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 4].
SHELTER INTERIOR DESIGN AND LAYOUT
Shelter Renovations
The CACC facilities are in an incredible state of transition. The Brooklyn
shelter is in the middle of major renovations, and the Manhattan shelter
renovations are slated for early 1999. For the most part, the CACC inherited
the Brooklyn renovations for better or worse and has had a difficult time
trying to amend them. In Manhattan, the CACC will have greater control over
plans. Plans for a new Queens facility are already in the works, and renovations
will continue through 1999 to improve and enclose the dog runs in the Staten
Island shelter.
With this in mind, it would be futile to attempt a comprehensive evaluation of each of the CACC facility's current design and layout, other than to recognize the substantial limitations and inconveniences under which they are working. The HSUS does want to recognize, however, the effort that has been demonstrated to keep operations running as smoothly as possible despite the daily complications that arise as a result of these improvements. The current state of affairs affects every aspect of operations and must not be overlooked.
A recent CACC grant request (for sterilization program funding) provides a good summary of current facility renovation projects and related funding:
"We have secured $7.7 million in New York City funds for construction and rehabilitation of our shelters. This is in addition to $2.5 million already committed for renovations of the Brooklyn shelter, which started in April, 1997 and is expected to be completed by the end of the year. The City funds will pay for renovation of our Manhattan shelter and construction of a new larger Pet Adoption Center in Queens. These major renovations will add capacity to our shelter system."/20
Renovation Phases
The Brooklyn shelter has successfully completed Phase I of construction,
which includes an upcoming veterinary clinic, three new animal-holding wards,
and a food preparation room. This allowed The HSUS E-Team members a glimpse
into the general layout of what the future holds. An area currently referred
to as the "rescue" room (where animals are placed by field staff
prior to examination) is divided into a wall of steel runs and a wall of
new Shor-line® cages. Each run has a separate drain and flushing system
and is constructed to minimize contact between the animals. A hose is hooked
up in the room for cleaning. When we tested it, however, we noticed it did
not provide a very powerful spray. On the day we visited, this room in particular
was extremely hot and damp, but we were told that improvements to the heating/ventilation
system is part of a later phase.
Also as part of renovations in the Brooklyn shelter, a new flooring was installed. Unfortunately, against CACC's wishes, a granular finish was applied throughout the runs and hallways. Although a grainy surface is desirable in kennel areas to prevent slip-and-falls (for both staff during cleaning, animals being moved, and the public during visitation), the current flooring greatly impedes quick clean ups with a mop in the strictly public areas. Reportedly, this situation will be remedied prior to completion.
Final phases are to be completed by December of 1998. One of the highlights mentioned is the completion of a veterinary clinic which may or may not be operated by the CACC itself. Also described were: a) an adoption area off the front lobby (separating cats and dogs) using Shor-line® cages and runs ; b) a designated adoption office; c) a pre-adoption cat room; d), an area for good adoption candidate dogs awaiting adoption; and e) if possible, a small get acquainted area for adoptions. A set of double buzz doors will separate animals available for adoption from those not up for adoption. In addition to a lost and found area, wards for holding dogs, holding cats (both contagious and non-contagious), pre-adoption dogs, stray holding, and pre adoption dogs overflow will complete this area.
Manhattan construction is planned to begin in February of 1999, and it, too, will occur in three distinct phases. In Phase I, the facility's garage will be converted into a section of the shelter, and the front one-third of the building's front will be dedicated solely to intake of animals. There will also be a supervisory office, and an examination area for owner-surrendered animals. Two-thirds of this area will focus on new runs for holding dogs, and it was noted that the more dangerous animals will be housed within this section.
Phase II concerns the second floor which will be completely renovated for adoptions and exotic animal housing. Animals available for adoption will be divided into two major wards, and the current staff lounge will become a "get-acquainted" area for adoptions. The front and back roofs on the facility will be enclosed for further protection.
In Phase III, the downstairs will be gutted in order to provide additional wards for housing animals not available for adoption. Plans being considered included the use of double tiered caging in order to maximize occupancy, however it is our understanding that this design has been revisited in part due to recommendations during our visit. It is possible that Manhattan will also one-day house a spay/neuter suite.
Recommendations: Shelter design must respond to a variety of dissimilar tasks essential to the animal care and control profession: the unique housing, cleaning, and care for various types of animals; segregation of dangerous/ quarantined/sick animals; veterinary evaluation and treatment; reception and release of animals; private areas for the public to meet animals or identify dead companion animals; administrative functions; communication and dispatch services; staff meeting and support areas; and unique storage requirements./21 Juggling all of these needs in an older or poorly designed shelter can be difficult, at best. This is the case at all of the CACC's five animal shelters, but certainly not unique from other shelters across the country.
Many facilities across the country are going through the same sort of "growing pains." We have tried to make some quick observations and suggestions regarding design and layout, but the present working relationship with architects and city employees trained in layout and design on long-range facility planning will continue to be the most helpful. We strongly suggest that these efforts be in concert with consultation and/or participation with an architect specializing in animal shelter design and construction. A professional architectural inspection with recommendations for long-range repair and construction will provide the CACC with an action plan for necessary capital improvements and budgeting./22
Tempting as it may be, the showcasing of animals to increase adoptions should not be the primary motivating factor for shelter renovations. As has been noted above, consideration must also be given to specifics such as: improvements in human and animal traffic flow, the adequate separation of animals by species, age, health and temperament. In addition, the ability for staff to work in a safe and efficiently designed space is fundamentally important.
It is important for CACC management to occasionally step back with an objective eye to assess and evaluate each facility as operations evolve to fill ever-changing needs. In the midst of day-to-day operations, the need for non-routine cleaning, re-organizing, and painting is often overlooked, as well as the efficiency and suitability of each area to fulfill the current needs. Although many maintenance and reorganization projects can be disruptive to daily schedules and activities, the end result is a well-operated, streamlined, efficient system, well worth the initial effort and short-term inconvenience.
Lobby/Reception
In all of the CACC shelter lobbies, visitors are not permitted beyond the
reception area without first checking in with either the front office staff
or the security guard. Some visitors to the CACC facilities are not there
to view the kennels and instead wish to surrender unwanted animals, and
others are asked to wait for a period of time before a kennel expert is
available. A limited variety of educational materials for persons waiting
were available in both English and Spanish.
Shelter visitors are not allowed in the kennel area unsupervised, with some flexibility depending on the shelter. In Manhattan, public access to the kennels is secured, and those looking for a lost pet or seeking to adopt must approach the staff to be "buzzed" into the kennel area. HSUS E-Team members were told this procedure will be incorporated into renovations at the Brooklyn Shelter. In Staten Island, a door separates the reception area from the rest of the shelter. but the door remains unlocked and public access to the kennels is less guarded. At the Queens and Bronx shelters, the reception area doubles as an animal adoption area (and in some cases serves for temporary animal holding). Back rooms behind the reception area offer additional holding space, and cannot be entered by the public without the staff being immediately alerted.
Except in those areas where adoption and general operations personnel share space, the public must be escorted by CACC personnel for the purpose of adoption, lost and found, or for reclaiming ownership of their animal. This is most rigorously enforced in Brooklyn and Manhattan, where a schedule is set up in one-hour increments. Kennel attendants are assigned a time period during which they are responsible for escorting the public through the wards. In Staten Island, the significantly smaller size of the shelter makes one-on-one-attention a manageable and feasible arrangement. In Bronx and Queens, the size and set up allows for essentially constant coverage of the public's interaction with the animals.
Recommendations: A shelter's lobby and reception area provide the first impression for incoming visitors. For the most part, CACC does a good job of providing informational resources to the public, however, all shelters, the public, and the animals could benefit from the availability of materials on a wide range of subjects. We recommend the following:
Handicapped Access
Currently, Staten Island is the only handicap-accessible shelter, however
renovations for Brooklyn and Manhattan will include provisions for handicap
accessibility. In the Bronx and Queens shelters, handicap accessibility
beyond the requirements of any store front facility has not been considered
an issue. Neither of these two shelters provide public services such as
restrooms, sine they serve primarily as pet receiving centers. However,
the new Queens facility should become handicap-accessible when long term
plans have been completed. This issue should be addressed not only from
a public standpoint, but to address employment issues as well.
Recommendation: We recommend that CACC management have the facilities fully evaluated for handicap accessibility. Based on the resulting recommendations, make the necessary modifications to come into compliance with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Internal Directional Signage
This is equally important for the staff and for the general public. Many
directional signs were present throughout the CACC facilities, but in some
cases, signs were missing and in others identification signs were posted
incorrectly. E-Team members were concerned to be told that signage for staff
was "not an issue" in areas where the public did not have access.
Recommendations: Animal shelters are notorious for being difficult for visitors to find their way around, and good signs help to reduce the public's suspicions about a purposeful maze of rooms, mysterious corridors, and closed doors within an animal shelter. Internal directional signs should be posted to clearly identify areas where the public can and cannot enter and where they should exercise special caution, even when they are being escorted. An assumption that the staff does not need signage is dangerous in such a large organization with significant employee turnover. The misrouting of animals, the staff, or the public can result in serious confusion, mistakes, and a great public safety risk. In addition, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has signage requirements in some arenas, such as the location of hazardous materials or notification of slippery floors.
Every effort should be made to have clear, multilingual, identifying signs throughout the CACC shelters, and all incorrect signs should be removed or covered during transitions resulting from renovations. In addition, we recommend the following:
General Safety Issues
Attention must be paid to safety issues such as theft, vandalism, and general
potential for harm. For example, HSUS E-Team members learned of one staff
member whose car had been stolen multiple times while parked outside the
shelter.
Inside the shelter, the floors in several kennel areas were wet at times when the shelter was open to the public, creating a potential for danger. Also, cleaning implements and hoses were occasionally left out where anyone, public or staff could be in danger of a slip and fall accident.
One critical situation which should be corrected immediately is at the Manhattan shelter's outdoor enclosure, where dogs (including long-term-holding bite cases) are routinely exercised. While the dogs confined in this area are meant to be supervised, it seems that due to current staffing levels, this is not always the case. Apparently, tenants (mostly children) from the adjacent building have been known to climb into the yard through windows in order to "play" with the dogs.
Recommendations: Animal shelters inherently can be hazardous buildings. Wet floors, a need for general supervision of visitors in kennel areas, dangerous and/or quarantined animals, zoonotic diseases, and the frequency with which families with young children visit an animal shelter obligate the shelter management to continually provide for the safety of all visitors and staff. While we recognize that pro-active crime deterrent measures are in place within the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters (such as video surveillance cameras and the employment of security guards in the front office), this aspect needs to be continually addressed and steps must be taken to protect the public and staff.
Note: On more than one occasion, concerns were voiced to HSUS E-Team members regarding the effectiveness of the security guards at the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters. While we are not capable of evaluating this type of service, it is a service found successful in many animal shelters in metropolitan areas. We recommend that a risk/benefit evaluation of current services be considered along with an analysis of cost-effectiveness. This protection should be monitored and evaluated repeatedly to ensure the proper coverage.
To adequately provide for public safety and to deter potential problems, we recommend the following:
Emergency Planning
It is strongly recommended that the CACC institute an evacuation plan for
both animals and humans for the potential emergencies in the shelter. The
local fire marshal should be asked to provide a full inspection and offer
his official safety recommendations. Consultation with the Fire Department
is always a good precaution and provides them with familiarity with the
shelter layout that is crucial in emergencies. It is also strongly recommended
that the CACC institute a disaster plan, including an emergency plan for
the evacuation of animals in the shelter./24
Facilities Maintenance
Throughout the on-site visit, management from all areas expressed a general
appreciation of the demands placed on the Facilities Maintenance department,
consisting of a Director and one full-time employee. Countless pressing
needs, a limited number of staff to meet those needs, and both external
and internal obstacles hinder the ability to make long-term improvements.
In the Facility Maintenance Director's estimation, approximately 75% of maintenance needs are addressed through subcontracting, which he oversees. Inherited problems from the ASPCA facilities also demand a great deal of attention, and in addition to routine maintenance, the Facilities Maintenance Director is also managing the renovations of the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters.
Great hope is placed in renovations, but in many cases, the unexpected result has been higher maintenance demands--as old headaches disappear, new ones replace them. Fortunately, the end result will be a better environment for staff and animals.
Temperature and humidity control has been chronically problematic in the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelters, and new HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning) systems are in the works. Condensation dripping from the upper level of the Manhattan shelter has interfered with the computer system on the floor below. However, this is to be remedied during renovations.
Many projects are well-managed through prioritization. However, it became evident that Facilities staff prioritizes differently than others in management, which significantly complicates the process. Some staff expressed the perception that certain management caters to the wishes of the line staff, attributable to a general fear that staff will leave or threaten to do so. Specific incidents mentioned by several staff (independently) were apparent episodes of internal vandalism intended as either a) retaliation; or b) a commentary regarding unfavorable decisions or new requirements placed on them.
Based on our brief visit, we were left with the impression that the Facilities Maintenance Director looks forward to being a director of a comprehensive facilities' program and not a "two person show." Eventually, when there has been time to develop a departmental protocol, the director stated would ideally prefer to subcontract less and operate out of an in-house program with a four-person crew. In the meantime, he appears to be gaining training and networking to professionalize his part of the CACC.
Recommendations: It is clear that there are many demands placed on this department, and the current staffing level is blatantly inadequate. In the short term, a more effective means of communication regarding facility priorities must be implemented by CACC upper management. While staff perspective is valuable and should not be discounted, their opinion alone should not be directing (albeit indirectly) operations or maintenance. More effective communication will also be necessary. In the long term, the suggested plan to bring all facilities maintenance "in house" should be explored for cost effectiveness.
SHELTER OPERATIONS
Hours of Operation
Open to the public:
| Manhattan: | 24 hours a day, seven days a week |
| Brooklyn: | 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Tuesday through Sunday |
| Staten Island: | 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., seven days a week |
| Bronx and Queens: | 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Tuesday through Saturday |
Open for Adoption:
| Manhattan: | 11:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., seven days a week |
| Brooklyn: | 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. Tuesday through Sunday |
| Staten Island: | 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday; 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday |
| Bronx and Queens: | 11:00 A.M. to 3:00 P.M. Tuesday through Saturday |
Animal Rescue/Pick up Services:
| All Boroughs: | 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. Monday through Friday |
Recommendations: Staff reported that a common complaint
heard from the public has to do with the hours in which the shelters are
open to the public for various services. Currently, the Manhattan shelter
(open 24 hours for services) and Staten Island shelters are most accessible
to the public, but even these need improvement in scope and availability.
With a few exceptions, The CACC's hours of operation (including adoption
and redemption) are inadequate for the average working individual or family.
For example, when considering commute and traffic, the average working day
for a native New Yorker begins long before 10:00 A.M. and certainly does
not end by 4:00 or 5:00 P.M.. The shelter should have hours that are convenient
to the community, enabling them to easily surrender owned animals, deliver
strays, adopt from the shelter, and receive advice.
By not being open during expanded hours, a large population of the city
is prohibited from receiving much-needed services. This obviously decreases
the CACC's effectiveness in fulfilling its responsibilities of providing
care and shelter to the community's animals and to protecting public health.
In turn, this is likely to aggravate the public and discourage support which
may affect donations and overall public image. All of this will in turn
negatively affect adoptions. Convenience is a major factor in choosing a
source for a new pet, which is why shopping mall pet shops, neighbors, and
relatives are often more popular sources than shelters. If CACC is to compete
for a larger segment of the "adoptions" market, it must be accessible
during those hours that its clients need/want its services.
Adoption hours could be extended, on at least some days until 7:00 P.M. or 7:30 P.M. at the Manhattan shelter. The other three shelters should consider extending the hours of operation and hours of adoption every day, on some days staying open until 7:30. In the Bronx and Queens shelters specifically, hours of adoptions are far too limited, especially in light of the effort required to transport animals to and from these shelters. In all actuality, it seems as though this is one reason to cease adoptions at these facilities until further arrangements can be made. A long term consideration to be made is the eventual conversion to a 24 hour, seven day a week system in all five boroughs, with extended adoption hours, in conjunction with 24-hour rescue services, discussed elsewhere in this report.
Computer Systems and Support
The CACC has spent a great deal of money to very inadequately utilize its
current computer capabilities. As with some other CACC projects, it appears
that computers have been a well-intentioned addition, but undertaken without
a master plan, strong management support, or enough staff training.
CACC has purchased Chameleon® software which is one of the leading animal care and control software programs in the United States and Canada, but most of Chameleon®'s features do not seem to be utilized in the CACC's shelters. The majority of reports and information are not generated through Chameleon®, and it appears there is still far too much reliance on the poorly designed and cumbersome paper systems which continually fail the operations. This indicates that Chameleon®'s abilities are not understood or used by the staff.
At the time of the HSUS E-Team visit, it was reported to us that a representative of Chameleon® had been and was still visiting CACC's shelters to train staff on the use of Chameleon®. Unfortunately, no member of the HSUS E-Team had contact with this person during our visit.
Recommendations: The animal management software, Chameleon®, is a very sophisticated and helpful program - if it is carefully and well integrated into shelter operations./25 Competent and full use of Chameleon® would itself greatly reduce human errors regarding holding, locating, tracking, adopting, returning, and euthanizing animals. In addition, Chameleon® can easily enhance efforts to match animals with people. With Chameleon® software, each animal as well as each human client is assigned a unique, permanent number by the software. A cage card can be generated which includes that number as well as other vital information about the animal being impounded or surrendered. In general, we strongly suggest the following:
NOTE: If all of this cannot be done and a decision is not made for an organization wide commitment to use Chameleon® properly, this software should be removed from CACC operations for the time being. To continue with the current process will merely waste time and money and will only continue to further enhance the problems created by CACC's current system using a combination of paper and computerization.
General Recordkeeping/Statistics
Prior to and during The HSUS E-Team visit, we were exposed to several different
formats for recording daily statistics as well as varying outputs, making
it difficult to assess the current system(s). In addition, there was significant
confusion as to which individual was responsible for providing us with statistics.
In the end, those that were requested were not received, and those we were
given were incomplete and/or out of context.
Currently, the layouts of the monthly statistical reports for the CACC shelters are difficult to follow and not inclusive of all activities. For example, the total number of animals handled does not always equal the numbers relating to adoption, euthanasia, and redemption for that time period. Most likely, this discrepancy is a result of the exclusion of the number of animals "on-hand" (carried over) within these facilities.
At the Brooklyn shelter, the daily animal count is penciled onto a crowded log sheet, and the tally sheet for the day of our visit was full of eraser marks and scribbles. Legibility aside, this system warrants concern. To add to this confusion, we were provided with yet another sheet for daily animal count meant for use in either the Manhattan, Brooklyn, or Staten Island shelters. This particular sheet differentiates canines from felines of varying ages, but shelter statistics never included this type of breakdown. It became clear, with perhaps one exception, that statistics were not a current priority with the shelter managerial staff.
Recommendations: Animal care and control has the ability to produce an inordinate amount of data on a daily, monthly, and yearly basis. Prior to the advent of computers, there has been little guidance regarding the do's and don'ts of record keeping, and the method of trial and error is all too common. Yet, in order to effectively monitor operations, plan strategies and evaluate programs, it is important for the management of an animal care and control to track, have regular access to, and analyze a wide range of sheltering data.
We have been advised that the system for recording shelter statistics is under revision. Much of the confusion, inconsistency, and room for error can be solved by utilizing Chameleon®. If an acceptable system of tracking and reporting statistics is implemented, as we believe will happen, the system must be utilized to its full potential to be effective.
While indifference toward statistics or a fear of ramifications resulting from their distribution is a common reaction in the animal care and control field, it is one which concerns us greatly. Reports should be easy to read, clear, with any discrepancies (and their rationale) clearly noted. One should not have to guess or ask for clarifications -- to encourage questioning begs for controversy. Regardless of merit, statistical faults or errors give the appearance of carelessness, apathy or even impropriety.
The current reluctance of some of the managerial staff and shelter directors to maintain, monitor and track statistics must be addressed. A resistance to focus on "playing with numbers" is understandable when so many other competing, immediate animal and staffing needs are constantly vying for attention. However, the CACC is under constant, intense scrutiny, and in many cases, statistics (especially those relating to euthanasia) will be used to frame a critic's debate. If the CACC's leaders and managerial staff are unfamiliar with correct statistics, or defend them in primarily a reactive fashion, they will trap themselves in a losing debate. To hear "I don't know" as an answer to a statistical question is not only unimpressive, but also implies indifference.
Across the nation, there is a widespread misunderstanding of the role(s) that animal care and control organizations play in the care and protection of a community's companion animals. Too often, the perceived success or failure of animal care and control programs is wrongly defined by euthanasia figures alone, and as a result, runaway stereotypes are prevalent, portraying local agencies as "animal death camps run by callous, uncaring staff." And because the public only sees a rough sketch instead of the full picture, many animal care and control agencies throughout the country are feeling pressured to focus their energies on stopping euthanasia today and solving the problems necessitating euthanasia tomorrow. Yet, the goal should not be simply to end euthanasia, but instead to eliminate the need for euthanasia--it is not the solution to the pet overpopulation problem, but rather a tragic result of it.
The HSUS strongly encourages the CACC to use shelter statistics more to its advantage, by emphasizing that the burden of responsibility must be shared by all members of the community. For example, rather than stating that "The Brooklyn shelter handled XX stray and unwanted animals in 1999," CACC management should instead accentuate the public's role through language such as: "The Brooklyn community generated XX stray and unwanted animals in 1999."
Furthermore, we cannot stress the importance of using statistics to shape policies and protocols which are the best possible fit for the organization as a whole as well as for each individual shelter. If the CACC is to assume its high profile position as one of the largest shelter systems in the country, it must fulfill its responsibility as an example to other shelters. Keeping and contributing accurate statistics is part of this responsibility.
In addition to the recommendations listed above (regarding computer systems and support), we also recommend the following:
Incoming Animal Identification
Every animal arriving at the CACC facilities is given an intake number,
a neck band (collar) with that identifying number, and paperwork which stays
with the animal throughout his or her stay. Hard copies of records are also
kept in binders, separated by Department of Health (DoH) cases, Released
Animals, and Holding cases. For those animals who fall in more than one
category, double records are kept to ensure no paperwork or animals are
overlooked.
However, as mentioned earlier in this report, there are inconsistent intake procedures at the five shelters. Some of the shelters are already using Chameleon®, while others are still using the original intake paperwork. In addition, a study of identification collar styles was underway and several types of collars were simultaneously in use. The current system is further complicated by the significant routing of animals which occurs. The old paperwork system and Chameleon® differ substantially, using conflicting numbers to identify animals throughout their stay at the shelter.
HSUS E-Team members participated in a spot check of three random animals at the Manhattan shelter, an exercise which, we were happy to learn, is practiced sporadically by the Director of Operations. Unfortunately, tracking down the paper work on the three animals chosen was far more difficult than anyone had anticipated.
Recommendations: We have concerns over the confusion generated by inconsistent intake documentation and procedures, especially in light of the sheer numbers of animals handled and day-to-day shelter transfers. Even with the best tracking system in place, the high volume of animals handled can be an overwhelming burden.
Given the absolute necessity of meticulous animal tracking to ensure accuracy within the shelters, this is an area which needs immediate attention. We recommend the following be done immediately:
Incoming Identification Procedures
Another element of inconsistency which was troublesome was the identification
of incoming animals needing examination. A system of coding signals is set
up by the actual placement of cards on the cages themselves. For example,
a "forward facing" card placed in the cage holder signals something
different from a "reverse facing" card, and other distinct placement
methods indicate animals to be moved up to the adoption areas or to be euthanized.
In the Staten Island and Brooklyn shelters, it appeared easier to maintain this system and keep up with the identification of incoming animals needing examinations. Within Brooklyn, unexamined animals seem to be confined to two distinct areas: a) the unexamined animal ward off the clinic; and b) a separate ward accessible by rescue drivers, preventing the need to lead unexamined animals through the shelter.
However at the Manhattan shelter, this system of coding is quite confusing and difficult to manage. There are two wards for unexamined cats and dogs respectively, but because of the increased volume during renovations, many animals awaiting examination were housed in overflow caging throughout the hallway. HSUS E-Team members were told that animals who do not appear sick or injured could wait up to 24 hours before a thorough examination was possible. In addition, HSUS E-Team members noted that the cage cards themselves were not well-protected. In many instances cards were soaking wet, chewed up, falling out of card holders, or simply missing altogether.
Recommendations: It is essential that animal care personnel be able to easily identify which incoming animals are in need of examination. In general, this type of "cage card coding" presents a whole host of problems, especially given the poor condition of many of the cards we observed.
It is not beyond reason to envision a scenario such as this: A member
of the public walks through the kennel, sees a cage card on the floor, picks
it up, and in an effort to "help out," folds the card in order
to place it securely back in the holder -- inadvertently changing the animal's
disposition status. Therefore the card-turning as a system must be replaced
with written notations (such as a code) as quickly as possible.
HSUS E-Team members were pleased to learn that a new system will be instituted
at the Brooklyn shelter. Notations in various colors will more clearly indicate
animals awaiting examination, adoption, and so forth. However, we recommend
this (or a similar) procedure be instituted immediately and simultaneously
in all shelters. Certain procedural differences may be necessary because
of the differences in housing within the five shelters, however, basic identification
and intake protocols cannot have variation. This general procedure must
be consistent to insure proper tracking of every animal.
Furthermore, developing some type of protection for cage cards cannot be emphasized enough. Everyone from the service personnel to the kennel attendants must understand the importance and meaning of these cards.
Animal Examinations
Examinations are performed on every incoming animal by either licensed or
license-eligible veterinary technicians (called Animal Care Specialists).
Specific written protocols outline the details regarding the performance
of incoming examinations. Examinations at the Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Staten
Island shelters are performed on site, and animals from the Bronx and Queens
are currently transported to Manhattan for examination and housing.
Staff appear to be quite knowledgeable and thorough, performing examinations humanely. HSUS E-Team members were especially pleased to see that incoming animals are comforted, petted and reassured during the intake process. However, there does appear to be an occasional backlog of animals needing a thorough examination or recheck.
All incoming dogs and cats are vaccinated for infectious diseases on
the day of impoundment. Heska Intranasal® (FVRCP) vaccines are used
on all cats, and for dogs, the Intervet® (DHLPP) vaccine is used. Boosters
are given to long term animals according to good medical principles. Rabies
inoculations are given to both dogs and cats at the time of redemption or
adoption. Vaccination protocols are also customized for each species and
age grouping, and needed boosters are given at the appropriate times and
with the appropriate products. Routine deworming of all incoming dogs and
cats is also performed at intake time using a broad-spectrum medication
(pyrantel pamoate).
All incoming cats are tested for the feline leukemia virus, a contagious
disease. Any cats testing positive are isolated from the general population
and are consequently not made available for adoption. Limited additional
diagnostic procedures are also performed when possible and/or appropriate.
For example, HSUS E-Team members observed one of the veterinary technicians
performing a microscopic examination of a skin scraping taken from a stray
dog, most likely to properly diagnosis a mange mite infection. Limited laboratory
facilities are available at the shelter for diagnosing common diseases such
as parasitism, ringworm, mange, parvo virus, etc.
Staff have been well-trained to recognize symptoms of infectious diseases, and specific protocols exist for the transfer and housing of animals exhibiting these symptoms in separate wards and cages.
Animal Assessment and Status
A new system of assessing animals has been instituted recently at the CACC
shelters which carefully considers both health and temperament. At the time
of initial examinations, all incoming animals are given a certain categorization,
referred to as a "status," to assist with housing and disposition
decisions. CACC's guidelines for status determinations, dated 5/1/98, state
that:
"Behavioral and medical parameters are considered in assigning an animal a status and these status' may change at a later date during an animal's stay at the CACC. 'Owner Consent for Euthanasia' animals do not receive a status unless they are healthy and the CACC has refused to euthanize them because of an excellent opportunity for placement through the CACC adoption programs. Temperament concerns with regard to worker and adopter safety are always given the priority when assigning a status to an animal."/28
Incoming animals are assigned a status based on an established hierarchy. Five distinct categories aid in determinations relating to housing, medical treatment options, and disposition recommendations. This system, too, encourages an environment of consistency and fairness in the way incoming animals are handled.
As noted above, these categories can be (and are often) changed as the animal's medical condition and attitude permit. For example, frightened animals who respond to a "calming period" and injured animals who respond to treatment can both be made available for adoption.
It is obvious that a great deal of time and thought has gone into an assessment system which gives every animal an optimal chance at adoption. However, on several occasions HSUS E-Team members witnessed assessments which did not coincide with the new system. Clearly, this is a new procedure, however a misunderstanding of the new criteria has the potential to undermine all of the effort that has gone into this system.
Recommendations: An effective assessment system is crucial to responsibly dealing with the incredible volume of animals with which the CACC deals. Transition to a new system should be handled very carefully and should involve extensive in-house training of all staff (including those who do not have direct responsibility for routine assessments).
It is important to note that almost all animals go through stress prior to entry into the shelter system, and that being housed in a shelter setting can also contribute to their level of anxiety. Decisions determining where and how they are housed within the shelter should include external environmental factors such as noise, light, traffic, and other animals. Animals should be constantly monitored to ensure that their physical location within the shelter is appropriate for their needs.
The science of animal behavior is being applied more and more to the problems of animal shelters and the animals we handle. An understanding of basic temperament related concepts should be a part of all training. The HSUS E-Team members were very pleased to learn that Sue Sternberg, a well-known expert in dog behavior, was called in to speak with staff members to provide guidance and instruction on temperament issues. This is an exercise worth repeating on a regular basis, in conjunction with basic training in the new assessment system for all staff.
Determination of adoptability is one of the most important aspects of monitoring and evaluating animals. Each animal should be evaluated individually, and preferably by a group of individuals whenever possible, to eliminate subjectivity in this process. Regular assessment of each animal needs to be made to insure their comfort, happiness, and general well-being. Many factors affect the quality of their stay in the shelter and their chances for adoption. As part of the initial and continual animal evaluation, consideration should be given to: outward demeanor, previous history, age, temperament, general appearance, behavior problems, and shelter space.
It is no longer true that only young, attractive animals appeal to the
adopting public. The criteria to determine the suitability of sheltered
animals for adoption has been an evolution that must be followed closely.
For example, many animals who had no hope of placement ten years ago might
now be "the perfect dog" who countless families clamor over in
a shelter lobby. Shelters must stay on top of these trends, monitor the
interests of the visiting public, and make decisions accordingly.
The assessment of animals, and the related practice of making difficult
disposition decisions is an incredible responsibility to place on any staff
and not one which should be granted casually, especially in light of the
sheer numbers of animals handled. It is advisable that more than one person
be assigned this task, and that those individuals responsible for determining
status should demonstrate a clear understanding of the system, be comfortable
with this responsibility, and be monitored closely.
Placement through a n outside adoption group or into a foster home should be carefully considered. Decisions relating to outside placement should be made fairly and without bias, and not emotionally to prevent euthanasia. (See also "EUTHANASIA--Selection Criteria).