“To date, New York City’s shelter system has suffered from inadequate funding and irresponsible management resulting in the private sector non-profits . . . shouldering a disproportionate burden for rescuing animals.” (Memorandum to Mayor Elect Bill De Blasio, dated November 21, 2013)
If you assumed Shelter Reform Action Committee authored that statement, that’s perfectly understandable. After all, for 19 years we’ve challenged the AC&C’s management, funding, and undue reliance on rescue groups.
Actually, the Mayor’s Alliance and the ASPCA were the authors (p. 22 at this link). This is surprising … given that these 2 organizations have been so publicly complimentary of the AC&C … particularly since passage of Local Law 59 in 2011.
So, how do you square the vision of an underfunded and irresponsibly managed AC&C with the rosy reports presented at the AC&C’s April 23, 2014 Board meeting?
THE APRIL 23, 2014 AC&C BOARD MEETING
Any AC&C Executive Director who wants to keep his/her job must stick to these key talking points: “The AC&C is an independent charity. Humane care and saving animals are our core goals. Conditions and statistics have never been better!”
In that respect, the April 23rd board meeting offered no surprises . . .
,,,except one: the AC&C’s new Medical Director, Dr. Lisa Hara Levin, who cares deeply about the welfare of AC&C animals. In her first 4 months at the AC&C, she’s been working tirelessly to try to improve shelter conditions and medical services.
For example, Levin created programs to educate staff on animal health care issues. She frequently visits all 3 shelters rather than staying holed up at the AC&C’s executive offices. She wants more full time vets for the AC&C. (NOTE: the AC&C still uses a lot of per diem vets). She wants a digital xray in each shelter. (Currently, only the Brooklyn shelter as an xray machine, and it’s an old non-digital model.)
Levin describes disease control and animal comfort as her top priorities.
NOTE: While she’ll never admit this (at least, not if she wants to keep her job), we’re confident that Dr. Levin has already learned that the major obstacle to improving the health of AC&C animals is the Department of Health.
For example, even though Levin explained that the shelter buildings were never designed to be proper shelters, she didn’t mention that the DOH has no interest in ponying up the money to make those needed capital improvements.
So Levin is attacking the problem in low-cost ways, e.g., creating disease control guidelines for volunteers and staff; training sessions for staff; moving cages around to create better traffic flow.
Levin also invited the public to email questions in advance of the meeting to be covered in her report. We applaud her openness. Here are some of the questions Dr. Levin answered:
Would having Shelters in the Bronx and Queens improve AC&C conditions? Levin hedged a bit before saying that of course they would help but only if the AC&C had the funding to run them. Absolutely true. (NOTE: What Levin left unspoken is that the DOH isn’t willing either to create those shelters or pay to run them. )
What’s the Major Obstacle to Disease Control at the AC&C? Unvaccinated animals coming into the shelter while harboring infectious diseases, she said.
NOTE: Her answer surprised us. Every animal shelter in the U.S has to deal with unvaccinated animals. But the AC&C is unique from all other shelters in that its animals have an almost 100% chance of catching some kind of shelter disease. And rescuers and volunteers continue to report to us that the AC&C diseases are becoming ever more serious.
How are the “At Risk” Lists created? Levin described how different departments in each shelter coordinate to finalize those lists: Medical; Shelter Management; New Hope; and finally Quality Control (to correct mistakes the other departments might have made).
NOTE: But mistakes continue. For example, during the public comment section of the meeting, Jay Braun described how he pulled a young cat from the “at risk” list 3 weeks earlier. AC&C Medical notes labeled the cat as having “severe” medical conditions, although listing only sneezing and mild gingivitis. After pulling the cat, the adopter said it sneezed … once. And the next day a private veterinarian declared the cat healthy.
How did the “at risk” list get this cat so wrong? If the adopter hadn’t been pulled the animal, it would’ve gone down as just another AC&C statistic: a “severely” sick cat put out of its misery.
The adopter said he doubted this was an isolated instance.
We’re confident that Dr. Levin is troubled by such mistakes and — for that matter — that the AC&C is still killing thousands of animals every year. She asked people to come to her with their concerns rather than posting them on Facebook.
NOTE: It’s tough to convince volunteers (and certainly employees) that the AC&C is a safe place to come forward with complaints.
Does the ASPCA continue to perform spay/neuter surgeries on AC&C animals? No, Dr. Levin said, although she cautioned that the AC&C might need the ASPCA’s help once kitten season is in full swing.
NOTE: That’s excellent news. Within the span of just a few months Levin was able to wean the AC&C from its outsized reliance on the ASPCA to perform those surgeries.
ANALYSIS OF AC&C EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RISA WEINSTOCK’S REPORT
A cursory look at Weinstock’s powerpoint presentation would convince you that everything is going swimmingly at the AC&C. Actually, some first quarter 2014 statistics are unquestionably better and we’ll start with those.
Fundraising: UP (good). After expenses, the AC&C raised $106,000 in the first 3 months of 2014. If they simply maintain that rate, by year’s end they’ll have raised almost $425,000 … more than ever before. Of course, much more is needed (and expected) of a major shelter like the AC&C located in the largest and richest City in the U.S., filled with so many animal lovers.
But it’s a start. (NOTE: Given the DOH’s historic reluctance to adequately fund the AC&C, people long familiar with the DOH have expressed concern to us that if the AC&C ever starts attracting substantial donations, the DOH will undoubtedly want to cut its own funding to the shelter. The AC&C is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.)
Rebranding: Definitely positive news. The AC&C is utilizing various forms of communication (print, TV and cable, social media, GOOGLE, movie theaters, kiosks, dog runs posters) to spread the message that the AC&C is THE place to adopt an animal.
Adoption Mobile Van Events: (see p.10) The AC&C was donated its first-ever Mobile Adoptions Van in January (good) and since then has held several off-site events (also good). But read our comments below about those off-site events.
Unpleasant Data Buried in the Report
Turning to other charts, let’s look at the underbelly of the beast:
Adoption Mobile Van Events (a closer look): (see p.10) In the first quarter of 2014 only one adoption event was held in the Bronx and none in Queens. Neither borough has an AC&C shelter where animals can be adopted. (bad). Upcoming AC&C adoption sites (see p.11) continue to be weighted toward Manhattan. (unfair) Queens is slated for only one visit. (unfair) Nothing for the Bronx (bad). These two boroughs are the most ill-served by the DOH, and they’re still getting the short end of the stick. (bad, bad, bad)
AC&C Director Keane asked Weinstock why there were such low adoption numbers from the off-site events (see p. 10) (bad). Weinstock suggested it had to do with the locales chosen. (NOTE: Apparently it never occurred to Weinstock that the AC&C didn’t properly promote the events.)
Keane also asked how many animals could the van hold? Twenty-Five, said Weinstock, although the van has not been filled to capacity yet.
NOTE: A pity that no one followed up on Weinstock’s answer. Few people realize that the AC&C has an “inventory” problem. It simply doesn’t have enough adoption-ready animals to fill the van. That might sound counter intuitive for a shelter bursting at the seams with dogs and cats, but it’s true.
Here’s the problem. For an animal to be taken to an off-site adoption event, it must be both healthy and fixed (spayed/ neutered) so it can be taken home by the adopter that same day.
But the AC&C doesn’t have enough healthy/fixed animals in the pipeline. Animals slated for off-site events cannot remain at the AC&C where they’re certain to get sick. So, the AC&C is sending as many animals as they can to foster homes, safe from the AC&C.
But the number of AC&C fosters limits the number of animals able to go to adoption events.
How many other municipal shelters have a problem bringing enough healthy/fixed animals to off-site adoption events, we wonder?
Intake Numbers: UP (not good). By expanding the days and hours of its Bronx and Queens “receiving” centers, it’s not surprising that AC&C intake numbers are up. If the Bronx and Queens had full service shelters, then adoptions might counter the incoming flow. And once the AC&C gets all its promised new Field Ops Vans, intake numbers should rise.
Euthanasia Numbers: UP. (bad). One factor for this uptick in the kill numbers may be that the AC&C recently made it easier to kill a whole group of dogs and cats — those labeled EXPNOCHILD (i.e., experienced owner/no children). Before this change, EXPNOCHILD animals could be euthanized only if they got sick. But now they’re going down for claimed “behavior” if a childless/ experienced owner doesn’t step up to pull the animal.
So, welcome to the AC&C’s latest effort to rationalize why they’re killing certain animals.
Direct Adoptions: DOWN from the same period in 2013 (bad). This is concerning because during that same period in 2013 the AC&C had not yet launched its much-heralded Adoptions Program. So, why the 2014 dip in Adoptions numbers even though the Adoptions Program was in full swing?
Number of Animals Transferred to Rescue Groups: UP. The AC&C cites this as a positive trend. To the contrary, it reflects the AC&C’s continuing outsized reliance on rescue groups to bail out its animals. (bad)
PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION
Jay Braun, who had pulled the claimed “severe[ly]” ill cat off the “at risk” list told the board:
Meeting after meeting I hear rosy figures and mutual back-patting, yet animals are getting sick and being killed while in your care every day. You are failing these animals where the rubber meets the road and you must be accountable to the public….
****
[O]ne of your newest board members couldn’t even tell me she liked animals when I asked her face to face. I cannot ask you to love animals, but a disinterest in saving animals’ lives should be an automatic disqualifier to serve on this board of directors.
Tom Scopac, an accountant by profession, cited disturbing trends in AC&C latest statistics, including an increase in the percentage of dogs available to the public being killed and a decrease in the number of direct adoptions.
A volunteer reported that sometimes there was no hot water in the bathroom for volunteers to wash their hands, making it difficult for volunteers to prevent spreading contagion from animal to animal.
A volunteer asked if the AC&C could come up with a way to make it easier for volunteers to get to the Brooklyn shelter. Weinstock acknowledged that the Brooklyn shelter isn’t conveniently located. (NOTE: That’s an understatement. The Brooklyn shelter is in the most dangerous neighborhood in all of NYC … and blocks from the nearest subway.)
One group active on Facebook asked the AC&C to make it easier for people living far outside New York State to adopt animals and for the AC&C to be more inventive in promoting their animals.
Zelda Penzel of Save our Shelters (SOS) suggested that the AC&C Board follow the example of the Los Angeles shelter system. Hold board meetings in the evenings and at the 3 shelters and the 2 receiving centers. This would allow more NYC residents to meet the people running the AC&C and for the AC&C to hear from those residents.
CONCLUSION
Is the AC&C a well run, independent shelter system, with management chosen for their proven skills and commitment to animal welfare, and with a good friend in the Department of Health?
Or does the AC&C continue to suffer from “inadequate funding and irresponsible management,” controlled by a government department that has no interest in animal welfare? If that’s the case, isn’t it time to get the DOH out of the business of animal care?