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 7].
ADOPTIONS
General
The greatest impression the members of The HSUS E-Team received regarding
adoptions is the incredible priority it holds within the CACC, and The HSUS
Evaluation was initiated in a desire to improve this program. But perhaps
most revealing was the way in which future plans and renovations have been
(and continue to be) developed with a focus on increasing adoptions.
For example, the layout and cage design for the Brooklyn and Manhattan shelter renovations have been prioritized to increase capacity as well as to allow for fluid holding arrangements. Currently, cages are fixed and designated between animals up for adoption and those who are not or never will be. Additional plans have been created to make the adoption space more inviting to the public.
In the future, plans call for mobile cage units that can be transferred to adoption areas as needed. This is to ensure that more animals can be displayed as soon as their holding period is up and they are ready for adoption.
There is a fear amongst staff that if animals are not moved to the adoption area rapidly, they will become unadoptable due to exposure to disease. But since the stray period is only two days in New York, and animals are vaccinated on the day of impound, many of the adoptable dogs and cats are in and out of the shelter before they really have a chance to acquire or develop any symptoms of disease. Currently infectious diseases do not seem to significantly impact the operations of the shelter, the adoption program, or the animals themselves.
As stated earlier, the "euthanasia related" criticism that the CACC has received weighs heavily on all levels of staff, not just the euthanasia technicians. For some members of CACC management, increasing adoptions has become the answer to decreasing euthanasia and therefore the intense criticism of the public. Great reliance has been placed on adoptions to the point where we are concerned that objectivity may be impaired. Currently, public pressure is sending a clear if subliminal message that quantity is to be valued above quality.
Current Status
In spite of the great importance placed on this one area, the current adoption
program is inadequate, though not for lack of effort. The philosophy of
increasing quantity of adoptions is being emphasized without provisions
for the proper tools to ensure quality. However, the newly hired adoption
coordinator appears to have a sense of the current program's weaknesses,
in addition to future plans and program goals.
Unfortunately, since starting, she has had little opportunity to focus
specifically on adoptions. Because of shelter renovations, her time has
been most spent assisting at the Manhattan shelter, which is operating under
a 33% increased volume. The Manhattan shelter has also been undergoing substantial
staff changes. We recognize that this has occurred out of necessity and
note that in some ways it could be beneficial. For the Director of Adoptions
to be familiar with all aspects of CACC operations can further guide her
in her assessment of its future. But unfortunately, in the meantime, the
adoption program is moving full steam ahead without the benefit of her guidance
or expertise.
Staffing
In addition to the Director of Adoptions, each shelter has an Adoptions
Coordinator. Brooklyn and Manhattan have Assistant Coordinators who are
scheduled five days a week. There are two designated service representatives
who handle adoptions in Manhattan and one part time in Brooklyn. At the
other three shelters all staff participate in adoptions. There is also the
new Special Adoptions Coordinator position, and a part time Spay/Neuter
Coordinator for Manhattan. The director hopes to soon add two additional
counselors and have assistant coordinators seven days a week.
The increase in staffing levels dedicated to this program is commendable, but there is no doubt that more staff are necessary to handle the volume of adoptions the CACC is pushing for and is pushed for. Currently, these few individuals have to handle thousands of adoptions a year. To do so includes helping to match owners with the right pets, screening and qualifying responsible owners, counseling and behavior assistance, processing paper work, handling calls about the adoption program, providing follow up services, overseeing foster and rescue programs, coordinating satellite adoptions, and helping to manage the make-up of the adoption ward.
A training program will be necessary, designed to instruct staff in adoption protocols and counseling. The director plans to institute a two-week adoption counselor training program, and consulted with HSUS staff for suggestions relating to components. In the meantime, there is a noticeable uneasiness with the effectiveness of current adoptions.
The Adoption Process
We were given the greatest insight into the program at the Brooklyn shelter.
A lot of the "right" steps and implements are in place, such as
a pre-adoption screening with standard questions, reference checks, and
housing checks. Counseling does occur throughout the decision-making and
adoption process.
All animals adopted are vaccinated for rabies and have been given a health examination. Microchipping of all adopted animals is a good feature of CACC's adoption program. Animals at the Brooklyn shelter more than 3.5 months of age are held for sterilization prior to leaving the shelter, but at the other shelters, this is not yet possible.
Brooklyn appears to have the most developed and active adoption program, although none are comprehensive or serve as a model. For example, efforts to follow up with adopters are often met with complications. While follow-up records at the Brooklyn shelter are kept in a manual log book, this type of system does not occur at the other shelters. While the philosophy of the CACC is that its relationship with the adopter does not end at the time of adoption, there are currently not enough staff capable of handling a responsible follow up program.
The ability of the current staff to serve as knowledgeable counselors
and advisors also comes into question. While many of the staff are well-meaning,
they lack access to the training resources needed to be effective. As a
result, it appears that paperwork dominates the process, and that minimal
meaningful counseling and advice is given. In addition, there seems to be
great frustration over certain members of the staff who were uninterested
in learning the extra skills required to make them effective counselors.
Recommendations: While immediate in its impact, adoption programs
alone are not the only (nor necessarily the most effective) means to reducing
euthanasia. CACC is not only
limited by the number of available and appropriate homes in the communities
it serves, but also by competition from alternative sources for companion
animals within the City.
The purpose of an adoption program, whether conducted by a private animal protection agency or a municipal animal care and control agency, should be to find responsible, lifelong homes for animals suitable as companions./53 Such matchmaking requires knowledge of both the animals to be placed and their prospective adopters. It is not a kindness to animals for an agency to place them in homes where they will fail to receive adequate care and companionship, food, water, shelter, or veterinary care when necessary. Nor is it a benefit to the community for an agency to place animals where they will be allowed to roam the streets, violate animal-control laws, or add their offspring to the surplus of unwanted animals that already burden the community.
Counseling and evaluating potential adopters can be based on three basic criteria that we refer to as the "three C's": 1) a commitment to the life and needs of the animal; 2) a compassion and a desire for mutual companionship; and 3) a capability of providing the essentials of a healthy, happy life for the animal./54
The adoption process should be a positive and friendly process--not an opportunity for the 'adoption police' to continually find fault with a person's pet owning lifestyle. The organization should take all steps necessary to educate shelter visitors about being a good pet owner and how to choose an animal companion who best matches their hopes and needs. A more interactive adoption process is beneficial for the animal and the adopting family.
With this in mind, we suggest that CACC:
When seeking to place unwanted animals, shelters face stiff competition from pet stores, breeders, and sources of free animals. A recent survey conducted by the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) revealed that as few as 14% of persons with dogs or cats acquired them through shelters. A similar survey by The HSUS reported comparable numbers.
Prospective pet owners stay away from an animal shelter for a variety of reasons, including (but not limited to):
Shelters cannot hope to overcome some of these obstacles very easily--many preconceived notions about shelters and shelter animals are so deeply rooted in the American psyche that they are taking decades to change. But other problems may have more achievable solutions--perhaps something as basic as noting any improvements made and helping to correct a shelter's lack of (or negative) visibility in the community.
We recommend that all persons interested in helping the animals of CACC work together to encourage members of the community to support and visit the shelter, especially when looking for a new companion animal. Negative and disparaging remarks about CACC's "low adoption rate" will do nothing but further the problem.
Further, we recommend that the CACC encourage responsible shelter adoptions through increased marketing techniques. These may include advertising (such as the recent CACC subway advertisements), increasing public recognition and therefore bringing more people to the animal shelter, maintaining an attractive facility, and presenting healthy dogs and cats for adoption.
Increasing adoptions, however, demands careful regard for the adoption process, in the effort to ensure that healthy animals are placed in responsible homes. Shelters already HAVE surplus animals because of people who either couldn't or wouldn't provide a lifelong home, or allowed their pet to breed. Placing an animal in any home in order to avoid euthanasia does not solve pet overpopulation, and, in fact, contributes to it.
Adoption Partners
CACC has an "Adoption Partnership Agreement" with area groups
to increase adoptions. Outlined within this agreement are definitions of
the partnering individual and/or group's responsibilities, such as for sterilization,
veterinary treatment, and notification of final disposition. In Manhattan
alone, 10-100 animals (including exotics) are placed with participating
groups on any given day.
A Special Adoptions Coordinator position has been newly created within CACC operations. This position primarily monitors and oversees the logistics associated with the "Adoption Partnership Agreement." Unfortunately, there appears to be no real way of enforcing the agreement, and until recently, records relating to this program had never been tracked. Currently, with close oversight, participants are reportedly resisting cooperation.
"Foster Care at the CACC" is a document describing the general
fostering philosophy and the logistics of becoming a foster parent. There
is no real description of parameters, however, and this document primarily
advertises the program. Oversight of this program has been difficult and
there are currently not enough trained staff to handle screening and follow
up. Brooklyn appears to be the only shelter managing effective control over
fostering programs, but there are no methods to adequately measure success
or failure.
Adoption partner screening and application procedures are currently in development.
Groups with a long-standing relationship with CACC continue while this process
is restructured. But according to the Director, active solicitation of new
groups is on hold until a responsible screening protocol is in place. We
are concerned however that some new arrangements are occasionally initiated
based on referrals by either employees or those already involved.
The two largest adoption-partnership programs are with North Shore Animal League (NSAL) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). These two relationships, however, are monitored by the office of the Executive Director. The CACC seems to be very comfortable with the arrangement with the ASPCA, and in fact wishes they could assist with more animals. CACC staff stated they believe the ASPCA performs quality adoptions and performs sterilization before release. Opinions regarding the current system to provide animals to NSAL conflicted, which implies a more precarious relationship. Many staff on varying levels expressed concern regarding NSAL's adoption program, and a desire to end this relationship. Others felt some uneasiness, but felt this relationship should be maintained. Still others found the program suitable.
Smaller private groups are also used and held to a high standard. However, as stated earlier, oversight of this program is difficult, to say the least.
Recommendations: We found the CACC's willingness to work with outside groups to be an excellent example of collaboration for the benefit of all animals. In general, community adoption partners can play an extremely supportive and helpful role to an animal care and control agency, or they can be extremely difficult and divisive organizations with which to work.
To ensure good relationships that truly benefit animals, very clear organizational policies must be used to develop guidelines, procedures, and practices./56 There must also be realistic expectations and respectful, trusting relationships between the shelter and the outside groups.
Primary concerns of The HSUS relate to responsibility, "ownership"
and disposition when an animal is "placed" with any outside individual
or group. Once an animal is released, the CACC's responsibility does not
end there. It continues to carry the ethical (and sometimes legal) burden
of assuring responsible placement, ensuring compliance with regulations
and laws, and is potentially liable for any problems.
At issue is a subtle, yet important consideration relating to terminology.
While it certainly may not be the intention to do so, negative messages
are often sent to the public when statements are made about outside persons
"rescuing, removing, or taking animals from an animal shelter."
Unfortunately, rather than seeing this effort as a positive step on the
shelter's part to work with outside groups to explore a variety of arenas
to enhance adoptions, the public often tends to infer that the shelter is
simply not to be trusted to do the best thing for the animals and that animals
should be "rescued from the horror" and taken to a kinder, more
caring location. This type of response has been seen in many areas of the
country--hence the general recommendation by many in the animal protection
field to replace the term "rescue group" with the more appropriate
term "adoption partner."
Another issue that merits discussion relates to the vagueness of the actual parameters of adjunct adoption programs. The terms "foster, rescue, and transfer" are frequently used by shelters around the country, but often with little or no clear definition. In our experience, two options generally tend to occur:
Temporary -- The situation serves as a temporary home for the animal with the originating organization maintaining ownership and responsibility for the animal. The temporary caregiver provides care but has no role (or rights) regarding placement. Reasons for this arrangement traditionally include: behavior evaluation, recovery from illness/injury, or the weaning of newborn puppies/kittens. In this option, decisions regarding the final placement of the animal and his/her care are maintained by the originating organization.
-or-
Permanent -- The adoption partner is in effect the adopting party to whom the originating organization has transferred ownership. All further responsibility for the animal is therefore assumed by the adoption partner. Implied in this transfer is the knowledge that this partner will themselves adopt the animal into another, permanent home.
It should be quite clear to all participants the absolute parameters, application, and lines of authority regarding partnerships.
Another general concern is the viability and legitimateness of those seeking access to shelter animals awaiting adoption. It is not uncommon for individuals with no resources or experience to be self-proclaimed adoption partners in an effort to designate positions of responsibility within an organization without any training or authority to do so. In fact, it is not unusual for animal collectors to attempt to acquire animals from shelters with little or no intent of ever placing them into new homes. As a result, CACC is wise to be developing safeguards and checks and balances. These should be instituted as soon as possible (with a means of enforcement in place) to prevent this type of situation from occurring with animals released from CACC facilities.
It is the responsibility of CACC management to ensure that working with diverse groups does not compromise its own standards. While working together toward the goal of finding more good homes for the animals, a great deal of planning, structure and cooperation needs to be provided for this program to be effective. Adoption partners are not meant to solely increase adoptions, but to increase the quality of life for some animals not suitable for the shelter environment./57
Toward that end, we recommend the following:
In addition, CACC should carefully determine the type(s) and number(s) of animals provided to approved groups. It is imperative to develop pragmatic and clear policies regarding decision making within CACC management. Decisions to release animals must always reside with CACC management, and never with the groups themselves.
Friction and infighting between staff and adoption partners are not unusual to see. Preventing (or at a minimum reducing) this type of conflict should be a constant management priority. Across the country, these relationships are considered a 'fragile alliance' and take a great deal of effort to maintain. Unrealistic expectations, impatience, egos, lack of communication, rumors and gossip, personality clashes, and a general climate not conducive to collaboration are problems that often contribute to a state of mistrust and accusations. All groups have a shared vision for animal protection and care, and all need to work together to improve their working relationships--as "Adoption Partners."
CACC Adoption Centers
The Bronx and Queens shelters are currently limited in scope, serving primarily
as receiving stations for unwanted animals, and adoption satellite centers
for potential adopters. Zoning prohibits, however, the housing of animals
in these facilities overnight. As a result, transportation of these animals
to and from facilities is a cumbersome process.
One employee each from the Bronx and Queens shelters starts the day off at the Manhattan or Brooklyn shelter respectively. Using CACC Animal Rescue Vehicles, animals are transferred to either the Bronx or Queens Pet Receiving and Adoption Center, depending on where that staff person is officially stationed. Depending on the number of animals received or adopted at these facilities, one to three trips must be made back to the Manhattan shelter (Manhattan currently receives all intakes from Bronx and Queens while the Brooklyn facility is under renovations). At the end of the day, all animals not adopted must be transported back to the shelter of origin. At this time, these adoptable animals are unfortunately transported with animals received (stray or surrendered) that same day.
Because the Bronx and Queens facilities do not have veterinarians on staff, all animals (including sick and injured) entering these facilities must wait until transport to Manhattan to receive veterinary examinations. During our visit, we observed a cat who, from a layman's perspective, appeared to be in extremely poor physical condition, who would have to wait to be examined until arrival at Brooklyn or Manhattan.
Euthanasia is also not performed at these facilities and the wait for transportation to another facility can sometimes be up to a few hours. In extenuating circumstances, staff immediately transports seriously ill or injured animals. Based on current staffing levels, however, is not always possible, and certainly not the most efficient system.
Recommendations: Other avenues should and must be explored to increase the efficiency of this satellite system, especially in relation to the transportation of animals between facilities. This process is cumbersome to both animals and staff, and takes much-needed vehicles and drivers out of commission.
Furthermore, arrangements should be made to seek alternatives to the simultaneous transfer of adoptable and incoming animals. Many infectious diseases are airborne, and this effort increases the opportunity for exposure. Regardless, Animal Rescue vehicles should be well disinfected between use.
Worthy of consideration is the temporary ceasing of adoptions from the Bronx facility and the current Queens facility while a comprehensive evaluation is performed on this process. According to CACC statistics, the Bronx and Queens facilities together accounted for less than 3% of adoptions in 1995, 1996, and 1998, and it appears that a thorough review is in order.
During these times of transition and growth, the effect on staff morale should not be overlooked. In fact, time spent currently overseeing transportation and management of the transfer program may be better used as an opportunity to invest energy into refining the adoption procedures at the three shelters where the majority of adoptions occur. Finally, until such time as each facility may have veterinarians on staff, protocol should be in place for animals to be euthanized in emergencies, for humane reasons, at all five facilities.
Sterilization at Adoption Programs
Note: An evaluation of sterilization services provided
by outside organizations under contract with CACC is beyond the scope of
this evaluation.
The CACC provides sterilization services for only a small portion of the animals it handles. Animals adopted or returned to owners from the Brooklyn shelter are sterilized by a private veterinary hospital or released with a sterilization requirement./58 Animals adopted or returned to owners from the Manhattan shelter are either: a) sterilized by the Have-A-Heart clinic operated by the Fund for Animals; b) by the ASPCA's mobile sterilization facility; or c) are released with a sterilization requirement. Arrangements with the Have-A-Heart clinic and the ASPCA result in the sterilization of fewer than 30 animals per week.
The majority of animals released from the other three shelters are released with a sterilization requirement. Some male animals are neutered by staff veterinarians, although it was not clear whether adequate facilities and equipment are available to perform these procedures, or how postoperative monitoring and care is provided.
As CACC management themselves know, there are inherent problems with each of the above methods of providing sterilization services. Transporting animals to an outside facility is time-consuming and can add additional stress for the animals.
There appears to be little or no counseling about postoperative care provided to the adopters/owners of animals sterilized prior to adoption/release. CACC staff indicated only that written (English-language) postoperative care instructions are provided. Owners/adopters have no direct contact with veterinary staff knowledgeable about the procedure performed on their animal or the follow-up care which is required. This situation seems to present a significant risk for postoperative complications to the patient, as well as a liability risk to the CACC and the facility providing the sterilization service.
Recommendation: Provision of sterilization services for animals handled by the CACC is currently disorganized, ineffective, and inefficient. Coordinating sterilization services through these various means is difficult if not impossible. In addition, this has resulted in poor sterilization compliance, intensive and time-consuming follow-up, and--of great concern--poor postoperative support for those animals who are sterilized before adoption/release.
Internal and standardized provision of sterilization services for all CACC facilities should be pursued as a short-term (three years or less) goal. Those funds which were previously allocated for a spay/neuter coordinator should be used solely for that purpose.
In conjunction with the Director of Adoptions, this team should explore the establishment of sterilization facilities for, in, or near all five shelters which will: provide sterilization before adoption in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective manner for all animals adopted/released from the CACC; create and maintain standardized procedures, protocols, and record-keeping systems for these facilities; monitor sterilization compliance for those few animals released to owners/adopters without being sterilized (for health reasons or other extenuating circumstances); and serve as a liaison to the local veterinary community, ensuring that they are knowledgeable about how and why the CACC provides in-house sterilization services. In addition, they should ensure that postoperative patients presented to private practitioners receive coordinated and consistent care.
In addition, a legally-binding sterilization contract (separate from the adoption contract) should be used for the situations in which an animal chosen for adoption or release to an owner is deemed temporarily unsuitable for sterilization surgery by the attending veterinarian. The decision to release an animal with a sterilization contract should be made in consultation between the attending veterinarian and the adoption counselor, with the animal's health status and the adopter's application being considered. The contract should be signed by the adopter/owner at the time of release, indicate that they have received a copy, and be kept on file by the animal care and control agency. The sterilization contract should indicate the final date by which the procedure must be performed, as well as documentation required to verify the procedure. Sterilization follow-up procedures should closely monitor unsterilized animals to ensure compliance.
Animals presented to the public for adoption should be of minimum health status in order to increase the likelihood that they will be suitable surgical candidates. They should be eight weeks of age or older, free of symptoms of infectious disease, and of good body condition. Animals who are not good candidates for sterilization surgery should not be offered for adoption to the general public, but may be offered to those adopters who may also be offered a sterilization contract, or placed in temporary foster care until deemed appropriate for surgery.
In order to protect the health of the animal and the liability of the veterinarian, only the attending veterinarian should determine a particular animal's suitability for sterilization surgery when presented. Adoption staff and adopters should be well aware that a particular animal may not be deemed suitable for surgery, and those adopters who may not be offered a sterilization contract (for whatever reason)should be aware that their initial choice of animal may not be approved for adoption based on unsuitability for sterilization surgery.
The sterilization of sheltered animals requires unique skills of the veterinarian and veterinary staff. They should understand the characteristics of shelter populations and take these into consideration when evaluating animals as anesthetic/surgical candidates, and when determining how best to provide pre- and postoperative care. They should be knowledgeable of and experienced at sterilization of prepubertal, geriatric, and immunocompromised patients, and be familiar with methods for safely and efficiently sterilizing a number of animals in succession.
In-house sterilization of adopted/owned animals requires specific facilities dedicated to that purpose. Specialized equipment used for the evaluation, monitoring, and pre- and postoperative care of sheltered animals is also required. Adequate funding for facilities, equipment, personnel, drugs, surgical supplies, and administrative support is essential to safe and efficient sterilization of sheltered animals.
The 24-hour period immediately following sterilization surgery is when post-surgical complications are most likely to occur. These may range from minor--bleeding or swelling-- to life-threatening--dehiscence (opening of the surgical incision) or internal hemorrhage.
Arrangements for postoperative monitoring and care on the evening of the day of surgery can be made in one of two ways:
Animals can be released to their owner/adopter. This requires careful counseling of the owner about how to monitor and care for the animal, as well as arrangements for skilled personnel to be available to assist the owner should post-surgical complications occur before the sterilization facility is again open and available. This may be done by having a trained staff member "on call" throughout the night to answer questions and concerns from animal adopters/owners, or by pursuing and maintaining close relationships with local animal emergency hospitals, to which owners/adopters can be directed.
-or-
Animals can be provided overnight recovery before release. This option requires space for recovery facilities (which may be the same space used for pre surgery animals, if surgery is not performed on consecutive days), as well as overnight monitoring by personnel trained to provide postoperative care and to recognize signs of complications. Arrangements must also be made to deal with any complications that cannot be addressed by that staff member, i.e., calling in a staff veterinarian or transporting the animal to a local emergency animal hospital.
In the interim, it is essential that the CACC continue to carefully monitor
sterilization compliance. Better coordination of postoperative care support
for adopters/owners of animals sterilized prior to release from the Manhattan
clinic should be pursued.
Lastly, CACC veterinary staff, in cooperation with the Fund for Animals should continue seeking funding to work with area veterinarians to encourage early-age spay/neuter (the sterilization of animals at the age of 8-12 weeks). This procedure has been endorsed by The HSUS, American Humane Association (AHA), the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the American Kennel Club (AKC), Cat Fanciers Association (CFA), Fund for Animals, National Animal Control Association (NACA), and many other national and regional animal protection groups./59
VOLUNTEERS
With the exception of a few committed individuals currently volunteering in CACC shelters, at the time of our visit, the CACC volunteer program had been suspended, pending review and restructuring. Reports of the program prior to its suspension indicated that many of the volunteers were dissatisfied with either their roles, the limitations on their authority or policies and procedures of the organization. Some staff reported such frustration with former volunteers that they were not enthusiastic about seeing the program restored at all. Others felt that it simply had to be better structured, with clearer expectations for the volunteers, more screening, and more control.
The program as it had been operated reportedly had no job descriptions for the volunteers, no formal screening or interview process, no formal orientation or training, and no clear reporting structure. Staff perception was that some volunteers were uncomfortable with CACC's need to euthanize and saw their work with the organization as a way to "change" the way things were done, and to meet personal agendas.
The new Director of Adoption and Volunteer Services, who joined the staff earlier in the year, has plans to reestablish and expand the volunteer program, but under a much more structured format.
At the Brooklyn facility, volunteers handle off site adoptions, a relationship everyone seems to be comfortable with. The volunteers are said to be reliable and accepting of CACC adoption procedures, though it is unclear how this is measured.
Recommendations: Without a formal program of job descriptions, training, evaluation, and supervision, volunteers should not be used or encouraged at the CACC until such time as these can be completed. We suggest this for two primary reasons:
1) The current CACC leadership is still considerably new, given the scope of operations and responsibilities. Attention needs to be paid to the development of thorough protocols and procedures before volunteers can be effectively integrated into the operations; and
2) Volunteers can be extremely helpful but require a great deal of guidance and organization. Without a coordinated volunteer program, there can be no successful results.
Future plans outlined for HSUS E-Team members include a strong volunteer program. Volunteers would continue to participate in the popular programs such as dog walking and offsite adoptions. However there is an interest in utilizing volunteers in areas other than adoption and handling, which require the most training.
The proposed volunteer program would also include a qualification process. Selected individuals would complete a comprehensive training program which provides a basic orientation to the CACC philosophies, facilities, operations and protocols, and would also include a familiarization with handling, equipment, and basic safety.
The following information has been adapted from The HSUS magazine, Animal Sheltering, for your consideration:
While the long list of benefits offered by a volunteer program are immediately compelling, the pitfalls of a quickly conceived or poorly managed program can be crippling. Difficulties involving volunteers are rarely brought about by the volunteers themselves; they nearly always arise as a direct result of a shelter's own planning and policies, or lack thereof.
Municipal animal-control agencies generally recruit fewer volunteers than private agencies, but the conflicts are often equally problematic. In every case, communication is the key. A poorly developed program designed to compensate for staff shortages, for example, will often detract from the efforts of full-time staff and will rarely help the animals in the shelter. If the ship is already sinking, bringing aboard more passengers will only hasten the descent.
More often than not, hastily organized programs leave shelters with dozens of ineffective, uncommitted volunteers who stop by only on rare occasions to walk a dog or two; or worse, a handful of well-meaning but ill-informed volunteers who seek to change the shelter's philosophy and eventually undermine its mission. What's more, a few unhappy volunteers who quit in frustration may go on to tell others of the shelter's failing program, ruining your organization's reputation in the process.
For some shelters, a volunteer program is not worth the investment. Certain animal care and control facilities, for example, do without volunteer programs because liability concerns or labor issues make it impractical or impossible to place volunteers in positions of responsibility. Other humane organizations lack the resources necessary to oversee such a program. Simply put, a shelter can be successful without volunteers.
But if your organization is interested in investing in the many benefits that volunteers can bring to your shelter and the animals, remember that volunteers will give you their time and talents free. Just remember that you'll still need to invest plenty of time and energy into the program. It takes a great deal of work to recruit, screen, train, and retain volunteers in an animal shelter.
To ensure that staff and volunteers understand their respective roles in the organization, sit down with your staff and review the following policy considerations before bringing the next volunteer on board:
Because shelters differ greatly in size and scope, few answer these questions the same way. Some shelters need plenty of help with animal care, while others have a list of dog walkers longer than the kennel runs themselves. Some shelters hold scheduled orientation sessions once a month, while others wait until they've gathered enough interested applicants. Insurance agreements and legal obligations also vary from shelter to shelter, so contact your agent and your local labor department to make sure your volunteer program is adequately protected.
Write down the rules and regulations that will help you manage the volunteer program and help volunteers learn their way around your shelter, both literally and figuratively. These policies would tell volunteers how to sign in and log the number of hours worked; what to wear to the shelter; what areas of the facility are off-limits; how and when they should interact with the staff, public and/or the press; whether and where they can eat or smoke on the premises; how to handle grievances; and what to do in the event they are injured at the shelter.
After you've drafted these initial volunteer policies, take a three-hole punch to the page and insert that document in a binder. You're well on your way to tackling the next obstacle--creating a comprehensive volunteer manual to hand to each of your volunteers. Remember that most of the people who volunteer know only that they want to help animals. They may have little or no understanding of the actual work your shelter does or the philosophical issues surrounding animal sheltering.
So in addition to basic rules and policies, make sure that the pages of that manual contain:
Unfortunately, because of this overwhelming interest, some volunteer
coordinators seem to feel that the shelter is there for the volunteers rather
than the other way around. Be careful not to make that mistake. During the
recruitment process, you should look for energetic individuals with specific
goals and talents. You're under no obligation to find opportunities for
every willing volunteer. You just need to find a willing volunteer for every
opportunity.
Make sure that every volunteer understands that performing euthanasia is
stressful on the staff, and that even though volunteers will not be asked
to take part in the process, they will be expected to support those who
do. In fact, if volunteers and staff are to truly understand each other,
volunteers must be educated about the stress involved in every aspect of
sheltering, from dealing with the public to euthanizing an abused animal.
In addition, managers want volunteers to help staff members do their jobs
but full-time staff may be threatened by the presence of volunteers or feel
that volunteers understand little about the concepts of animal protection
and the complexities of shelter work. Workers may also feel that volunteer
training requires too much of their time, and may be frustrated by the constant
stream of questions posed by uninformed volunteers.
When full-time staff become frustrated with volunteers' inquiries, remind them that in some ways volunteers are only one step removed from members of the general public, and that in most cases they are only seeking an honest explanation.