--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is the complete text of the 1998 evaluation of the Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC) by
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) -- divided into 9 parts. CACC commissioned such report and
paid $5,600 to HSUS with a private grant from the Krumholz Foundation. As the authors of such report were not
credited, SRAC requested their names and biographies. Because SRAC considers this report controversial in
many ways, and takes issue with some of its findings and recommendations, it has written a Response to the
1998 HSUS Evaluation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
EVALUATION TEAM REPORT
------------------------------------------------------
The Center For Animal Care and Control
11 Park Place
New York, NY 10007
------------------------------------------------------
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
-----------
November, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the nation's largest animal-protection organization, with
more than six million constituents. The HSUS was founded in 1954 to promote the humane treatment of animals
and to foster respect, understanding, and compassion for all creatures. Today our message of care and
protection embraces not only the animal kingdom but also the Earth and its environment. To achieve our goals,
The HSUS works through legal educational, legislative, and investigative means. The HSUS's efforts in the
United States are facilitated by our regional offices; we are not, however, affiliated with any local animal shelters
or humane organizations. Our programs include those in humane education, wildlife and habitat protection,
farm animals and bioethics, companion animals, and animal research issues. The HSUS's worldwide outreach is
supported by our global family of affiliated organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE: EVALUATION TEAM REPORT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / Part 1
II. GENERAL / Part 1
A. Background
B. General Scope and Methodology
C. Special Considerations
III. MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE, AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS / Part 2
A. Management Staff
B. Key Issues
a. Identification & Articulation of an Animal Control Vision
b. Corporate Structure
c. Infrastructure & Support Systems
1. Performance Management and Accountability
2. Operating Policies, Procedures and Training
3. Compensation and Benefits System
4. Risk Management
d. Definition and Recognition for CACC's Role in the Community
1. Media Relations and Community Education
2. Fundraising
3. Community Partners
IV. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS/SERVICES / Part 3
A. Populations/Trends
B. General Animal Sheltering Services
C. Facility Location/Directional Signage
D. Parking
V. SHELTER INTERIOR DESIGN/LAYOUT / Part 4
A. Shelter Renovations
B. Lobby/Reception
C. Handicapped Access
D. Internal Directional Signage
E. General Safety Issues
F. Emergency Planning
G. Facilities Maintenance
VI. GENERAL SHELTER OPERATIONS / Part 4
A. Hours of Operation
B. Computer Systems and Support
C. General Recordkeeping/Statistics
D. Incoming Animal Identification
E. Animal Examinations
F. Animal Assessment and Status
VII. ANIMAL HOUSING AND HUSBANDRY / Part 5
A. Dog and Cat Housing
B. Flooring
C. Heating/Cooling/Ventilation/Humidity
D. Sound Levels
E. Feeding/Food Storage
F. Cleaning/Disinfection
G. Two-tiered Caging for Dangerous Dogs
H. Dangerous Dog Holding/Department of Health Cases
I. Rabies Testing Procedures
J. General Disease Control/Traffic Flow
K. Behavioral Status Evaluations
L. General Shelter Medicine
M. Staffing and Training for Animal Care Specialists
N. NYPD Chemical Immobilization/Transportation of Dangerous Dogs
VIII. WILDLIFE AND EXOTICS / Part 6
A. Wildlife Care and Handling
B. Exotic Care and Handling
IX. EUTHANASIA / Part 6
A. Methods and Techniques
B. Euthanasia Room/Environment
C. Euthanasia Technicians
D. Selection Criteria
X. ADOPTIONS / Part 7
A. General
B. Current Status
C. Stafflng
D. The Adoption Process
E. Adoption Partners
F. CACC Adoption Centers
G. Sterilization at Adoption Programs
XI. VOLUNTEERS / Part 7
Xll. FIELD SERVICES/ANIMAL CONTROL / Part 8
A. General Overview
B. Communications/Dispatch
C. After-hours Procedures
D. Special Patrolmen Status
E. Job Descriptions/Procedures Manuals
F. Field Services Training
G. Enforcement Procedures
H. Forms and Recordkeeping
I. Equipment
J. Licensing
XIII. LEGISLATION / Part 9
A. Department of Health-City of New York
B. State Legislation
C. Additional HSUS Recommendations Relating to Legislation
XIV. BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS / Part 9
PART TWO: APPENDICES/RESOURCES [omitted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 1998, at the request of the Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC), The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS), the nations largest animal protection organization, sent a team of animal care and
control experts to perform a comprehensive evaluation of CACC's programs and services.
The issues that CACC face are not unique to other animal control agencies in the United States except in
magnitude. For such a large organization, however, we were impressed to witness many staff members
interacting more like family than co workers. While we did not meet every member of the staff, those we were
fortunate to spend time with all demonstrated a genuine desire to best serve the animals in their care. It is a
chaotic job, especially at an organization in its infancy. Our desire was to help evaluate this chaos, in hopes of
allowing the staff to use their time more effectively, and make their jobs less frustrating.
The CACC is one of the largest sheltering agencies in the United States, providing the only full-service animal
care and control programs for New York City. On average, the CACC facilities receive approximately 150 stray
and unwanted animals per day, which is the equivalent of 20% of its total housing capacity.
The CACC is still in the transition from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
withdrawal of services. Old ASPCA employees must work in familiar surroundings under new protocol, to serve
a different purpose. Additionally, new CACC employees must stake out new territory on old turf. Several
individuals discussed frustration over inherited problems and schools of thought.
The lack of clear directional tools such as standard operating procedures, a current organizational chart, and a
working staff list is a current weakness that warrants mention. A clear consensus could not be reached as to
the existence or usefulness of these documents, which also attests to some confusion surrounding basic
organizational structure. It was clear that while the Executive Director is committed to the development of these
documents, upper level management had varying opinions as to the effectiveness and practicality of the
CACC's current operational policies and procedures. This disagreement permeated the line of command and
was evident at all levels.
From our brief period of observation, it became clear that the CACC seems to be caught between having too
many leaders at one moment and not enough at another. In a worst case scenario, when this overlap is
combined with differing philosophies, priorities, and frames of reference, the subordinate staff levels can
become easily confused as to who and what to listen to. By the time the line staff and union personnel become
involved, if at all, intention and clarity have been almost completely diffused. The result is a line staff that is
doing one job several different ways with little conception of why. In the meantime, certain higher levels are
operating under the assumption that orders are being carried out properly and without confusion. This seems
to be viewed as a normal result of the daily chaos and not, as it should be, the cause of it.
Nonetheless, the upper level staff is an intense, hardworking group. They demonstrated a sincere commitment
to the success of the CACC, and appear to recognize the CACC's significance and accept their role within that
significance. They are acutely aware of the severe criticism and scrutiny which their organization has suffered
since its inception, and it is clear that they work increasingly hard to compensate for the past, as well as
succeed in the future.
The same awareness of the CACC's reputation did not seem to affect lower levels of the staff in the same way,
suggesting that they are either not aware of it or do not understand its significance. In either case, it is likely
they have no context to explain the constant flux of changes which are presented to them. It seems fair to
recognize that human nature resists change, especially when it does not seem either necessary or explicable.
Also, following down the ranks, it is reasonable to assume each level has less and less invested in the job,
becoming more and more frustrated by chances, especially those which seem to be extra work. Because of the
great possibility of this type of dynamic at work, open communication within a clearly defined operational
framework is essential.
Confusion over roles of responsibility and lines of command may be largely attributable to the fact that they
have changed so drastically, and there is much hope that the current staff arrangements will have a chance to
develop and stabilize. Upper level management must have clear duties, be comfortable with their roles, and
must be willing to relinquish control over that which is not their responsibility. This will require the faith of each in
the next level of management, and greater effort should be placed on training all levels of staff to be self
sufficient within their positions.
On a broader scope, the organization itself was formed in haste to fill a not-clearly articulated need. In its brief
history, CACC has repeatedly 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 care and control services for the City, yet is still lacking in the authority, key programs, and institutional
focus central to an effective animal care and control agency.
National animal care and control experts suggest that in order to provide responsible animal care and control
services, communities need a minimum of one field staff person for every 16,000 persons. Yet, the CACC has
only eight staff persons to serve a human population of 7.3 million; equivalent to only one field staff person per
just under one million residents of New York City. In addition, CACC currently has limited authority to enforce
existing animal care and control laws.
The most common obstacle to establishing an effective animal care and control program--as it is to some
degree for virtually all governmental programs--is the problem of funding and resources. Yet providing for
animal care and control services adequately is an investment in reduced costs for the future.
It is not surprising, however, that CACC's focus--even as leadership strives to make important
improvements--has been on increasing adoptions rather than developing an animal care and control model.
Like many shelters across the country, CACC is under constant pressure to increase adoptions and "decrease
the killing." Too often, the perceived success or failure of animal care and control programs are wrongly
defined by euthanasia figures alone. 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 focusing their energies on stopping euthanasia today, and solving the problems necessitating euthanasia
tomorrow.
Yet, the goal must not be simply to end euthanasia, but instead to end the need for it. 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. Euthanasia is not a
solution to the pet overpopulation, but rather, a tragic result of it.
The burden of responsibility must be shared by all members of the community; to blame the CACC for pet
overpopulation is akin to blaming the American Cancer Society for high rates of cancer in New York City.
Nonetheless, a small group of animal activists continue to be critical of CACC and to exploit any reports of
problems that occur. As a result, some members of the media (and therefore the public) know the organization
only through the eyes of its critics. Yet, The HSUS found individuals at all levels of management to be sincerely
concerned about the welfare of the animals -both within the 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 were dedicated and 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.
CACC is the only agency in the city that is there for every animal, especially for those in the greatest need. The
problems identified in this evaluation 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. The
HSUS places its full confidence in the newly appointed Executive Director of the CACC, Marilyn
Haggerty-Blohm, who has already done much to greatly improve public support for her agency. Under her
leadership, we expect these existing problems to be resolved to the satisfaction of the people of the city of New
York and the animals entrusted to the agency's care.
It is important to note that all of the CACC's efforts to improve programs and operations are doomed to failure if
public perception of agency services are negative and disparaging. Public support and education is crucial for
long term improvements, and open-mindedness, honesty, support, and cooperation are key to working together
constructively instead of destructively. With that in mind, The HSUS strongly urges the citizens of New York City
to support the Center for Animal Care and Control in their efforts to best fulfill the agency's mission.
GENERAL
Background
Approximately four years ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) chose to
end its contractual relationship to perform animal control functions within the City of New York, NY.
The HSUS has long held an interest in assisting the City of New York with responsible animal care and control
provisions. In February, 1994, the City of New York's Department of Health requested our expertise in assisting
with the transition of animal control services from the ASPCA to the City. Our office provided insight and
expertise relating to key problem areas, potential scope of services, and contractual bidders.
The City, however, did not receive any capable external bids for services following the transfer of animal control
services to the City. As a result, New York City's Center for Animal Care and Control (hereafter referred to as
CACC) was formed and incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Effective January 1,
1995, CACC was established specifically for the:
"public and charitable purposes of providing animal care and control services in The City of New York. ("the
city"), thereby lessening the burdens of government on behalf of the City, and acting in the public interest and
carrying out the essential public functions that relate to animal care and control, the prevention and control of
zoonotic disease which may be transmissible to humans, and the control of vicious or dangerous animals." /1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN1/ Certificate of Incorporation, Center for Animal Care and Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CACC was formed in haste to fill a pressing need for services within the City, following the ASPCA's
withdrawal. Since its inception, CACC has lacked clear definition and direction and has experienced many
obstacles associated with the frantic transition. During its brief history, CACC has suffered from several
changes in leadership and a multitude of inherited facility and operational problems. However, it is important to
note that within the past year, increased optimism is evident within the staff of CACC, that is now reflected by
many members of the community. The CACC does continue to suffer from growing pains, but importantly
remains committed to growth nonetheless.
In October, 1997, the Center for Animal Care and Control initiated a plan to review and improve its adoption
program. To meet that goal, CACC requested proposals from interested parties to assist in this effort and offer
objective recommendations for strengthening this program. The HSUS submitted a proposal to evaluate the
CACC programs in late October, 1997, however, The HSUS did not limit the scope of the evaluation to CACC's
adoption programs. Instead, the HSUS believed strongly that a comprehensive evaluation of all of CACC's
sheltering related services, programs and operations would be necessary.
For example, The HSUS strongly believes that the success or failure of a shelters's adoption program hinges
directly on many, if not all, aspects of sheltering services. To responsibly evaluate current adoption
procedures, one must look at many areas including, but certainly not limited to, facility accessability, traffic flow
(both animal and human), animal care and handling, veterinary care procedures, facility structure, employee
morale, public perception, and the organization's overall goals and responsibilities.
In January, 1998, the CACC requested the services of The HSUS to perform a comprehensive evaluation. The
HSUS was pleased to offer assistance through an objective look at programs and services, and to provide
recommendations relating to future growth, vision, and direction.
General Scope and Methodology
A site visit of the CACC's five shelters was conducted June 13-16, 1998. The HSUS Evaluation Team (E-Team)
consisted of a total of six consultants with expertise in various areas of operation, services, and management.
During their site visit, the evaluators interviewed a wide range of individuals, from city officials to board
members, and upper management to kennel technicians. In addition, a private meeting was held with various
community animal related groups. The HSUS has reviewed the methods by which the City currently handles
animal care and control issues, including (but not limited to) stray and owned animal handling, animal and
human health issues, bite cases, adoptions, redemptions, euthanasia, public education, investigations,
ordinances and enforcement efforts, overpopulation issues, and relationships with local animal welfare groups.
We have also reviewed and evaluated the actual facilities as well as information regarding the geographics,
demographics, and budgetary considerations of animal care and control programs.
The following report includes both our assessment of the various aspects of this evaluation, specific
recommendations (both immediate and long-term) and suggestions for future improvements in animal care and
control services.
Special Considerations
As part of our comprehensive evaluation, The HSUS requested extensive background documentation from the
Center for Animal Care and Control. Materials were provided and have been thoroughly reviewed and
considered by HSUS Evaluation Team members. In addition, rather extensive background documentation was
gathered through Internet and World Wide Web searches, demographic research, and various animal-related
organizations within the same area. Additionally, an opportunity for written comments from the public was
provided and many submissions were received from interested individuals and groups. These, too, have been
carefully taken into consideration.
Every effort was made to keep all costs associated with this evaluation at a minimum. It should be noted that
while a total of six HSUS consultants were used for the on-site portion of this evaluation, the actual site visit was
limited to only four days. Given that there are five shelters operated by CACC, several of which are under
construction or scheduled for renovation, an in-depth facility review was virtually impossible.
While a great deal of information was gathered during facility tours and staff interviews, the ability of the
evaluators to thoroughly review ALL policies and procedures as well as to thoroughly interview all staff
members was obviously limited by time and financial constraints. It is important to note that any review of this
type has limitations in its ability to fully reflect both the strengths and weakness of an organization and some of
the underlying causes. With that in mind, The HSUS respectfully submits the following evaluation.
The following is the complete text of the 1998 evaluation of the Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC) by
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) -- divided into 9 parts. CACC commissioned such report and
paid $5,600 to HSUS with a private grant from the Krumholz Foundation. As the authors of such report were not
credited, SRAC requested their names and biographies. Because SRAC considers this report controversial in
many ways, and takes issue with some of its findings and recommendations, it has written a Response to the
1998 HSUS Evaluation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
EVALUATION TEAM REPORT
------------------------------------------------------
The Center For Animal Care and Control
11 Park Place
New York, NY 10007
------------------------------------------------------
The Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
-----------
November, 1998
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is the nation's largest animal-protection organization, with
more than six million constituents. The HSUS was founded in 1954 to promote the humane treatment of animals
and to foster respect, understanding, and compassion for all creatures. Today our message of care and
protection embraces not only the animal kingdom but also the Earth and its environment. To achieve our goals,
The HSUS works through legal educational, legislative, and investigative means. The HSUS's efforts in the
United States are facilitated by our regional offices; we are not, however, affiliated with any local animal shelters
or humane organizations. Our programs include those in humane education, wildlife and habitat protection,
farm animals and bioethics, companion animals, and animal research issues. The HSUS's worldwide outreach is
supported by our global family of affiliated organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE: EVALUATION TEAM REPORT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / Part 1
II. GENERAL / Part 1
A. Background
B. General Scope and Methodology
C. Special Considerations
III. MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE, AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS / Part 2
A. Management Staff
B. Key Issues
a. Identification & Articulation of an Animal Control Vision
b. Corporate Structure
c. Infrastructure & Support Systems
1. Performance Management and Accountability
2. Operating Policies, Procedures and Training
3. Compensation and Benefits System
4. Risk Management
d. Definition and Recognition for CACC's Role in the Community
1. Media Relations and Community Education
2. Fundraising
3. Community Partners
IV. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS/SERVICES / Part 3
A. Populations/Trends
B. General Animal Sheltering Services
C. Facility Location/Directional Signage
D. Parking
V. SHELTER INTERIOR DESIGN/LAYOUT / Part 4
A. Shelter Renovations
B. Lobby/Reception
C. Handicapped Access
D. Internal Directional Signage
E. General Safety Issues
F. Emergency Planning
G. Facilities Maintenance
VI. GENERAL SHELTER OPERATIONS / Part 4
A. Hours of Operation
B. Computer Systems and Support
C. General Recordkeeping/Statistics
D. Incoming Animal Identification
E. Animal Examinations
F. Animal Assessment and Status
VII. ANIMAL HOUSING AND HUSBANDRY / Part 5
A. Dog and Cat Housing
B. Flooring
C. Heating/Cooling/Ventilation/Humidity
D. Sound Levels
E. Feeding/Food Storage
F. Cleaning/Disinfection
G. Two-tiered Caging for Dangerous Dogs
H. Dangerous Dog Holding/Department of Health Cases
I. Rabies Testing Procedures
J. General Disease Control/Traffic Flow
K. Behavioral Status Evaluations
L. General Shelter Medicine
M. Staffing and Training for Animal Care Specialists
N. NYPD Chemical Immobilization/Transportation of Dangerous Dogs
VIII. WILDLIFE AND EXOTICS / Part 6
A. Wildlife Care and Handling
B. Exotic Care and Handling
IX. EUTHANASIA / Part 6
A. Methods and Techniques
B. Euthanasia Room/Environment
C. Euthanasia Technicians
D. Selection Criteria
X. ADOPTIONS / Part 7
A. General
B. Current Status
C. Stafflng
D. The Adoption Process
E. Adoption Partners
F. CACC Adoption Centers
G. Sterilization at Adoption Programs
XI. VOLUNTEERS / Part 7
Xll. FIELD SERVICES/ANIMAL CONTROL / Part 8
A. General Overview
B. Communications/Dispatch
C. After-hours Procedures
D. Special Patrolmen Status
E. Job Descriptions/Procedures Manuals
F. Field Services Training
G. Enforcement Procedures
H. Forms and Recordkeeping
I. Equipment
J. Licensing
XIII. LEGISLATION / Part 9
A. Department of Health-City of New York
B. State Legislation
C. Additional HSUS Recommendations Relating to Legislation
XIV. BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS / Part 9
PART TWO: APPENDICES/RESOURCES [omitted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 1998, at the request of the Center for Animal Care and Control (CACC), The Humane Society of the
United States (HSUS), the nations largest animal protection organization, sent a team of animal care and
control experts to perform a comprehensive evaluation of CACC's programs and services.
The issues that CACC face are not unique to other animal control agencies in the United States except in
magnitude. For such a large organization, however, we were impressed to witness many staff members
interacting more like family than co workers. While we did not meet every member of the staff, those we were
fortunate to spend time with all demonstrated a genuine desire to best serve the animals in their care. It is a
chaotic job, especially at an organization in its infancy. Our desire was to help evaluate this chaos, in hopes of
allowing the staff to use their time more effectively, and make their jobs less frustrating.
The CACC is one of the largest sheltering agencies in the United States, providing the only full-service animal
care and control programs for New York City. On average, the CACC facilities receive approximately 150 stray
and unwanted animals per day, which is the equivalent of 20% of its total housing capacity.
The CACC is still in the transition from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
withdrawal of services. Old ASPCA employees must work in familiar surroundings under new protocol, to serve
a different purpose. Additionally, new CACC employees must stake out new territory on old turf. Several
individuals discussed frustration over inherited problems and schools of thought.
The lack of clear directional tools such as standard operating procedures, a current organizational chart, and a
working staff list is a current weakness that warrants mention. A clear consensus could not be reached as to
the existence or usefulness of these documents, which also attests to some confusion surrounding basic
organizational structure. It was clear that while the Executive Director is committed to the development of these
documents, upper level management had varying opinions as to the effectiveness and practicality of the
CACC's current operational policies and procedures. This disagreement permeated the line of command and
was evident at all levels.
From our brief period of observation, it became clear that the CACC seems to be caught between having too
many leaders at one moment and not enough at another. In a worst case scenario, when this overlap is
combined with differing philosophies, priorities, and frames of reference, the subordinate staff levels can
become easily confused as to who and what to listen to. By the time the line staff and union personnel become
involved, if at all, intention and clarity have been almost completely diffused. The result is a line staff that is
doing one job several different ways with little conception of why. In the meantime, certain higher levels are
operating under the assumption that orders are being carried out properly and without confusion. This seems
to be viewed as a normal result of the daily chaos and not, as it should be, the cause of it.
Nonetheless, the upper level staff is an intense, hardworking group. They demonstrated a sincere commitment
to the success of the CACC, and appear to recognize the CACC's significance and accept their role within that
significance. They are acutely aware of the severe criticism and scrutiny which their organization has suffered
since its inception, and it is clear that they work increasingly hard to compensate for the past, as well as
succeed in the future.
The same awareness of the CACC's reputation did not seem to affect lower levels of the staff in the same way,
suggesting that they are either not aware of it or do not understand its significance. In either case, it is likely
they have no context to explain the constant flux of changes which are presented to them. It seems fair to
recognize that human nature resists change, especially when it does not seem either necessary or explicable.
Also, following down the ranks, it is reasonable to assume each level has less and less invested in the job,
becoming more and more frustrated by chances, especially those which seem to be extra work. Because of the
great possibility of this type of dynamic at work, open communication within a clearly defined operational
framework is essential.
Confusion over roles of responsibility and lines of command may be largely attributable to the fact that they
have changed so drastically, and there is much hope that the current staff arrangements will have a chance to
develop and stabilize. Upper level management must have clear duties, be comfortable with their roles, and
must be willing to relinquish control over that which is not their responsibility. This will require the faith of each in
the next level of management, and greater effort should be placed on training all levels of staff to be self
sufficient within their positions.
On a broader scope, the organization itself was formed in haste to fill a not-clearly articulated need. In its brief
history, CACC has repeatedly 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 care and control services for the City, yet is still lacking in the authority, key programs, and institutional
focus central to an effective animal care and control agency.
National animal care and control experts suggest that in order to provide responsible animal care and control
services, communities need a minimum of one field staff person for every 16,000 persons. Yet, the CACC has
only eight staff persons to serve a human population of 7.3 million; equivalent to only one field staff person per
just under one million residents of New York City. In addition, CACC currently has limited authority to enforce
existing animal care and control laws.
The most common obstacle to establishing an effective animal care and control program--as it is to some
degree for virtually all governmental programs--is the problem of funding and resources. Yet providing for
animal care and control services adequately is an investment in reduced costs for the future.
It is not surprising, however, that CACC's focus--even as leadership strives to make important
improvements--has been on increasing adoptions rather than developing an animal care and control model.
Like many shelters across the country, CACC is under constant pressure to increase adoptions and "decrease
the killing." Too often, the perceived success or failure of animal care and control programs are wrongly
defined by euthanasia figures alone. 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 focusing their energies on stopping euthanasia today, and solving the problems necessitating euthanasia
tomorrow.
Yet, the goal must not be simply to end euthanasia, but instead to end the need for it. 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. Euthanasia is not a
solution to the pet overpopulation, but rather, a tragic result of it.
The burden of responsibility must be shared by all members of the community; to blame the CACC for pet
overpopulation is akin to blaming the American Cancer Society for high rates of cancer in New York City.
Nonetheless, a small group of animal activists continue to be critical of CACC and to exploit any reports of
problems that occur. As a result, some members of the media (and therefore the public) know the organization
only through the eyes of its critics. Yet, The HSUS found individuals at all levels of management to be sincerely
concerned about the welfare of the animals -both within the 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 were dedicated and 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.
CACC is the only agency in the city that is there for every animal, especially for those in the greatest need. The
problems identified in this evaluation 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. The
HSUS places its full confidence in the newly appointed Executive Director of the CACC, Marilyn
Haggerty-Blohm, who has already done much to greatly improve public support for her agency. Under her
leadership, we expect these existing problems to be resolved to the satisfaction of the people of the city of New
York and the animals entrusted to the agency's care.
It is important to note that all of the CACC's efforts to improve programs and operations are doomed to failure if
public perception of agency services are negative and disparaging. Public support and education is crucial for
long term improvements, and open-mindedness, honesty, support, and cooperation are key to working together
constructively instead of destructively. With that in mind, The HSUS strongly urges the citizens of New York City
to support the Center for Animal Care and Control in their efforts to best fulfill the agency's mission.
GENERAL
Background
Approximately four years ago, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) chose to
end its contractual relationship to perform animal control functions within the City of New York, NY.
The HSUS has long held an interest in assisting the City of New York with responsible animal care and control
provisions. In February, 1994, the City of New York's Department of Health requested our expertise in assisting
with the transition of animal control services from the ASPCA to the City. Our office provided insight and
expertise relating to key problem areas, potential scope of services, and contractual bidders.
The City, however, did not receive any capable external bids for services following the transfer of animal control
services to the City. As a result, New York City's Center for Animal Care and Control (hereafter referred to as
CACC) was formed and incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Effective January 1,
1995, CACC was established specifically for the:
"public and charitable purposes of providing animal care and control services in The City of New York. ("the
city"), thereby lessening the burdens of government on behalf of the City, and acting in the public interest and
carrying out the essential public functions that relate to animal care and control, the prevention and control of
zoonotic disease which may be transmissible to humans, and the control of vicious or dangerous animals." /1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FN1/ Certificate of Incorporation, Center for Animal Care and Control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CACC was formed in haste to fill a pressing need for services within the City, following the ASPCA's
withdrawal. Since its inception, CACC has lacked clear definition and direction and has experienced many
obstacles associated with the frantic transition. During its brief history, CACC has suffered from several
changes in leadership and a multitude of inherited facility and operational problems. However, it is important to
note that within the past year, increased optimism is evident within the staff of CACC, that is now reflected by
many members of the community. The CACC does continue to suffer from growing pains, but importantly
remains committed to growth nonetheless.
In October, 1997, the Center for Animal Care and Control initiated a plan to review and improve its adoption
program. To meet that goal, CACC requested proposals from interested parties to assist in this effort and offer
objective recommendations for strengthening this program. The HSUS submitted a proposal to evaluate the
CACC programs in late October, 1997, however, The HSUS did not limit the scope of the evaluation to CACC's
adoption programs. Instead, the HSUS believed strongly that a comprehensive evaluation of all of CACC's
sheltering related services, programs and operations would be necessary.
For example, The HSUS strongly believes that the success or failure of a shelters's adoption program hinges
directly on many, if not all, aspects of sheltering services. To responsibly evaluate current adoption
procedures, one must look at many areas including, but certainly not limited to, facility accessability, traffic flow
(both animal and human), animal care and handling, veterinary care procedures, facility structure, employee
morale, public perception, and the organization's overall goals and responsibilities.
In January, 1998, the CACC requested the services of The HSUS to perform a comprehensive evaluation. The
HSUS was pleased to offer assistance through an objective look at programs and services, and to provide
recommendations relating to future growth, vision, and direction.
General Scope and Methodology
A site visit of the CACC's five shelters was conducted June 13-16, 1998. The HSUS Evaluation Team (E-Team)
consisted of a total of six consultants with expertise in various areas of operation, services, and management.
During their site visit, the evaluators interviewed a wide range of individuals, from city officials to board
members, and upper management to kennel technicians. In addition, a private meeting was held with various
community animal related groups. The HSUS has reviewed the methods by which the City currently handles
animal care and control issues, including (but not limited to) stray and owned animal handling, animal and
human health issues, bite cases, adoptions, redemptions, euthanasia, public education, investigations,
ordinances and enforcement efforts, overpopulation issues, and relationships with local animal welfare groups.
We have also reviewed and evaluated the actual facilities as well as information regarding the geographics,
demographics, and budgetary considerations of animal care and control programs.
The following report includes both our assessment of the various aspects of this evaluation, specific
recommendations (both immediate and long-term) and suggestions for future improvements in animal care and
control services.
Special Considerations
As part of our comprehensive evaluation, The HSUS requested extensive background documentation from the
Center for Animal Care and Control. Materials were provided and have been thoroughly reviewed and
considered by HSUS Evaluation Team members. In addition, rather extensive background documentation was
gathered through Internet and World Wide Web searches, demographic research, and various animal-related
organizations within the same area. Additionally, an opportunity for written comments from the public was
provided and many submissions were received from interested individuals and groups. These, too, have been
carefully taken into consideration.
Every effort was made to keep all costs associated with this evaluation at a minimum. It should be noted that
while a total of six HSUS consultants were used for the on-site portion of this evaluation, the actual site visit was
limited to only four days. Given that there are five shelters operated by CACC, several of which are under
construction or scheduled for renovation, an in-depth facility review was virtually impossible.
While a great deal of information was gathered during facility tours and staff interviews, the ability of the
evaluators to thoroughly review ALL policies and procedures as well as to thoroughly interview all staff
members was obviously limited by time and financial constraints. It is important to note that any review of this
type has limitations in its ability to fully reflect both the strengths and weakness of an organization and some of
the underlying causes. With that in mind, The HSUS respectfully submits the following evaluation.
