The following is the complete text of the 1998 evaluation of the Center for Animal Care and Control by the Humane Society of the United States [Part 2].

MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

In order to identify key management, governance and community relations issues at the CACC, HSUS team members met with: one member of the Board of Directors, the Executive Director, Director of Operations, Chief Veterinarian, Director of Adoption and Volunteer Services, General Counsel, Human Resources Director, Controller, two shelter directors and a group of citizen activists. In addition, direct observations, written materials and relevant information gathered from staff and members of the public were reviewed for consistency with the perspectives provided by management.

Management Staff
As individuals, each of the members of the management team appeared to possess specific skills and/or experience relevant to their respective roles. Although very new to her position (and animal protection work), the Executive Director was surprisingly knowledgeable about details of operations and procedure, and was extremely open as to what she perceived to be the organization's shortcomings as well as its strengths. She also portrayed a sincere commitment to improving the quality of care and programming provided by CACC, and relayed a number of plans as well as accomplishments in her efforts to achieve this goal. Not the least among the accomplishments was the commitment of over $1 million in new operating funds and approximately $8 million in capital improvement funds from the city.

Members of the management staff as well as some of the organization's critics commented on their increased optimism since the new Executive Director has arrived, citing her connections in City Hall and her ability to get things accomplished as key to the organization's progress at this point in their development. Staff in particular offered strong support for the "fit" of the new director's skills and background with the organization's needs.

It is important to note that although they differed in their abilities and perspectives on the agency's objectives, individuals at all levels of management appeared to be sincerely concerned about the welfare of the animals--both within their shelters and throughout the community. We encountered none of the callousness or indifference that characterized reports from the press and organizational critics. Rather, we found the majority of individuals we met were committed to improving CACC's ability to function more humanely and efficiently, and were eager to have the opportunity to more effectively address animal problems within the community. The problems we identify in this report appear to derive not from a lack of desire to do the right thing as much as the lack of awareness of, resources for, or individual staff know-how concerning the areas discussed.

Key Issues
Specific leadership and management issues identified can be grouped under four key areas: (A) identification and internal articulation of a unifying, animal-control focused vision for the organization and its programs; (B) the role and implications of CACC's corporate structure; (C) organizational infrastructure and support systems; and (D) definition of and recognition for CACC's role within the community.

A. Identification and Articulation of an Animal Control Vision
Although some time has been spent in the development of a mission statement for CACC, the organization still lacks a clear, complete and organizationally accepted understanding of who it is and what role it is--or should be--playing within the community. This is not surprising, given the fact that the organization was formed in haste, to fill a not-clearly-articulated need, and in its brief history has tried to change or define fragments of its program solely in response to public criticism. The result, however, is an organization that was formed specifically for the purpose of providing animal control services for the citizens of New York City, yet is lacking in the authority, key programs, and institutional focus central to an effective animal control agency.

Specific conditions that illustrate this problem are discussed in detail in other portions of this report, but they include:

• No authority to enforce animal control laws (until recently, when the option was made available for field staff to train for "special patrolman" status, still with only limited enforcement authority).
• Field services provided on the extremely limited schedule of 8 AM to 8 PM, Monday through Friday, and with below minimum staffing level for a city the size of NYC, even during these hours of operations.
• A complex bite/quarantine response system administered by the Department of Health (DoH) but with severe implications for CACC, and no authority on CACC's part to make decisions concerning health department animals.
• No programs to promote licensing/identification, leash laws, rabies prevention and/or keeping pets safe and under control as key elements to both effective animal control and controlling the surplus pet problem.
• Operation of an ineffective dog licensing program by the City, apart from CACC, and no program for registering cats.
• No authority to enforce anti-cruelty statutes, nor to regulate or charge for the ASPCA's use of their facility for long-term holding of animals seized in cruelty cases.
• Transfer-laden stray holding programs that make it difficult for an owner to determine where his/her lost pet may be, and a cumbersome paper-based lost & found program that is reportedly inconsistent in its success from shelter to shelter.
• No requirement that strays arriving at other non-CACC facilities be transferred to or registered with CACC, with the result that owners of lost pets have no central clearing house to begin their search, and there is no method for oversight of stray holding or owner accountability at the various private facilities.
• An institutional emphasis on adoption, with relatively little focus on identification, redemption and owner-accountability programs, even though the majority of animals entering most animal control facilities are strays who potentially have owners looking for them. Management staff appeared to be unaware of the potential that a successful identification and return-to-owner effort has for reducing shelter housing needs (i.e. properly identified animals can be returned to their homes without ever entering the shelter, and those who do come to the shelter will stay for shorter periods if the owner can be quickly notified). There also appeared to be a lack of recognition for the substantive impact that a high return-to-owner rate can have on reducing euthanasia (i.e. animals who have homes and can be returned to them reduce the numbers competing for new homes and therefore the numbers who ultimately lose this competition and are euthanized) or the role that identification programs play in promoting responsibility and accountability.
• Key management staff members who lack working knowledge of animal control ordinances, including the laws that enable them to pick up, hold, and release animals and under what circumstances. They often are aware of a policy or procedure that dictates what they can do, but could not explain to us the underlying laws upon which the policy or procedure was initially developed. This makes it difficult for managers or supervisors to educate the public (or staff) about why CACC does what it does, much less deal with situations that call for exceptions or know how and when policies or procedures might be changed without legal implications.
• A police department that has assumed much of the responsibility for responding to dangerous animal situations, with CACC only becoming involved after the animal has been chemically captured with immobilization equipment, muzzled and transported (generally in the trunk of a police vehicle) to a CACC shelter, often without the information necessary to accurately disposition the animal.

Aware of many of the problems that plagued the agency prior to her arrival, the new Executive Director has made an attempt to focus immediate attention on the substandard facilities and public pressure for a structured and expanded adoption program. Setting these as priorities, she has been successful in obtaining funding for both and is understandably eager to demonstrate immediate results. She also shared with our team members her plans and/or intentions for addressing a number of other issues, including the: formation of a better relationship with the NYPD in order to alleviate problems with the handling of aggressive animals; expansion of field services to provide for 24-hour, 7-day response; cooperation with other agencies in the community to insure a unified and consistent response to wildlife emergencies; improvement of the organization's infrastructure; and more.

Unfortunately, however, even the existing priorities of improving facilities and expanding adoptions--much less the director's more long range plans--have not been articulated in a written plan, and are neither fully understood nor embraced throughout the organization. Newly hired adoptions staff members find themselves in conflict with other departments over their roles and responsibilities. And, although most everyone was aware that renovation was taking place in Brooklyn and planned for Manhattan, few members of staff--including senior managers--appeared fully aware of what is planned for the new facilities or why they are being designed as they are.

Throughout our visit we were unable to obtain any comprehensive written documents that outlined what was planned for the buildings or the expanded operations that will take place within them. Some managers were still expressing a preference for moving the Manhattan shelter rather than renovating, implying that they believed that decisions about some very basic issues had yet to be resolved.

"Wish lists" reported to us by individual managers generally focused on big-picture concerns, but were all over the map and not necessarily consistent with the priorities articulated by the Executive Director. And, although several people agreed that twenty four hour "rescue" service and expanded enforcement authority for cruelty cases should be priorities, none appeared to place a priority on (or even fully understand) other programs and activities that are central to effective animal control.

This lack of a vision consistent with CACC's animal control mandate, as well as the absence of a written plan that details what they are trying to accomplish, have left staff confused as to where to focus their energies. In addition, without a known plan, decisions concerning acquisition and spending of new funds appear arbitrary and disconnected. And, staff who are unaware of what the goals and objectives are will derive less satisfaction or sense of accomplishment once these goals/objectives are ultimately achieved.

Perhaps most importantly, the lack of a clear vision for CACC as a comprehensive animal control program makes the agency "just another sheltering and adoption group." If this is to be CACC's role, the organization will fall short of the mission dictated by its charter. Furthermore, it will leave the nation's largest city without an agency that understands and demonstrates the important role that quality animal control can play in improving and supporting the "quality of life" of both the animals and people of the community.

Recommendations:
1. If CACC is to meet the terms of its charter as an agency formed to provide the City of New York with quality animal control services, it is critical that the leadership develop a vision that defines the organization in these terms, and include among its programs those that are central to effective animal control. Key among these are field enforcement of animal control laws; rabies prevention programs; response to and control of aggressive animals; animal licensing and/or registration programs; field rescue of sick and injured animals or animals at risk; pick up and housing of lost or stray pets, with the intent of identifying their owners and safely reuniting them; promotion of animal population control; and education of the public on the elements of and rationale for responsible pet ownership.

It is not surprising that CACC's focus--even as the leadership strives to make important improvements--has attempted to follow more of a "holding and adoption center" and less of an animal control model. Reports from staff who were working in the field prior to the formation of CACC suggest that animal control in NYC historically has been reactive, simply picking up the community's cast-offs and attempting to find some of them new homes. The current sheltering programs of the other private agencies in the community continue to follow this model, and even further restrict their roles by handling only selected groups of animals for adoption.

It is important to note that adoption programs, while potentially effective in reducing euthanasia on an immediate basis, have little impact on the sources of the homeless pet problem and therefore on reducing the need for euthanasia in the long-term. Even critics of CACC have focused primarily on issues of care, adoption and public access, not the organization's wider program responsibilities as an animal control organization.

The preventative programs that exist at CACC (and throughout much of the NYC animal protection community), are focused primarily on promotion of spaying and neutering, which--while an effective tool--addresses only one source of the homeless pet problem. CACC, in its role as the animal control contractor for the city, has a unique opportunity as well as a mandate to utilize animal control ordinances and their enforcement as tools in promoting not only animal birth control, but also responsible pet ownership on a broader scale.

Pets kept safely at home--whether they are sterilized or not--seldom produce the accidental litters that form the bulk of incoming puppies and kittens in shelters. Animals belonging to owners who obey leash laws seldom end up in shelters, much less causing accidents, biting strangers, getting in fights, or randomly breeding. And, licensed pets can be easily returned home if they do escape, and their owners can be located and held accountable if they cause damage, get in fights, etc.

Both The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the National Animal Control Association (NACA) provide guidelines on the key elements essential to effective animal control programs, and are available to serve as valuable resources to the CACC Board and Senior Staff. In addition, a number of communities across the country now operate model animal control programs that not only contain the essential elements, but have developed into comprehensive animal resources for their communities and/or agents for community change. We highly recommend that the CACC leadership visit one or more of these agencies to learn more about the kinds of programs offered, how they are evaluated, and the effects they have achieved. The HSUS would be pleased to recommend specific agencies to visit.

It is important to note that the timing on this discussion of vision is critical. Plans for new construction will impact the organization's operations for years into the future, and therefore need to take into account potential programs and image, both in the design of the structures and in their placement within the five boroughs. With construction partially completed in Brooklyn, few options for substantive changes remain in that facility. And with Manhattan plans moving quickly toward completion and funds for a new Queens facility at least partially in place, time for changes is all but passed in the former and running short for the latter.

2. Once the organization's mission has been revisited and a vision developed that articulates this in terms of comprehensive animal control, the CACC Board and senior management need to work together to develop a written plan for achieving the vision. This plan should identify specific long term goals and more immediate objectives, include a target timetable for operating objectives as well as capital improvements, and outline a system for sharing the overall plan with the staff as a whole.

Plans developed unilaterally, although often perceived as more efficient by busy staff or board members, fail to benefit from the tremendous value of the planning process, itself. Two of the reoccurring problems identified by HSUS E-Team members during their visit at CACC were: (1) a gap between plans, decisions or ideas of the Executive Director or senior management and their implementation at the operational level and (2) conflicting responses among senior staff members concerning plans, policies, decisions, rationales, etc. These issues will be dealt with in greater detail later in the report. However, the process of working together to iron out details of a plan--from the long-term goals to prioritizing immediate operating objectives--can do much to alleviate the apparent confusion we witnessed. Well-structured planning sessions serve to surface and resolve disagreements, and to build a common understanding of the issues, the rationale for why decisions were made (as well as the decisions themselves), and agreement as to what is to be done by when and by whom.

Committing the resulting plans to writing provides a document that can be used to share the details with others (ranging from board and staff members to potential donors) and a reminder of decisions down the road, when minds are blurred by the pressures of day-to-day activity. It also serves as a basis for reviewing progress, setting operational priorities, making decisions concerning allocation of unanticipated funds, reviewing individual and institutional performance, etc. Most of all it serves as a short cut to keeping everyone "on the same page" about where the organization is going and some of the steps that will take you there. The document needn't be long or formal, or for that matter follow any specific format for "long range planning." The important point is to commit key ideas, goals and objectives to writing, in a document that all agree reflects the decisions and outcomes of group discussions.

Finally, committing plans to writing may help alleviate some of the concerns of critics (or at least to counter them), who will at least have a better understanding of the organization's intentions, if not the faith that these goals will be achieved.

B. Corporate Structure
When CACC was incorporated in 1994, it was established as a not-for-profit corporation under New York State law. However, unlike most nonprofits, it was formed not by a group of concerned citizens, but rather by the City of New York, in an effort to continue to keep the animal control function outside the city bureaucracy. After the ASPCA withdrew as the historical contractor and the city's request for proposals failed to turn up a viable new candidate, CACC was incorporated to fill the void.

Since the city's contract initially would provide the sole source of funding for the new organization, city officials established a corporate structure for CACC that gave total control to the Mayor's office and his designees. Under the articles of incorporation, the organization has only the limited mandate to provide animal control services, and the organizational bylaws call for five directors, three of which are city officials and the other two of which are to be appointed by the Mayor or his Deputy Mayor for Operations. Voting structure is by majority when a quorum is present, and set up so that certain actions require the majority of the three "Ex Officio" directors (the seats held by city department heads) and they--by bylaw--must act in the interest of the City. The "Appointed Directors" may be removed at any time, with or without cause, by the Mayor or his Deputy Mayor, and this authority has been exercised already with the removal of two initial appointees. Although the bylaws contain a prohibition on conflict of interest, they specifically exempt status as a city employee from the definition and terms of the conflict of interest clause.

The resulting structure is a supposedly independent not-for-profit organization that is structured in a hybridized fashion and functions more as a department of city government working under an appointed political commission.

There are admittedly benefits to the current structure in terms of expediency and in kind support. At present, the city provides utilities and telephone service at no cost to CACC (these expenses do not even appear in CACC's budget), gives the organization access to the city's surplus office equipment, and provides and maintains (as well as maintaining ownership of) all of the organization's hard assets. The tie-in with the city also opens up access to certain city services and opportunities, particularly through board members and the Executive Director who are familiar with the ins and outs of city government, and knowledgeable concerning the who's who of the administration.

While the desire of the Mayor's office to maintain oversight of an agency operating almost solely on city funds is understandable, and the current structure's benefits to the organization are not insubstantial, the risks and downsides of the arrangement are reason for major concerns. Questions have been raised as to the legality of this relationship and the organization's corporate structure. However, in addition to any legal issues, the present structure is at best, confusing to the public and at worst, fraught with accountability issues and identity problems.

Some of our specific concerns include:

• The controlling role of city employees--particularly the representative of the health department (the agency directly responsible for the CACC contract)--and the bylaws-directed ability of the Mayor to control who sits on the board, create concerns regarding CACC's ability to bargain as an independent agency with the city.
• Funding, policymaking and decision making are subject to undue influence from City Hall, which although supportive of the current Executive Director, may change drastically with a change in the political climate or the occupant of the Mayor's office.
• The appearance of being a city agency sets up public expectations for a level of and approach to services that are neither fulfilled nor necessarily realistic or appropriate.
• The appearance of being a city agency and the lack of independence as a non profit negatively impact fundraising from private sources:
  • Individuals generally feel disinclined to contribute to an institution that they perceive as being a service of and funded by their tax money.
  • Foundations and corporations may be disinclined to make major gifts to an institution with no clear accountability and the potential to be redirected by the city.
• Current board appointees reportedly function in a figurehead role rather than becoming actively involved in governance, fundraising, etc. This leaves the organization almost exclusively in the hands of the Executive Director, with neither support for her efforts nor demands for accountability provided by the individuals charged with statutory responsibility for the non-profit.
• The lack of autonomy and confusing role make the agency an easy target for critics, and hinder its ability to function as "a player" within the diverse animal protection community. Since it is unclear to whom the agency is accountable, everyone feels that it is accountable to them. The ASPCA, North Shore Animal League (NSAL), DoH, NYPD, Department of Environmental Health and grassroots activists all have expectations of or make demands upon the agency--often with tremendous consequences for CACC. Without a clear mandate or responsible governing body, the agency is at a severe disadvantage to respond from a position of strength or with a logical rationale for why the demands/expectations are or are not consistent with its purpose or programs.
• The perception of the organization as a city agency has raised expectations that board meetings must be open and records subject to the Freedom of Information Laws. Although some forum for public accountability is valid even in a totally private not-for-profit organization, the nature of fully open meetings, particularly when there is a tone of hostility among members of the audience, is to suppress open discussion among volunteer board members who tend either to want to appease the audience or remain quiet in fear of personal attacks. Open meetings may also have a chilling effect on strategic planning around sensitive areas such as contract negotiations and or legislative advocacy, where the agency may be handicapped if the opposition has access to their strategy.
• The close association with the Mayor's office and the city administration, combined with the narrowly controlled accountability of the board, puts the organization "in the middle" of conflicts between the Mayor and the City Council.

Recommendations:
1. The leadership of CACC should decide whether it is in the organization's best interest to operate as a part of the New York City government or as a truly private, not-for-profit agency that contracts with the city to provide specific services. The Board of Directors should then take steps to restructure the organization's governance to be consistent with its definition. This decision should be made as soon as possible and a timetable established to complete the transition and/or replace the articles of current bylaws.

John Carver, in his book Boards that Make a Difference, defines the role of the nonprofit board of directors as one of "moral ownership", trustees of the organizations purpose/mission, who "must bear initial responsibility for the integrity of governance." He goes on to say that a board "is responsible for its own development, its own job design, its own discipline and its own performance." According to Carver, in the case of "organizations that receive government and foundation grants, it is important that the grantor not be seen as owner."/2

This position, which is echoed by a number of authors writing on nonprofit governance, is the opposite of the situation at CACC, where the primary grantor (the City of New York), maintains total control of the board. From a strictly practical perspective, The HSUS believes that the organization cannot function most effectively in this dual role, and it is incumbent on the Board of Directors to determine which format it should pursue.

All indications point to a desire on the part of both the CACC staff and city administration to remain in the direction of a private nonprofit. In the City's 1994 Preliminary Strategic Policy Statement, the Department of City Planning states:

"Privatization in general is an increasing consideration for managers of local government in the United States. In an effort to increase governmental efficiency and effectiveness, this trend has proven useful in many facets of governmental service. In addition, New York City is not alone in recognizing a competitive edge that can be found within the concept of privatization: "Greater productivity will also result from initiatives to privatize services such as park and vehicle maintenance. In some instances, private firms will provide services at a lower cost. Greater government efficiency will also result when city workers realize they must compete with the private sector."/3

However, if the decision is to remain as a private, nonprofit agency, the by-laws should follow common principles of non-profit governance, including provisions for the selection of independent directors whose first obligation is to the organization, the establishment of terms of office, and the true avoidance of conflict of interest on the part of board members and officers. Board members should be knowledgeable about their legal obligations to and for the corporation; accept responsibility for governance, policy setting and soliciting support for the organization; and establish procedures for oversight and accountability of the staff. In addition, we recommend that a vehicle be developed to allow for input to the board from the public and/or various constituency groups.

The National Center for Nonprofit Boards, the National Charities Information Board, and a number of other agencies provide guidelines on the structure and accountability of not-for-profit boards of directors, and countless books have been written on the topic. We recommend that these resources--in conjunction with New York State nonprofit corporation code and IRS regulations--be used if redrafting of the CACC bylaws to create a truly private nonprofit organization.

The HSUS recognizes that such a shift--to either a city agency with public accountability or a truly private agency with accountability through its board of directors--may not be possible on an overnight basis. However, we believe that it is imperative that the current CACC Board of Directors and the city commit to making these changes, and set a date by which the transition is to be accomplished. Given the potential for shifts in the political climate with changes in the Mayor's office, the shift should be accomplished before the next mayoral election.

C. Infrastructure & Support Systems
The analogy that comes to mind for CACC's infrastructure is the proverbial house built on sand...with rotting timbers. CACC has had neither the luxury of growing slowly into a large, complex organization nor the benefit of taking over an existing agency with a solid operating structure in place. Instead, it began its existence by inheriting portions of an already complex program that were operating on less than full staffing, with no or out-dated policies and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), no timed or well thought out transition plan, and often burned out or resentful employees who weren't sure exactly what was happening.

A review of earlier reports suggests that relatively little was done to shore-up or rebuild the infrastructure during the organization's first three years of operation, and in some instances, circumstances worsened. (It is noteworthy that--with a few important exceptions--the vast majority of complaints against CACC from the activists with whom we met and the individuals who provided written comment, stem from incidents that occurred during the previous administration.) A policy manual detailing internal controls (of finances) was adopted in May of 1996. And a staff manual detailing personnel policies and benefits, prepared more recently, is currently provided for every new employee (although it is reportedly a document drafted for and used primarily by bargaining unit employees).

An old ASPCA procedures manual still stands as the official operations document. However, many of the staff are unaware that it exists, and others report that it is too out-of-date to be effective. The organization has: (1) no written safety plan; (2) no up-to-date job descriptions; (3) a confusing organizational flow chart; (4) no structured training program; (5) no structured performance management system (with the exception of a yearly check-off style performance review for union employees); (6) no structured compensation system; and (7) no operational planning, objective setting process or written standards that establish accountability for departments or managers.

The Executive Director and her administrative staff appear very aware of the need for an effective infrastructure and are reportedly attempting to address the problem. Discussions have begun to involve the senior managers in the development of new SOPs. The Human Resources Manager has been assigned the task of developing job descriptions, improving the performance management and training programs, etc. And, a safety consultant was brought in to review the organization for OSHA compliance and make recommendations.

Unfortunately, however, developing new systems, policies, procedures and documentation for an organization that is already operating at full steam with only minimum administrative staffing is a daunting task, and not much has been accomplished to date. In addition, institution-wide communication, which is at best difficult in a multi-facility organization with 24-hour-per-day, 7-day-a-week staffing, reportedly breaks down often, leaving the organization vulnerable to more than its fair share of mistakes and oversights. Senior managers--who appear to be the primary decision-makers in the shelters in spite of the reported role of the shelter directors--sometimes appeared confused or in conflict as to plans, policies, and most importantly who is responsible for what.

The result is that gaps continue to exist between the plans, decisions or ideas of the Executive Director or senior management and their effective implementation at the operational level. And, the application of structured risk management; performance management, compensation and/or accountability practices are absent or at best inconsistent throughout the organization.

CACC is not alone in its inattention to infrastructure. In the fast-paced environment of an animal shelter, where needy animals and customers are continually coming through the door, there is always something immediate or critical to attend to, and important but less pressing work is easily put aside in favor of the current problem or perceived crisis.

Nonprofit organizations in general are often so focused on program or service delivery that using staff time and other resources to develop and maintain an effective administrative infrastructure is not only not a priority, it is often perceived as taking valuable time and resources away from programs that really matter.

Furthermore, managers of nonprofits often come to their positions with backgrounds in service delivery or advocacy, and little knowledge of administrative areas such as personnel and performance management, risk management, systems design, strategic planning, finance, etc. Consequently they often lack the commitment to these critical parts of management or a comfort level with addressing them.

In an organization the size of CACC, however--with a large staff, a complex program, and multiple facilities--an administrative infrastructure is more than simply helpful: it is critical to the well being of the animals and the survival of the organization. Mistakes happen, communication breaks down, and/or incidents occur even in the most efficiently operated organization, and in any industry. However, in an organization like CACC, the combination of (1) a large number of people working in (2) an emotionally difficult situation with (3) both animal and human clients in (4) the field as well as multiple institutional sites on (5) a twenty-four-hour-a-day, seven day-a-week basis, makes the lack of an effective infrastructure an invitation for disaster (or at minimum a lawsuit).

Whether one believes all of the stories reported by critics and/or the media or not, CACC's lack of an effective infrastructure has already resulted in considerable damage to its reputation, if not caused animals to be euthanized unnecessarily or placed inappropriately. Paperwork errors, mistakes caused by untrained or poorly supervised personnel, or problems that arise out of simple communication difficulties can all be traced to problems with the organization's infrastructure. And, although criticism of a public agency like CACC often takes the form of broad policy-based, philosophical, political, or even personal attacks, the generalized concerns expressed by the critics usually arise out of individual staff mistakes, communications breakdowns, or incidents where citizens were dissatisfied with the quality of service/response that they received.

Unfortunately for the current leadership of CACC, the organization's past makes its critics highly suspect. Consequently, even minor employee errors or oversights are characterized by critics and the media not as unfortunate and unintentional breakdowns in the system but rather as examples of deep-rooted organizational callousness or malaise.

Recommendations:
The leadership of CACC needs to give immediate attention to addressing the issues of infrastructure identified below, including the development and documentation of policies/procedures and the implementation of a system for insuring that all staff are knowledgeable of and held accountable for following them. Given the skills and time commitment required to complete this process, we recommend than an individual experienced in systems development or documentation of operating policies and procedures be identified (either from within the organization or as a new hire) and be assigned on a full-time basis to coordinate and document the process. Specific areas to be addressed:

1) Performance Management & Accountability
Key to the effective operation of any group of people where a division of labor is required is a direct link between responsibility, authority and accountability. Individuals need to know what they are personally responsible for, as well as what responsibilities lie with other players in the group. The players then need the authority to make decisions relevant to accomplishing their responsibilities. And, finally, someone or some process needs to hold them accountable for the handling of their responsibilities in an effective and appropriate manner.

Unlike many nonprofit organizations, the current management of CACC has demonstrated its willingness to hold people accountable for their actions. Their challenges in performance management grow not from an unwillingness to hold people accountable, but more from the need for: (1) a system that identifies and communicates the roles and expectations, and (2) structured vehicles for monitoring performance on a consistent basis.

Recommendations for improving performance management include:
a. The development of specific operating objectives for each department and/or area of the organization, growing out of the vision statement and organizational goals discussed above.

These objectives will not only improve coordination by identifying what is supposed to be accomplished, by when and by whom, but will also provide a vehicle for accountability for directors, managers and/or other department heads.

Senior managers repeatedly commented that they simply didn't have time to get to many of the things that they would like to and/or need to do, yet they continued to be pulled aside to deal with front line operational issues that theoretically should be the responsibility of shelter directors. Furthermore, it wasn't clear that each held the same priorities as the Executive Director or as other members of the senior management team. Having written operating objectives that are agreed upon in advance by both the Executive Director and the senior managers can help to keep them focused on the key responsibilities of their jobs.

b. Implementation of a results-based performance management system that utilizes job descriptions, individual or group program objectives, personal performance objectives, timetables, and performance reviews to identify expectations and as a yardstick for measuring and guiding performance.

Although employees of CACC have been disciplined or terminated for instances of poor performance or inappropriate behavior, and others have been rewarded for good performance by being promoted, no systematic approach to performance management is in place. The lack of well-understood and articulated expectations for performance, combined with inconsistent and undocumented processes for accountability, not only retard the development of staff and their performance, but also leave the organization vulnerable to legal and union challenges.

c. Examination and restructuring of the organizational flow-chart, with the intention of more clearly dividing responsibilities, clarifying roles and authority, and identifying reporting relationships. In addition, all positions need written job descriptions that define duties, responsibilities, required qualifications and reporting relationships.

A multi-facility program with centralized control over policies and procedures presents a management challenge even under the best of circumstances. Under CACC's "official" structure, actual responsibility for the individual facilities falls to the shelter directors, who in turn report to the Director of Operations. However, the shelter directors also have dotted line reporting responsibility to the Chief Veterinarian and Director of Adoption and Volunteer Services, and some of the staff within their shelters also appear to report both to the shelter director and the senior manager who is most directly involved in their "functional" area (e.g. the veterinary staff report to both the shelter director and the Chief Veterinarian). In some cases, they also report directly to the Executive Director, totally bypassing the senior management structure.

Needless to say, this creates tremendous potential for confusion, not to mention accountability problems. These problems are made worse by the absence of job descriptions and the traditionally high turnover that occurs in animal shelters, where people are frequently needed to "cover" for someone else's job. Staff members are reporting to or supervising so many different people in so many different circumstances that they often become unclear as to what their role was (or should be) in the first place.

With the possible exception of senior management, there appeared to be a fear of risk taking present among many of the program and shelter management staff. This may have been a factor of our presence on site, or "shell-shock" resulting from the attacks the organization has suffered in the media. It may, however, be at least partially a result of the confusion over responsibility/authority that can grow out of senior managers always being available to make decisions, resolve problems, etc. rather than delegating.

Even members of the senior management team appear to be unclear or in disagreement as to where some of their responsibilities and authority end and others begin. During our visit we observed the Director of Adoption and Volunteer Services filling in for and answering questions for customer service staff, the Chief Veterinarian dealing with phone calls on operations issues and providing direct supervision for an assistant shelter director, and the Director of Operations functioning as a shelter director. The Brooklyn Shelter Director and Director of Operations both referred us to the Executive Director for information on what is taking place within the new construction, and all three directors referred us to someone else when we asked for statistical information.

It is not uncommon (or necessarily undesirable) to have senior managers who are capable of filling in for one another, and the problems of turnover in shelters often result in upper management having to fill in for vacant line management roles. However, the circumstances at CACC appeared to be less a matter of temporary staffing and more based on a confusing structure, insufficient delegation and the absence of clearly defined, understood and agreed upon roles and reporting relationships.

d. Implementation of a system for regularly scheduled preparation of both statistical and objectives-based narrative reports.

In order to monitor both individual and program performance, it is important that the decision makers within the organization receive regular reports detailing progress on objectives, as well as quantitative information on numbers of animals handled, sources, dispositions, etc. In addition, preparation of such reports makes the manager or supervisor involved look objectively at whether he/she has made progress on the agreed upon priorities, and by doing so serves as a reminder of the "important" versus immediate tasks. Perhaps most importantly, the hard data provided through such reports is critical to evaluating the impact that the organization and its programs are having as well as to planning for future programs or activities.

It should be noted that, in spite of repeated requests prior to and during our visit, we never received consistent, easy to understand statistical reports that documented all of the inflow and outflow of the shelter across comparable time periods. The Department of Health reportedly receives comprehensive statistical reports on a monthly basis, and the board receives these every other month as part of the Executive Director's reporting structure, suggesting that such reports do exist. Part of the problem in our obtaining copies may have been the transition to the Chameleon® software and the difference in tracking. However, although everyone acknowledged that statistical reporting, with a common, comprehensive format took place on a regular basis, reports that contained all of the information we requested were never made available to us.

2. Operating Policies, Procedures &Training
The key to efficient and consistent operations in an organization like CACC is the development of documented operating policies and procedures that are implemented through an on-going training program. Specific recommendations concerning the content of policies and procedures are detailed in other portions of this report. The following recommendations deal with the need to implement these policies and procedures through a systematic process that insures continuity of program and consistency among shelters. We strongly encourage CACC to give immediate attention to the following recommendations in order to see the policies and training in place as soon as possible:

Operating policies and procedures need to be identified, standardized and documented in writing;

• A structured on-the-job training program should be designed to provide new members of staff with the information and skills necessary to do their jobs, using the policies and procedures manual as a guide;
• A documentation system for monitoring training should be implemented and recorded in employee files, to insure that it is being accomplished;
• A system/process should be put into effect to insure that policy, procedures and training programs are continually reviewed and updated, in practice as well as in writing;
• An orientation and/or on-going program designed to communicate "big picture" issues to the entire staff should be developed; and
• Training programs in supervisory skills, animal behavior, customer service, animal protection law, conflict resolution or management, stress reduction, etc., should be made available either through organized, CACC sponsored workshops using consultant trainers or by supporting staff to attend programs elsewhere.

3. Compensation and Benefits System
With only a few exceptions, both management and line salaries at CACC fall below (or in some cases substantially below) the national averages for comparable positions within the animal protection field, an issue made even more notable given the high cost of living in New York City. In addition, although the organization provides health, vision and dental insurance, it was reported that CACC has no retirement plan or 403(b) plan for employees. The public attacks on the organization, combined with the unique stress of working in a dense urban environment like New York City, make it difficult enough for CACC to recruit individuals with experience in animal protection. Salaries and benefits must be competitive or better if the organization is to recruit and retain the kind of talented people it will need to reach its potential.

Earlier reports have made much of the level of staff turnover at CACC. Unfortunately, high turnover is a fact of life in animal shelters nationwide. Although we did not see specific documentation, management staff reported that turnover currently runs at about 30%. If this is accurate, it is very much in line with the national average for an animal protection organization the size of CACC, and somewhat surprising given the low wages, high cost of living, and public pressures that the organization has been under.

The Society of Animal Welfare Administrators (SAWA) conducts an annual survey of salaries and benefits that is made available to its members who participate. The Executive Director indicated her interest in joining SAWA, and should have access to this resource through her membership. In addition, the Technical Assistance Center (TAC) in Denver (affiliated with local Support Centers for Nonprofits) publishes a yearly national survey on nonprofit salaries, as does Abbott, Langer & Associates in Crete, Illinois. Both break down their information by regions and subsets of the nonprofit field. It is likely that the City of New York has similar resources available locally. Finally, the Non-Profit Times and the Chronicle of Philanthropy also do yearly profiles on nonprofit compensation.

We recommend that a review of salaries and benefits for comparable positions in animal protection and other NYC nonprofits be undertaken, with the intent of developing a compensation system for CACC that allows it to be more competitive in hiring and retaining qualified personnel.

4. Risk Management
CACC has the benefit of an in-house counsel, a virtually unique concept in local animal control or animal protection organizations, and it is this individual who has responsibility for risk management. Consequently, the organization apparently has ample insurance coverage to deal with the inevitability of litigation, workers compensation claims are reportedly (and surprisingly) low, and financial controls are both documented and functioning. However, much needs to be done to reduce risks in the two areas that generally present the greatest and most costly risks to animal sheltering and control facilities: employment/personnel related lawsuits and lawsuits growing out of the organization's services or programs.

As with general operational efficiency, CACC's greatest challenge in these areas stems from the lack of standardized, documented policies, procedures and training programs. Employees acting with insufficient or incorrect information--or decisions or policies that grow out of "common knowledge or "folk wisdom"--can be particularly damaging when the organization's work involves life and death decisions as well as interaction with the public around highly emotional topics. And, in a round-the-clock organization with multiple sites as well as field activity, supervisors are not always available to answer questions, catch mistakes, or correct misconceptions.

Consequently, the development and documentation of operational and personnel policies--and of training programs that insure that the policies are implemented--listed above are key steps in reducing and managing risks at CACC. It is also important that the policies being developed receive thorough review by the general counsel, to check for potential areas of increased risk or liability.

In the area of physical safety, CACC management has utilized the services of a safety consultant to review the facilities and program and make recommendations for safety policies, postings, etc. Unfortunately, however, there appeared to be confusion over some of the policies, and consequently they were not being fully implemented. For example, the required use of hearing protective devices for individuals working in the dog kennels is clearly posted, and--according to upper management--required. However, we witnessed few (if any) individuals wearing the protective gear, and a supervisor questioned indicated that use of the gear was recommended but voluntary. Although CACC has been fortunate to have low workers compensation claims to date, the absence of a structured and enforced safety program--as well as managers and supervisors who take it seriously--is the literal accident waiting to happen.

In addition to the recommendations above on developing, documenting and training around policies and procedures, we suggest the following areas be given attention in order to further contain unnecessary risks:

• The process of developing and documenting operating and personnel-related policies and procedures (recommended above) should include a thorough review by the General Counsel to insure that the organization is operating within the bounds of statutory authority, following legal mandates in personnel issues, and not opening itself to any unnecessary legal challenges.
• A safety program that meets OSHA standards need to be developed and implemented, with on-going safety training and disciplinary consequences for individuals who fail to follow safety policy, use of protective gear, etc.
• Management should utilize the expertise of outside resources such as insurance brokers, the Nonprofit Risk Management Center, and/or the National Center for Nonprofit Boards to review the organization's activities as a whole and identify the greatest areas for exposure, with the intent of developing programs and/or policies to address these.

D. Definition and Recognition for CACC's Role in the Community
Since its inception, CACC's relationship with its various communities and constituencies has been influenced by its--as well as their--lack of a clear definition of who it was and what its purpose was to be. The city, the public, other animal protection agencies and activists groups all had hopes and expectations for how things should be handled once animal control was no longer under the direction of the ASPCA. Since no process was put into place to use a distillation of these ideas, or even to replace them with a different vision of the new agency, the various constituencies remain unsatisfied, and continue to try to impose their ideas, frustrations and/or individual agendas on the organization. Earlier reports suggest an almost total lack of responsiveness from previous management, which has most likely exacerbated the frustration of critics and the isolation of the organization.

Media Relations and Community Education
The bulk of media coverage on CACC to date has been negative, or at best reactive and defensive. As a result, the media has come to know the organization through the eyes of its critics, and its credibility when it attempts to gain attention for educational messages is severely damaged. A repeated theme expressed by staff at all levels was frustration over the fact that the organization was not well known in the community, and those who were aware of it had heard primarily the bad press.

Staff and members of the community both report a lack of public awareness of CACC's programs, either by the public as a whole or even by representatives of other city and non-profit agencies. The common thread was that most of the city still confuses them with the ASPCA (a not too surprising fact, given that the ASPCA provided the services for 100 years, and the term ASPCA has become virtually generic for animal sheltering organization in common vocabulary).

Although it differs from facility to facility, staff as a whole do not appear to see their roles as educators informing the public. While drivers reportedly provide helpful information when questioned, the organization lacks a customer-friendly educational approach to interactions with the public. Only limited print materials is available to visitors, although what does exist is available in both English and Spanish.

On the positive and proactive side, CACC publishes a newsletter to inform its donors and other constituents of its activities, maintains a web site with information about its hours, services, etc., and has participated in special events to draw attention to its services (primarily adoption). They have hosted a cable television program for the past few years, but the exposure is limited, and the program is currently under review. Posters were developed for subways, and a recent campaign involving adoption promotion posters on city sanitation trucks reportedly had an immediate, positive effect on the number of adoptions during the time of the campaign. The Executive Director also reports that a positive relationship has been developing with one of the network affiliate stations.

The Director of Public Information was preparing to leave the organization during our visit, and we were unable to meet with her. She has been replaced with a new Director of External Affairs, who will oversee the community relations, public information and fundraising programs. The individual hired reportedly has a strong background in these areas, and the intention is to place greater emphasis on a coordinated program in these areas. Note: Since the HSUS E-Team visit, CACC has reportedly received celebrity endorsement and assistance with publicity from actors Bernadette Peters and Mary Tyler Moore.

[cont.]

| HSUS REPORT - Part 3 | SRAC HOME PAGE |