The following letter provides the HSUS guidelines which municipalities may use to set local funding levels for animal care and control.
NYC's current levels (approximately 67¢ per person annually) falls far below HSUS's $3-5 recommendation. The results are tens of thousands of unnecessary euthanasias performed each year in NYC.
HSUS
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
(202) 452-1100 FAX (202) 778-6132
March 16, 1995
Barbara Travis
229 East 29th St., Apt. 5S
New York, N.Y. 10016
Dear Ms. Travis:
I enjoyed speaking with you on the telephone today. As promised, here is a brief "history" of our recommendation regarding per capita animal-control costs.
As I indicated, we do not have an item-by-item breakdown of what our recommended funding levels should pay for. We instead tell governments that it should pay for a "full-service" program, one that includes much more than basic animal impound services. Every municipality, for example, should provide at least some funds for spay/neuter promotion and/or services with an eye toward reducing long-term costs. For one city, that can mean a public low-cost spay/neuter clinic supported entirely by user fees and public funds. For another, it can mean educational programs or low-cost programs with cooperating private veterinarians.
The HSUS has for many years recommended $3 to $5 per person per year for effective, full-service animal care and control programs. The formula we routinely provide local government officials is this: "Population of service area X $3.00 = Low-end budget. Population of service area X $5.00 = High-end budget."
Based on the limited archival information The HSUS Companion Animals section has from the 1970s and early 1980s, our best guess is that the recommendations were developed in the late 1970s when the original Management Information Service report was prepared for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Incidentally, those figures have never been adjusted for inflation.
The $3 to $5 recommendation presents local governments with a funding range for what effective animal control programs generally need . While we're sure there are programs that run well on shoestring budgets, clearly most are not as effective as they could be. The HSUS believes it is government's responsibility to fund animal care and control services that include programs such as humane education, spay/neuter promotion and programs, responsible shelter adoptions, and other services. Our budgeting recommendations to local government decision-makers are made with that belief in mind.
It is important for government officials to remember that such programs not only do a better job of protecting public health and protecting animals, but they also reduce animal control costs over the long term. It's also important to note that while monies from the general fund must be used to pay for animal care and control services, a large proportion of costs can be recovered through dog and cat licensing, impoundment fees, citation fees, adoption fees, and other fees.
The latest update of the ICMA's Management Information Service report, published in September 1993, presents the many rationales for full service animal care and control services, highlights many successful programs in the United States, and presents an overview of considerations for the government manager who oversees his or her jurisdiction's animal care and control agency or privatized contract. Government officials should refer to that resource if they need a more complete justification for a $3-$5 per capita animal control budget. A copy is enclosed. Additional copies can be ordered from The HSUS (a publications catalog is enclosed).
Also enclosed is a one-page tabulation of results from a 1992 survey (showing data from fiscal years 1989-1990) done by the Multnomah County (Oregon) Department of Animal Control. It shows the per-capita budgets of several similarly-sized animal care and control agencies across the country. You'll see that most fall within the $3 to $5 recommended range; many of the programs listed are also known by The HSUS to be highly effective.
I hope this information helps. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely
/s/ Geoffrey L. Handy
Editor
Shelter Sense
Companion Animals section
Enc.
ANIMAL CONTROL COMPARABLE STUDY FY89-90
NYC's current levels (approximately 67¢ per person annually) falls far below HSUS's $3-5 recommendation. The results are tens of thousands of unnecessary euthanasias performed each year in NYC.
HSUS
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037
(202) 452-1100 FAX (202) 778-6132
March 16, 1995
Barbara Travis
229 East 29th St., Apt. 5S
New York, N.Y. 10016
Dear Ms. Travis:
I enjoyed speaking with you on the telephone today. As promised, here is a brief "history" of our recommendation regarding per capita animal-control costs.
As I indicated, we do not have an item-by-item breakdown of what our recommended funding levels should pay for. We instead tell governments that it should pay for a "full-service" program, one that includes much more than basic animal impound services. Every municipality, for example, should provide at least some funds for spay/neuter promotion and/or services with an eye toward reducing long-term costs. For one city, that can mean a public low-cost spay/neuter clinic supported entirely by user fees and public funds. For another, it can mean educational programs or low-cost programs with cooperating private veterinarians.
The HSUS has for many years recommended $3 to $5 per person per year for effective, full-service animal care and control programs. The formula we routinely provide local government officials is this: "Population of service area X $3.00 = Low-end budget. Population of service area X $5.00 = High-end budget."
Based on the limited archival information The HSUS Companion Animals section has from the 1970s and early 1980s, our best guess is that the recommendations were developed in the late 1970s when the original Management Information Service report was prepared for the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Incidentally, those figures have never been adjusted for inflation.
The $3 to $5 recommendation presents local governments with a funding range for what effective animal control programs generally need . While we're sure there are programs that run well on shoestring budgets, clearly most are not as effective as they could be. The HSUS believes it is government's responsibility to fund animal care and control services that include programs such as humane education, spay/neuter promotion and programs, responsible shelter adoptions, and other services. Our budgeting recommendations to local government decision-makers are made with that belief in mind.
It is important for government officials to remember that such programs not only do a better job of protecting public health and protecting animals, but they also reduce animal control costs over the long term. It's also important to note that while monies from the general fund must be used to pay for animal care and control services, a large proportion of costs can be recovered through dog and cat licensing, impoundment fees, citation fees, adoption fees, and other fees.
The latest update of the ICMA's Management Information Service report, published in September 1993, presents the many rationales for full service animal care and control services, highlights many successful programs in the United States, and presents an overview of considerations for the government manager who oversees his or her jurisdiction's animal care and control agency or privatized contract. Government officials should refer to that resource if they need a more complete justification for a $3-$5 per capita animal control budget. A copy is enclosed. Additional copies can be ordered from The HSUS (a publications catalog is enclosed).
Also enclosed is a one-page tabulation of results from a 1992 survey (showing data from fiscal years 1989-1990) done by the Multnomah County (Oregon) Department of Animal Control. It shows the per-capita budgets of several similarly-sized animal care and control agencies across the country. You'll see that most fall within the $3 to $5 recommended range; many of the programs listed are also known by The HSUS to be highly effective.
I hope this information helps. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Sincerely
/s/ Geoffrey L. Handy
Editor
Shelter Sense
Companion Animals section
Enc.
ANIMAL CONTROL COMPARABLE STUDY FY89-90
Notes:
1. The "Population Served" category reflects the actual population served by the county animal control program.
2. Cities designated (*) operate their own animal control program in addition to the county.
3. Counties designated (**) are not comparable in population, but are often used in comparisons.
1. The "Population Served" category reflects the actual population served by the county animal control program.
2. Cities designated (*) operate their own animal control program in addition to the county.
3. Counties designated (**) are not comparable in population, but are often used in comparisons.
