147] Bide-A-Wee's Manhattan facility employs 40-50 persons and utilizes approximately 75 volunteers who walk dogs and handle adoption applications and interviews of potential adopters.[148] NSAL, which runs one of the largest facilities in the tri-state area, has 300 staff members and 200 volunteers.[149] Its volunteers are trained in all the same areas as employees, but are used primarily to exercise animals and to aid the general public. The size of these shelters' volunteer programs point to an effective recruitment program and use of volunteers.
In light of the CACC's shortage of volunteers, the size and strength of the animal advocacy community in New York City and the ability of other local shelters to attract volunteers, it is apparent that after two years in operation, the CACC has not been able to develop a viable volunteer program. This is especially disheartening in light of the tremendous needs of the animal population served by the CACC.
Another resource which shelters utilize to supplement and expand the services they provide are undergraduate and graduate interns. Many entities, both public and private, use interns to conduct research, to liaison with the public and to assist with administrative projects. Two educational institutions in the New York metropolitan area offer programs relating to animal care and shelter management. The City University of New York (CUNY), in conjunction with Hunter College, offers a Ph.D. in Biopsychology which is essentially the study of animal behavior.[150] LaGuardia Community College offers an Associate Degree in Veterinary Technology.[151] In addition, Dr. Jane Bicks, a former CACC Board Member, is the lead professor for a six week course in shelter management offered at LaGuardia Community College which began in February, 1997.[152] Students in other professional disciplines--including public, not-for-profit, or business administration, public policy, and psychology--are also candidates for CACC internships. According to the CACC, it has not fully implemented a formal internship program.[153]
The CACC should: