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 3].
Fundraising
During 1997, CACC received approximately $270,000 in charitable gifts and grants. The goal is to increase that amount by $100 - $150 thousand in 1998. The funds to date have come from a pool of a few hundred individual donors and a number of small, $5,000 to $10,000 grants. The organization runs a small retail operation in the Staten Island shelter, and the hope is to extend retail activities into the other shelters as space and staffing become available. Staff has been successful at obtaining some in-kind support, including the donation of feline leukemia vaccines in an arrangement that, thanks to the work of the CACC chief veterinarian is now being made available to other organizations.
The new Executive Director has also been successful in raising some capital funds through grants from individual boroughs, made from the borough's discretionary funds. These funds will be instrumental in the building of a new Queens facility, as well as in helping to support the program in Staten Island.
At present, the contract with the City of New York provides 90% of the agency's funding. The Executive Director reported that the goal was to eventually increase charitable funding to the point where the city portion represented only 60% of the organization's total operating revenue. Success in reaching this goal may hinge largely on the ability of the organization to identify and articulate (internally and externally) a vision and image of itself that is independent of city government, and clear as to which programs constitute tax-funded animal control and which are beyond the scope of the city's mandate. It will also require the development and implementation of an aggressive community outreach and fundraising program.
Community Partners
Although the new Executive Director has greatly improved the support for the agency within city government, CACC's relationships with other non-governmental agencies, particularly animal protection groups, represents one of its greatest weaknesses. These groups have been critical of the city's attempt to create an organization like CACC from the beginning, and are the first to hear of--and share with others--any reports of problems that occur. Overstatement in CACC's publications, referring to the struggling agency as a "model" or "nationally recognized" or with "revolutionary new programs" has simply further damaged credibility among agencies that are aware of both the organization's programs and what is being done in the field nationwide.
Activist organizations are so mistrusting that they have joined together several groups who don't traditionally cooperate with one another to form a coalition whose sole purpose is to apply pressure against CACC to meet demands for restructuring into what the activists feel will be a more publicly accountable format. Although some members of the group feel that things have improved since the arrival of the new Executive Director who "will at least talk to us," others feel that nothing has changed.
Larger, more traditional organizations use CACC as a source of "adoptable" animals for their limited admission programs, and historically have dictated the terms under which they would take the animals, which animals they would take, and when they would come. CACC has begun to impose some controls over this process, but the organization is still somewhat at the mercy of these established groups since CACC needs their assistance in giving more animals a chance at adoption. Staff reports that the relationship with the ASPCA is more positive than others and improving, but "The A" still maintains statutory authority for cruelty investigations, and is reportedly opposed to any extension of CACC's enforcement authority. In addition, the ASPCA uses CACC's facilities to house long-term cruelty case animals with no reimbursement for the organization, no control on CACC's part over the fate of the animals, and no agreement to pay CACC costs out of any court-ordered settlement.
The adoptions staff apparently work with a large number of community adoption partnering groups (foster and placement agencies), although the relationships with many of these groups and the individuals who comprise them is often tenuous (see also Adoptions section). Finally, CACC probably has the most positive relationship with the Fund for Animals, which contracts to handle much of their pre-release sterilization and has worked with them to organize a yet-to-be-funded project to train NYC veterinarians in pre-pubescent spay/neuter.
The new Executive Director is beginning to reach out to other organizations, and to initiate more cooperative arrangements. She has recently worked to set up a meeting of relevant groups to establish appropriate procedures and resources for dealing with injured wildlife, particularly on an after-hours basis. Concerned about the number of adoptees from one of the larger shelters that were coming in to CACC as strays or surrenders, she has made arrangements to have all transfers to this organization microchipped, so that they can be tracked, and has received funds from the organization for this purpose. Since many of the animals who are adopted from the same organization and ultimately end up at CACC are coming in unsterilized, she is also working with the agency to insure that at least all CACC animals taken for adoption by their shelter are spayed and neutered prior to release.
The new Executive Director also indicated an interest in working more with non animal protection groups on cooperative programs in the areas of violence prevention, in particular child abuse and domestic violence.
Recommendations:
The longer CACC continues to operate without a clear vision of its unique role--or worse yet to try to define itself solely in response to its critics--the longer it will be open to attacks by activists, citizens and the media. Furthermore, the attempt to define the organization primarily in terms of its role as an "adoption agency" simply puts CACC in hopeless competition with the other well-funded agencies in the community who are exclusively adoption groups.
On the other hand, if CACC's creates a vision and program around its unique role in animal control, this role can be articulated in a very positive light, with potential for attracting funding, public support, volunteers, and collaborative efforts with other agencies.
Key elements of this special role are:
CACC is the only agency in the city that is there for every animal, especially for those in the greatest need. Many of these animals will get a second chance thanks to CACC that they wouldn't receive from the limited admission shelters who accept only the highly "adoptable" animals. Even for those who cannot be adopted because they are too sick or too aggressive, CACC can provide a caring environment during their last hours and a release from their suffering that none of the other agencies are willing to deal with.
- CACC can be the safety net for the responsible pet owner. Knowing there is someone who will take in your pet should he/she become lost, and then will make every attempt to find you and reunite you with your pet, are very comforting concepts for a responsible and caring pet owner. And it is these responsible individuals who generally form the base of support for animal protection agencies.
- CACC can be the champion of responsible pet ownership and quality of life issues for both the animals and people in the city. Although the owners of aggressive animals can be very vocal, and the irresponsible owner who allows his/her pet to roam perpetually may make a lot of noise when their animal is impounded, the responsible pet owner wants to know that his/her animal (not to mention child) is safe from free-roaming and aggressive dogs, feces laden streets, sick pathetic strays, etc.
- CACC's "official" status provides an opportunity for the agency to be a coalition builder, working with other agencies to adopt out more homeless animals, identifying gaps in services and working jointly to find the most viable solutions, applying pressure as necessary to encourage other agencies to accept common solutions, etc. And a clearer vision of the organization's unique role should help to attract and maintain volunteers (and staff) who understand "up front" what the agency's mission/vision is and buy into it, rather than those whose expectations are inconsistent with (or fighting against) the work and programs of the organization.
Specific recommendations include:
- The new Director of External Affairs should work with the Executive Director, board and senior management to develop a proactive media campaign that positions CACC and its programs as the champions of responsible pet ownership and the protectors of the lost pet. Such a campaign can simultaneously develop a more positive image for CACC and educate the public about responsible pet ownership and the role of quality animal control./4
- Plans to educate or inform the community should include a component for customer service training for staff to insure that phone calls and encounters with the public are handled in a friendly, helpful, and educational manner.
- On an immediate basis, CACC should approach city agencies, community information and referral groups, the media, and other animal-related agencies with an overview of the organization's services, hours of operation, etc., to insure that the most common informational resources in the community know to refer animal-related problems to CACC.
- CACC has an obligation to develop formal structures for "educating" the public on the responsibilities of pet ownership. However, because motivating people to act generally requires more than simply providing them with information, we encourage CACC to develop their educational/outreach programs using marketing strategies that are based on an understanding of target audiences, designed to elicit demonstrable results, and measured as to their effectiveness. We also encourage CACC to focus the scope of their public education efforts not only on sterilization of pets and adoption, but on the broader responsibilities of responsible pet ownership.
- When ready to approach a school-aged audience, CACC should seek a cooperative relationship with the ASPCA and develop programs that complement rather than compete with these existing humane education efforts.
- CACC should enlist the support of board members, influential members of the community, and fund-raising volunteers in expanding its pool of regular supporters and potential grant sources. The involvement of a larger pool of people involved in assisting the organization in fund-raising, not only increases the effort, but also demonstrates a sense of community ownership in the organization and its programs.
FN4/ HSUS Campaign materials relating to "National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week..
GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS/SERVICES
Populations/Trends
New York City's land area covers 301 square miles, over 205,000 acres total. Manhattan alone is 22.7 square miles./5 One- and two-family residences are the largest use of city land, and occupy thirty percent of the total land area. More than two-thirds of the city's residences, however, are in multi-family buildings./6
FN5/ "NYC Fast Facts" from www.nycvisit.com, September, 1998.
FN6/ NYC Dept of City Planning's Land Use Facts. 1998.
The most recent census information lists the City of New York's human population at 7.3 million inhabitants with an estimated two million pets./7 "NYC Fast Facts" from www.nycvisit.com, September, 1998. It is unclear, however, if this estimate is inclusive of all companion animal ownership or only provides estimates regarding dogs and cats. Nationally, Americans care for approximately 59 million cats, 53 million dogs, 13 million birds, 4 million horses, 6 million rabbits and ferrets, 5 million rodents, 3.5 million reptiles and 56 million fish. Approximately 59% of US households own at least one pet, and women are responsible for pet care in 72 percent of pet-owning households./8
FN7/ NYC Dept of City Planning's Demographic Profiles: A Portrait of New York City's Community Districts from the 1980-1990 Censuses, 1992.
FN8/ American Veterinary Medical Association's U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook, 1996.
The American Demographics Desk References notes that:
"the nation's population growth is slowing down. The growth that remains is concentrated in fewer and fewer places. In most metropolitan areas, the population is growing slowly, but outlying suburbs are continuing to expand. As a result, America's population centers are becoming less dense. The census also shows that racial and ethnic minority groups are growing more than seven times as fast as the non-Hispanic white majority.....Old definitions of minority groups are also becoming meaningless, as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other 'minority' groups continue to gain on the non-Hispanic white majority....As a result, neighborhoods are more likely to be segregated by income level and less likely to be segregated by race."/9
FN9/ American Demographics Desk References Volume One, Reprint #906, 1998.
1990 Census figures shows that while the state of New York saw only a 2.5% increase in total populations between 1980 and 1990, it noted a 25.9% increase in minorities. New York City has the largest black population of any metropolitan area in the United States, and ranks second for Hispanic and Asian populations. In the 1990 U.S. Census, the area considered the most diverse was Queens. In addition, four of New York City's boroughs are listed within the top fifty most diverse locations in the United States./10
FN10/ Ibid.
Clearly, New York City has a very diverse ethic population, and it is estimated that there are at least 178 different languages spoken. Specifically, 35% of all immigrants to NYC for the period 1990-94 settled into the Brooklyn area./11
FN11/ NYC Dept of City Planning's Demographic Profiles: A Portrait of New York City's Community Districts from the 1980-1990 Censuses, 1992.
Recommendations: Demographic research is a valuable tool for assisting with both short- and long-term planning within animal care and control services. Not only is data gleaned relating to the current and future needs of facilities, operations and programs, information regarding human and animal populations and needs also provides insight into effective methodology to affect long-term change and implement substantial improvement.
For example, "social marketing" is a concept making its way into the advocacy professions. A concept that was originally developed by Philip Kotler and Gerald Zaltman and presented at Northwestern University in 1971, the original thesis noted that "social causes can be advanced more successfully through applying principles of marketing analysis, planning and control to problems of social change."/12 In other words, just as products can be marketed, so, too, can ideas. "In its most general sense, social marketing is a new way of thinking about some very old human endeavours. As long as there have been social systems, there have been attempts to inform, persuade, influence, motivate; to gain acceptance for, or new adherents to, certain sets of ideas; to promote causes and to win over particular groups; to reinforce behaviour or to change it--whether by favour, argument or force. "/13
FN12/ Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. "Social Marketing: An Approach to Planned Social Change," Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, July 1971.
FN13/ Eric Young, Director, Manifest Communications Inc., Toronto. From Health Promotion, Winter 1988/89.
Understanding the public we not only serve, but also represent through our mission, is a goal that all agencies providing public service in combination with advocacy should strive for. It is not only important to send a message, but it is also important to ensure our message is heard, appreciated, and finally acted upon. Eric Young, Director of Manifest Communications, Inc. in Toronto states that:
"At home, your quiet port in the noisy storm, there's a television, radio, telephone, perhaps a VCR machine; today's newspaper, some magazines, and -- if you're old-fashioned enough -- any number of books. There's your mail box with its daily accumulation of unsolicited pitches from the local pizza parlour, credit card companies and charities you've never heard of. With all this information whirling around you, of course you feel a desire to be better informed. So you turn on the news. In an average one-hour television newscast you're presented with approximately 25 to 30 different news items, interspersed with about an equal number of commercials. It is a truism of our times that we now mass-produce information the way we have mass-produced products.
Social marketing is a planning and management discipline geared to this marketplace. It is used to determine the best way to design programs, target efforts and deploy resources to gain acceptability for a wide array of social ideas......Organizations have to be able to clearly identify their target groups. And then make themselves, their issues, policies and programs relevant to these groups.."/14
FN14/ Excerpts from: Eric Young, Director, Manifest Communications Inc., Toronto, for The American Marketing Association Conference, Plenary Address, Ottawa, Canada Inc., April 25, 1989.
Public understanding and "buy-in" is crucial for long term improvements, and The HSUS believes there could be much to be learned from an evaluation of the many variables and components that are the make-up of the citizens of New York City- specific questions need to be asked of the public at large, not just the animal protection community. Input from the public (and public needs) should guide the development of programs, rather than vocal critics or a desire to imitate a successful program from another area of the country.
Identifying a research firm to undertake the development of public opinion surveys could a) identify key target audiences; b) evaluate awareness levels; c) test advocacy messages; and d) measure effectiveness. This could be extremely beneficial to both the animals and humans in need of services. In addition, to do so would put CACC on the cutting edge in the field of animal care and control, and serve to ensure long-term success for animal care and control programs for the largest metropolitan city in the United States.
The City of New York's preliminary strategic policy statement, originally developed in 1994 by the office of the Mayor, notes that:
"New York's strengths--including our cultural offerings, mass transit system, falling crime rate, and a new Mayoral concern for quality of life--outweigh the shortcomings of a heavy tax burden and a troubled school system. Yet, while the city's advantages are evident, we must tackle serious problems to realize our full potential. The challenges include recurring budget deficits, street crime, inadequate public schools, a bloated city bureaucracy and an array of quality-of-life issues like dirty streets, graffiti, and panhandlers. This administration was elected with a promise to change the way city government works and will concentrate on these central issues. We will do a better job of providing core services and cut back on those activities of city government that are not crucial to the city's well-being." /15
FN15/ NYC Dept of City Planning, Preliminary Strategic Policy Statement. 1994.
General Animal Sheltering Services
The CACC provides the only full-service animal care and control programs for the city of New York, and employs the only field services personnel for the entire city -- eight at the time our visit. While there are several other animal welfare related organizations in the greater New York City area that accept owner surrenders, provide animals for adoption, provide spay and neuter services, etc., there are no other agencies established specifically to handle strays and unwanted animals in the city.
The CACC has five facilities, one in each borough of New York City. These shelters range in size and level of services, and are located as follows:
Generally, the number of animals needing sheltering services annually will equal approximately five to seven percent of the human population in the area served, whether urban, suburban, or rural. Based on human population estimates of 7.3 million persons, the five CACC shelters combined took in far less than one percent.
Table 1. CACC Intake for 1995-1997.
Table 1. CACC Intake for 1995-1997.
National "averages" relating to animal care and control services, however, are often imprecise, due to a multitude of contributing factors. For example, although CACC themselves handle far fewer animals than the national estimate provided above, we believe this is at least partially due to the fact that several other animal-related agencies and organizations accept thousands of owner surrenders at other locations throughout the greater New York City area./16 In addition, the high percentage of multi-family, high-density dwellings is also likely a contributing factor. Nonetheless, CACC management should explore further the inadequacies of current animal care and control service levels (such as field services resources, hours of operation) in conjunction with outstanding community needs.
FN16/ CACC Statistics provided to The HSUS.
All five of these shelters offer animal intake and adoption services, as is mandated in the CACC's services contract. However, according to zoning permits, the Bronx and Queens facilities are prohibited from housing animals within these facilities overnight. This necessitates the transport of incoming animals at these facilities to the Brooklyn or Manhattan shelters before the close of business each day. Additionally, animals available for adoption must be transported from the other shelters for adoption at Bronx and Queens on a daily basis. Animals who are not adopted must then be transported back to their shelter of origin for overnight holding. On an average day, the shelters take in approximately 150 animals, equal to approximately 20% of each facility's total capacity.
FN16/ CACC Statistics provided to The HSUS.
All five of these shelters offer animal intake and adoption services, as is mandated in the CACC's services contract. However, according to zoning permits, the Bronx and Queens facilities are prohibited from housing animals within these facilities overnight. This necessitates the transport of incoming animals at these facilities to the Brooklyn or Manhattan shelters before the close of business each day. Additionally, animals available for adoption must be transported from the other shelters for adoption at Bronx and Queens on a daily basis. Animals who are not adopted must then be transported back to their shelter of origin for overnight holding. On an average day, the shelters take in approximately 150 animals, equal to approximately 20% of each facility's total capacity.
Recommendations: We suspect a closer look at demographics in proportion to service areas would indicate that current services provided to each borough are not adequate. Obviously, many factors (such as convenience, location, hours of operation, and community perception) play a role in service needs within each facility, however a baseline minimum level of service proportional to community size should be made available to citizens within each borough.
We understand that efforts are currently underway to collaborate more effectively with borough presidents to look closely at the specific needs within each locality. This has already proven to be an effective and prosperous relationship, resulting in substantial improvements, such as new outdoor exercise runs in Staten Island, and support in securing a desirable location for a new facility in Queens (which we understand will be a larger, full-service facility). In other boroughs, the process has met more resistance, though apparently not for lack of effort by CACC leaders.
In order to provide adequate coverage and service within each diverse community, CACC should have the full support of each borough in order to proactively respond to both the animal and human needs.
Although this recommendation will be expanded upon throughout the report, a clear long term goal for CACC should be to strive for all five boroughs to maintain full service animal shelters, capable of meeting the animal care and control needs within each community. Given conversations with various staff members, many seem to be in agreement about this need. Zoning issues should be carefully addressed when exploring long-term facility goals.
Facility Location/Directional Signage
The CACC's animal shelters are in each of the five boroughs, and are in less than ideal locations. Some are quite difficult for both the public and staff to access from public transportation routes or main thoroughfares, and none are in an area considered inviting or in an area that the public would seek out to visit, or to look for a pet to adopt.
The only directional signage observed by HSUS E-Team members for any of the CACC's shelters was on the way to the Staten Island shelter. The location of this shelter is especially important due to the shelter's proximity to the Pet Saver's adoption center, another location where potential adopters may visit in search of a new companion.
Concerns regarding location were cited by numerous staff members who all seemed to be aware of the many limitations caused by neighborhood reputation, demographics, traffic concerns, and accessibility to parking. HSUS E-Team members, not being from the area, had to rely on the perspectives of staff to evaluate this aspect of the visit. The majority of problems mentioned (and often witnessed) specifically surround the Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens shelters.
Brooklyn
It was evident that the Brooklyn shelter is in an area of East New York with a reputation for being unsafe, and is in fact referred to by many as "a war-zone." This area is continually wrought with vandalism, and HSUS E-Team members were given the impression that there were concerns about leaving animals in outdoor runs unattended. Attempts to address this concern has resulted in the addition of a "less than inviting" barbed wire perimeter fence. An understandable effect of the current location is that the shelter is not often visited by members of the community. The lack of external directional signage further diminishes the likelihood of traffic to the shelter.
Bronx and Queens
The Bronx and Queens facilities, both store-front adoption sites, present another complex set of problems. Operating facilities such as these has perceived advantages for increasing adoptions and visibility. However, when not widely advertised and placed in non-traditional areas for animal shelters, these advantages will fall short of the intended goal. For example, the Queens facility is tucked away on a service road, below street level. The Bronx shelter is at a better location in the borough and is at street level. However, external directional signage was not seen en-route to either of these shelters, compounding the problems of accessability.
Recommendations: Animal shelters are the nucleus of a community animal care and control program, and should be maintained and operated so that they are attractive and convenient to the community. Most importantly, the facility itself must be a place of safety and comfort for the public, staff, and animals needing shelter services. Animal control, with its law enforcement "culture," traditionally has a reputation of being cold, bureaucratic, unresponsive, and not user-friendly. Creating and maintaining an atmosphere and reputation that is helpful, sympathetic, and community oriented should be a constant goal for the CACC./17
FN17/ HSUS Animal Sheltering, "Achieving Your Mission," Jan/Feb, 1996.
Location has a lot to do with accessibility, enabling all members of a community safe and convenient access. It also increases exposure of lost animals to their owners, and adoptable animals to potential adopters. Yet while location is an extremely important aspect of a shelter's position in its community, it is often, for obvious reasons, one of the most difficult things to change.
Fortunately, the substantial problems surrounding the location of the Queens shelter are temporary in light of plans to open a new shelter, and it was obvious (as it should be) that location was a major issue in the selection of a site.
Renovations at the Brooklyn shelter will secure its current location. This is an unfortunate situation, but one apparently in which the CACC's leadership had no control, as plans were inherited for renovations already underway. However, future opportunities to move this shelter to a safer, more accessible area should always be entertained.
Certainly, efforts can be undertaken to enhance the appeal of the current facility. The CACC will not have much say in changing the reputation and safety of the neighborhood, but it is possible to improve and publicize its own reputation and position in the community and then provide measures to ensure the safety of the visiting public.
In the future, as plans may develop to move the Brooklyn or Bronx sites, location should be considered a priority especially in terms of accessibility and perceived safety of the neighborhood. In the meantime, the well-being of the public needs to be ensured and publicized to encourage the public to utilize these facilities and feel comfortable visiting. This is a positive step to make all visitors feel more welcome. It is equally important for the comfort and safety of the current staff, and will go far in attracting potential staff members for the future.
Recommendations: To prevent any difficulty in finding the CACC shelters, we suggest the following:
People around the world are aware of the "cut-throat, survival of the fittest" nature of both traffic and parking throughout New York City. Grid-locks and triple-parking fistfights are regularly the subject of aspirin commercials and sitcom episodes. It is therefore not at all surprising that the CACC's five shelters each also suffer from these difficulties.
Current parking limitations are compounded by shelter renovations, construction, and the transportation of animals from shelter to shelter. In Queens, for example, even the CACC rescue/transport vehicles have to double-park in order to load and unload animals. In addition, there is no enclosure to ensure that animals cannot escape into traffic during efforts to load or unload in CACC vehicles, and animals must be carted up and down a flight of stairs leading to the Queens shelter. This is cumbersome at best, and dangerous to both animals and humans at worst. The Bronx facility has similar problems. The Staten Island shelter has more adequate parking than the other CACC shelters, although more would always be welcome.
A 1998 audit of the financial practices of the CACC noted the following statement relating to parking at the Brooklyn shelter:
"We found that during calendar year 1997, CACC spent $42,000 (27 percent) of its $157,000 in unrestricted private funds to lease a parking lot adjacent to CACC's Brooklyn shelter. According to CACC officials, the lot was leased to provide CACC's customers with parking for their vehicles.
During our visits to CACC's Brooklyn shelter we noted that the leased lot was not used to provide customer parking. Instead, the lot was used to house a trailer and vehicles belonging to a contractor who was renovating the Brooklyn shelter. We also noted that another lot of equal size, which is City-owned, is available to CACC for customer parking. However, CACC apparently decided to use the City-owned parking lot to provide its employees with parking for their personal vehicles. In essence, CACC is spending $42,000 a year so the lot provided by the City can be used to provide parking for CACC's employees. In total, for the 46-month term of the lease, CACC will spend $165,100 of CACC's private funds for this leased property. We believe that this is a wasteful use of CACC's limited resources./18
FN18/ Audit Report on the Financial Practices of the Center for Animal Care and Control; City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, FM98-093A, June, 1998.
CACC responded to this audit recommendation with the following:
We disagree. The leasing of the parking lot is an expense that the City should cover under the contract. The lot was originally leased to provide parking for CACC customers. However, when the City began its renovation of the City owned facility, it deemed it necessary to house a construction trailer in the lot. Considering that the City made this decision, it follows that the costs should be covered. That being said, it should be noted that CACC removed this expense in the revised budget modification dated April 17.
Regarding the renegotiation of the lease, CACC believes that this space is necessary as the adjacent area does not provide adequate or safe parking for customers. Although during the construction period it would be unwise and unsafe to allow customers to park in that lot, CACC fully intends to reopen the lot to customers when the construction is completed."/19
FN19/ Response from the Center for Animal Care and Control regarding Audit Report on the Financial Practices of the Center for Animal Care and Control; City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, FM98-093A, June, 1998.
Recommendations: The clear lack of available and secure parking can not only discourage the public from visiting an animal shelter, it can also have serious ramifications for shelter operations. It easily serves as a deterrent to individuals wishing to adopt or relinquish animals, or good samaritans wishing to deliver strays.
In addition, it could be considered dangerous and even a liability risk to require staff to maneuver in heavy traffic to load and unload animals to and from vehicles, or to require members of the public to walk long distances from car to shelter with stray animals of unknown temperaments.
The HSUS has to agree with CACC officials that parking must be considered a priority issue of importance to both animals and humans. To make better use of limited space, we recommend the following:
We understand that efforts are currently underway to collaborate more effectively with borough presidents to look closely at the specific needs within each locality. This has already proven to be an effective and prosperous relationship, resulting in substantial improvements, such as new outdoor exercise runs in Staten Island, and support in securing a desirable location for a new facility in Queens (which we understand will be a larger, full-service facility). In other boroughs, the process has met more resistance, though apparently not for lack of effort by CACC leaders.
In order to provide adequate coverage and service within each diverse community, CACC should have the full support of each borough in order to proactively respond to both the animal and human needs.
Although this recommendation will be expanded upon throughout the report, a clear long term goal for CACC should be to strive for all five boroughs to maintain full service animal shelters, capable of meeting the animal care and control needs within each community. Given conversations with various staff members, many seem to be in agreement about this need. Zoning issues should be carefully addressed when exploring long-term facility goals.
Facility Location/Directional Signage
The CACC's animal shelters are in each of the five boroughs, and are in less than ideal locations. Some are quite difficult for both the public and staff to access from public transportation routes or main thoroughfares, and none are in an area considered inviting or in an area that the public would seek out to visit, or to look for a pet to adopt.
The only directional signage observed by HSUS E-Team members for any of the CACC's shelters was on the way to the Staten Island shelter. The location of this shelter is especially important due to the shelter's proximity to the Pet Saver's adoption center, another location where potential adopters may visit in search of a new companion.
Concerns regarding location were cited by numerous staff members who all seemed to be aware of the many limitations caused by neighborhood reputation, demographics, traffic concerns, and accessibility to parking. HSUS E-Team members, not being from the area, had to rely on the perspectives of staff to evaluate this aspect of the visit. The majority of problems mentioned (and often witnessed) specifically surround the Brooklyn, Bronx and Queens shelters.
Brooklyn
It was evident that the Brooklyn shelter is in an area of East New York with a reputation for being unsafe, and is in fact referred to by many as "a war-zone." This area is continually wrought with vandalism, and HSUS E-Team members were given the impression that there were concerns about leaving animals in outdoor runs unattended. Attempts to address this concern has resulted in the addition of a "less than inviting" barbed wire perimeter fence. An understandable effect of the current location is that the shelter is not often visited by members of the community. The lack of external directional signage further diminishes the likelihood of traffic to the shelter.
Bronx and Queens
The Bronx and Queens facilities, both store-front adoption sites, present another complex set of problems. Operating facilities such as these has perceived advantages for increasing adoptions and visibility. However, when not widely advertised and placed in non-traditional areas for animal shelters, these advantages will fall short of the intended goal. For example, the Queens facility is tucked away on a service road, below street level. The Bronx shelter is at a better location in the borough and is at street level. However, external directional signage was not seen en-route to either of these shelters, compounding the problems of accessability.
Recommendations: Animal shelters are the nucleus of a community animal care and control program, and should be maintained and operated so that they are attractive and convenient to the community. Most importantly, the facility itself must be a place of safety and comfort for the public, staff, and animals needing shelter services. Animal control, with its law enforcement "culture," traditionally has a reputation of being cold, bureaucratic, unresponsive, and not user-friendly. Creating and maintaining an atmosphere and reputation that is helpful, sympathetic, and community oriented should be a constant goal for the CACC./17
FN17/ HSUS Animal Sheltering, "Achieving Your Mission," Jan/Feb, 1996.
Location has a lot to do with accessibility, enabling all members of a community safe and convenient access. It also increases exposure of lost animals to their owners, and adoptable animals to potential adopters. Yet while location is an extremely important aspect of a shelter's position in its community, it is often, for obvious reasons, one of the most difficult things to change.
Fortunately, the substantial problems surrounding the location of the Queens shelter are temporary in light of plans to open a new shelter, and it was obvious (as it should be) that location was a major issue in the selection of a site.
Renovations at the Brooklyn shelter will secure its current location. This is an unfortunate situation, but one apparently in which the CACC's leadership had no control, as plans were inherited for renovations already underway. However, future opportunities to move this shelter to a safer, more accessible area should always be entertained.
Certainly, efforts can be undertaken to enhance the appeal of the current facility. The CACC will not have much say in changing the reputation and safety of the neighborhood, but it is possible to improve and publicize its own reputation and position in the community and then provide measures to ensure the safety of the visiting public.
In the future, as plans may develop to move the Brooklyn or Bronx sites, location should be considered a priority especially in terms of accessibility and perceived safety of the neighborhood. In the meantime, the well-being of the public needs to be ensured and publicized to encourage the public to utilize these facilities and feel comfortable visiting. This is a positive step to make all visitors feel more welcome. It is equally important for the comfort and safety of the current staff, and will go far in attracting potential staff members for the future.
Recommendations: To prevent any difficulty in finding the CACC shelters, we suggest the following:
- Place signs that will direct people to the shelter at all major intersections within close proximity of each of the CACC's five shelters. All signs should be consistent with the type used to designate other similar public agencies: reflective, metal signs of professional quality.
- If zoning allows, place a large, professional sign, readable from a vehicle moving in either direction, near the entrance to each of CACC's shelters. The sign should include the shelter's hours of operation and both the regular and emergency phone numbers.
People around the world are aware of the "cut-throat, survival of the fittest" nature of both traffic and parking throughout New York City. Grid-locks and triple-parking fistfights are regularly the subject of aspirin commercials and sitcom episodes. It is therefore not at all surprising that the CACC's five shelters each also suffer from these difficulties.
Current parking limitations are compounded by shelter renovations, construction, and the transportation of animals from shelter to shelter. In Queens, for example, even the CACC rescue/transport vehicles have to double-park in order to load and unload animals. In addition, there is no enclosure to ensure that animals cannot escape into traffic during efforts to load or unload in CACC vehicles, and animals must be carted up and down a flight of stairs leading to the Queens shelter. This is cumbersome at best, and dangerous to both animals and humans at worst. The Bronx facility has similar problems. The Staten Island shelter has more adequate parking than the other CACC shelters, although more would always be welcome.
A 1998 audit of the financial practices of the CACC noted the following statement relating to parking at the Brooklyn shelter:
"We found that during calendar year 1997, CACC spent $42,000 (27 percent) of its $157,000 in unrestricted private funds to lease a parking lot adjacent to CACC's Brooklyn shelter. According to CACC officials, the lot was leased to provide CACC's customers with parking for their vehicles.
During our visits to CACC's Brooklyn shelter we noted that the leased lot was not used to provide customer parking. Instead, the lot was used to house a trailer and vehicles belonging to a contractor who was renovating the Brooklyn shelter. We also noted that another lot of equal size, which is City-owned, is available to CACC for customer parking. However, CACC apparently decided to use the City-owned parking lot to provide its employees with parking for their personal vehicles. In essence, CACC is spending $42,000 a year so the lot provided by the City can be used to provide parking for CACC's employees. In total, for the 46-month term of the lease, CACC will spend $165,100 of CACC's private funds for this leased property. We believe that this is a wasteful use of CACC's limited resources./18
FN18/ Audit Report on the Financial Practices of the Center for Animal Care and Control; City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, FM98-093A, June, 1998.
CACC responded to this audit recommendation with the following:
We disagree. The leasing of the parking lot is an expense that the City should cover under the contract. The lot was originally leased to provide parking for CACC customers. However, when the City began its renovation of the City owned facility, it deemed it necessary to house a construction trailer in the lot. Considering that the City made this decision, it follows that the costs should be covered. That being said, it should be noted that CACC removed this expense in the revised budget modification dated April 17.
Regarding the renegotiation of the lease, CACC believes that this space is necessary as the adjacent area does not provide adequate or safe parking for customers. Although during the construction period it would be unwise and unsafe to allow customers to park in that lot, CACC fully intends to reopen the lot to customers when the construction is completed."/19
FN19/ Response from the Center for Animal Care and Control regarding Audit Report on the Financial Practices of the Center for Animal Care and Control; City of New York Office of the Comptroller, Bureau of Financial Audit, FM98-093A, June, 1998.
Recommendations: The clear lack of available and secure parking can not only discourage the public from visiting an animal shelter, it can also have serious ramifications for shelter operations. It easily serves as a deterrent to individuals wishing to adopt or relinquish animals, or good samaritans wishing to deliver strays.
In addition, it could be considered dangerous and even a liability risk to require staff to maneuver in heavy traffic to load and unload animals to and from vehicles, or to require members of the public to walk long distances from car to shelter with stray animals of unknown temperaments.
The HSUS has to agree with CACC officials that parking must be considered a priority issue of importance to both animals and humans. To make better use of limited space, we recommend the following:
- Consult with appropriate agencies immediately to establish a secure location and protocol for loading and unloading shelter animals needing transportation.
- Evaluate all opportunities to improve the availability for designated shelter parking for both the public and CACC staff. In addition, determine if additional spaces can be designated for handicapped parking only.
