RECORD KEEPING SYSTEMS
Accurate record keeping is critical to a well-run shelter. The facts distilled from analyzing data regarding a shelter's animal population can be used to plan programs and to support to requests for additional funding. Accurate record keeping equips shelter management and staff with the statistics they need to plan programs. The CACC's current record keeping system, however, does not allow it to input, aggregate and analyze data in the same manner as does a computerized database.
The CACC's contract with the City requires it to "develop, implement, and maintain an adequate record keeping system to ensure adequate identification of animals, location within [its] shelter system, whether [the] animal is a candidate for adoption...."[154] In addition, the contract also requires the CACC to "coordinate all intake, management and disposition of animals through an automated system of hardware and software as specified and provided by the Department [of Health]."[155]
Despite this contractual requirement, the CACC, to date, does not have a fully operational computerized record keeping system. The failure to implement such a system can have profound effects. As consultants to the City noted, Animal care and control "is a record-intensive industry. Data improperly maintained results in mistakes in all fields; in this work, a mistake can mean the needless death of an animal with consequent emotional, public relations and liability concerns."[156] In fact, Council staff was told of horrific stories involving the CACC's premature euthanasia of animals. While the Council did not corroborate these anecdotal stories, the volume of animals entering the CACC's shelter system daily, and the records attendant thereto, creates the opportunity for deadly mistakes.
The CACC's current record keeping system consists of a quadruplicate intake form, chronological log books, and index card files. When an animal is seized or accepted by Animal Rescue Services, or accepted at any of the CACC's five facilities, the CACC completes an intake form. One copy of the form is given to the customer, if applicable. Another copy is forwarded to the CACC's controller. A third copy is filed in the records of the accepting shelter or receiving facility. The final copy accompanies the animal during its stay in the shelter system.
In addition, if an animal is adopted from a CACC facility, the name and address of the adopter, a description of the animal and its intake number, and the deadline for spay/neuter are recorded in a chronological log book.[157] This sheer volume and movement of records creates the risk that data will not be accurate, will be lost, or unutilized. A computerized database would minimize, if not eliminate, these possibilities.
At the February 1, 1995 meeting of the CACC's Board of Directors, Mr. Kurtz informed the Board that the CACC needed an animal tracking and record keeping system called "Chameleon CMS."[158] The Chameleon program has fairly widespread acceptance in the animal shelter community. For example, the San Francisco Department of Animal Care and Control and the ASPCA use versions of the Chameleon program in their shelter operations.[159] At the meeting, Commissioner Hamburg, President of the Board, agreed that capital money should be made available for the purchase of computers.[160] While the CACC's Board easily supported acquisition of the Chameleon CMS program, the same cannot be said of the City's progress toward securing the necessary hardware and software.
Five months later at the July 31, 1995 Board meeting, a representative of DOH indicated that the Chameleon CMS would not be on-line until February 1996.[161] Since then, the timeline for the installation of Chameleon CMS software and additional hardware has been repeatedly postponed. At the August, 21, 1996 meeting of the Board, Mr. Kurtz reiterated DOH's reasons for the delay in installing the Chameleon CMS.[162]
Two years after the Board approved the acquisition of the Chameleon system, the Associate Commissioner of DOH informed the Council that the "installation of Chameleon CMS was completed in February [1997]. Capital funding of $223,731 has been expended for this project."[163] While installation of the system is a promising first step, it hardly brings closure to this issue. First, the Chameleon system will not be fully operational until at least July 1997. According to the Associate Commissioner, the period "from March 1 through approximately mid-July [1997] represents a start-up phase during which any system problems will be identified and addressed and the software will be customized."[164] Second, the eventual users of the record keeping system--CACC managers and shelter staff--were not informed about the Chameleon's capabilities.
During Council staff's visit to the Brooklyn Shelter on January 14, 1997, the CACC's Chief Veterinarian, Deputy Director of Operations and the Director of the Brooklyn Shelter, indicated, when asked, that they had not been involved in discussions with DOH regarding the Chameleon system and, thus, were not aware of its capabilities and had not been trained in its use.[165] The need to train staff in the use of the Chameleon system will prolong the start-up phase and the realization of benefits of computerized record keeping. The City's prolonged delay in acquiring this software and related equipment represents another missed opportunity on the part of the City to support and enhance the entity it created to provide animal care services.
FUNDING FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL
The provision of successful animal care and control services is dependent on several factors. As in any other endeavor, such a program needs to have a service delivery plan which clearly defines its mission and which includes measurable goals and objectives. The service delivery plan must define the type and level of services to be provided, explain how such services will be provided and must be adequately funded. Most importantly, a program needs a leader who can develop and articulate a vision, prepare and implement a plan, and secure the necessary funding to carry it out.
New York City spends approximately $0.66 per resident per year on animal control services.[166] A survey conducted by Animal People Magazine demonstrated that "in the nation's 50 largest cities, spending for animal control averages $1.18 per human resident [per year]."[167] According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), an "effective community animal control program costs at least $3 per person per year."[168] A Council survey of some of the most populous cities in the United States, as well as several smaller municipalities which are located in the Northeast, or mentioned in various publications as operating successful animal care and control programs, revealed that these municipalities provide essentially the same animal care and control services as New York City. However, the level of funding allocated to these entities to provide animal care and control services is significantly higher than that received by the CACC.[169]
Clearly, funding should be reevaluated. However, any reevaluation would need to determine whether current management would make effective use of the funds allocated. The findings in this report suggest that they would not. Given the CACC's poor track record in implementing many budget-neutral program initiatives, new management must be put in place before additional funding would be considered fiscally responsible.
A new executive director must be able to develop and implement changes concerning the major issues discussed in this report. While some of the recommendations would require that additional funds be allocated to the CACC, others do not. For example, the CACC needs to take advantage of the resources which rescuers offer to increase adoptions; revamp and revitalize its volunteer recruitment program and once again welcome volunteers into its shelters; expand the use of off-site adoptions by working in partnership with retail pet stores and other appropriate pet-related businesses; and utilize free public service announcements and develop a public education campaign.
Moreover, the CACC must consider other means of increasing the amount of funding for animal care and control. The CACC's Certificate of Incorporation grants it the power to raise funds to supplement the monies it receives from the City under contract.[170] However, the CACC has not effectively availed itself of this opportunity. Incredibly, it has raised virtually no funds. New Yorkers are generous and contribute to many worthy causes year after year. Wherever there is a need to be filled there are New Yorkers ready and willing to help. Simply by virtue of its size, New York City's base of charitable donors is one of the largest in the country. Thus there is a large untapped potential to raise additional funds for the CACC's activities. Obviously, potential donors would have to be convinced that the CACC was worthy of their generosity. Once the CACC addresses the operational and administrative issues described in this report and articulates a policy and plan for improving the provision of animal care and control in the City, it should design and implement an effective fundraising plan to take advantage of New York City's fundraising potential.
There are other strategies the CACC could employ in addition to direct fundraising to increase the amount of money available for animal care and control. For example, NSAL has implemented a retail strategy. It established a small pet supply store on-site in the Fall of 1995. By October 1996, the store, staffed by one employee, was selling $28,000 worth of pet supplies and grossing $10,000 per month.[171] According to the CACC's Director of Operations, the CACC began selling Iams and Eukanuba pet food at the Staten Island Receiving Facility in the fall of 1996.[172] The CACC should consider expanding this initiative to all of its facilities.
Rather than expanding fund raising efforts, the CACC appears to be reducing them. Recently the CACC withdrew from one of its few fundraising efforts, the Heinz-sponsored Homeless Homer program. This program enables shelters to redeem Homeless Homer and Morris the Cat symbols clipped from pet food purchases for unrestricted grants. Participating shelters can also receive free adoption kits, win free food, and access PSAs featuring Homeless Homer or Morris the Cat. According to the public relations firm which coordinates the program, the CACC enrolled in the program in April 1996, never redeemed any symbols for cash, and withdrew from the program approximately one year later. According to a Heinz representative, the CACC indicated that it did not have sufficient staff to collect and submit the symbols or to train volunteers, or sufficient volunteers to manage the program.
Animal care and control in New York City cannot be improved without both a vision of, and a commitment to, change. The animal shelter system operated by the CACC is far from perfect--and far from its own potential. Ultimately, responsibility for animal care and control in the five boroughs rests with the City. This report reveals that the present animal care and control services do not meet the high standards one expects of New York City. The City's failure appears to be attributable to ineffective leadership, inadequate facilities, poorly managed shelter operations and unsatisfactory monitoring by the DOH.
The City's inability to improve the delivery of animal care and control or to involve the public in this effort has frustrated local groups who initially viewed the transition from the ASPCA to the CACC as an opportunity to effect change in the shelter system. These failures are especially disheartening because the CACC, one of the largest shelter systems in the country, is filled with animals in need. As time has passed and various groups have found themselves unable to participate in the CACC's formal planning processes, they have captured public attention and promoted their views in other ways. For example:
There is a strong, vocal, and committed animal advocacy community in New York City. Each of the events described above constitute missed opportunities for the City and the CACC to enlist the support of pet owners, concerned individuals, and advocates in accomplishing a common mission: to improve the quality of animals' lives in New York City.
This report documents specific reasons for the CACC's poor performance in the nearly two and one half years since it assumed responsibility for the provision of animal care and control services in New York City. With the recent departure of the CACC's Executive Director, and the impending expiration of the CACC contract, the City is once again at an important juncture. Unless the fundamental changes recommended in this report are implemented, the CACC will continue to fail the animals it is supposed to serve. During the remaining term of its contract with the City, the CACC needs an Executive Director with experience and expertise in animal care and control, demonstrated management skills, and a commitment to New York City's animals. The City now has what few of its lost, stray and abandoned animals ever get--a second chance--to create a shelter system worthy of the name "Center for Animal Care and Control."
ATTACHMENTS
A-2 ASPCA memorandum