Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-04-1993 - VII-A 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. VLP ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 4, 1993 SUBJECT: Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee Final Report DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING YES: NO: X ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Kittrell-ext 2300 1 . Orange County Animal Control/ Shelter Study Committee Final Report TELEPHONE NUMBER - Addendum to Final Report Hillsborough - 732-8181 2 . Attachment I Protocol Chapel Hill - 968-4501 3 . Attachment II - Finding #4 Mebane - 227-2031 4 . Attachment III - Brochure Durham - 688-7331 (Brochure under separate cover) PURPOSE: To receive and comment on the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee Final Report. BACKGROUND: The Board appointed Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee met from December 1992 to May 1993 to study the operations of the Animal Control Division of the County Health Department and the County Animal Shelter managed by the Animal Protection Society. The study included a review of the County-initiated internal audit of the Shelter, Animal Control and Shelter Procedures, Animal Adoption Process, Animal Cruelty Investigations, Constraints when Enforcing Animal Control Laws, Shelter Standards, Financial Contributions to the Shelter, the Relationship between Animal Control and the Shelter, and other issues. Although the attached Final Report includes findings and recommendations, the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee found "through the accomplishments of both the County Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, the County has an effective and exemplary program for animal control and the humane care and treatment of animals. Both organizations achieve their objectives, and operations are managed by dedicated and trained professional staff members. " 2 Staffs from the Health Department and Animal Protection Society have met during the summer to ensure implementation of the committee recommendations. Attachment I "Orange County Animal Cruelty and Neglect Investigation Program Protocol" was developed by Animal Control and APS Personnel. Attachment II "Response to Finding #4 " describes a program implemented by APS to address concerns expressed by the Committee regarding animal adoption costs. Attachment III "Orange County Animal Cruelty and Neglect Investigation Procedures" was developed by staff and is disseminated to the public by both the Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society. RECOMMENDATION(S) : Manager recommends that the Board receive the report as information. 3 ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL/SHELTER STUDY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT I . BACKGROUND In November 1992, the Board of County Commissioners appointed an 11-member Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee. The purpose of this Committee was to study and provide recommendations to the Board regarding several issues related to the County Animal Control. Division (ACO) and the Animal Protection Society' s (APS) management of the Animal Shelter. The Committee' s mandates for discussion were as follows: A. Is there evidence that our current animal control program is working to achieve its objectives? B. Should the County continue to contract for the management of the County Animal Shelter? C. Should the County consider managing the shelter with county staff? D. Should the animal control program continue to be organizationally housed in the Health Department or should it be transferred to another Orange County Department, such as the Sheriff ' s Department or the County Manager' s Office? E. Should the County consider contracting with a private organization for the operation of the animal control program? As intended, the Committee used these general questions as a guide to focus on the primary issues facing the two organizations. II . COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS The initial meeting of the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee was convened on December 15, 1992 . The Committee reviewed the objectives and history of the Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society; received an internal audit report of the Animal Shelter; and established tasks for the Committee. 1 4 A. Objectives & History 1. The Orange County Animal Control Program was established in 1953 with the appointment of the first Dog Warden and opening of the Dog Pound. The Animal Control Division continued to grow and has evolved to its current staff of seven. The primary mission of the Animal Control Division is the enforcement of State and local animal laws through the provision of comprehensive animal services. These services include the protection of citizens from animal related injury or illness and loss of animals from unlawful and cruel treatment. The Animal Control Division has a staff of seven full- time employees. The 1992-93 budget is $269,767 . 2 . The Animal Protection Society (APS) was organized and chartered in 1962 with a mission to advocate for the humane treatment of animals, to institute an adoption program and to conduct animal investigations and community problem-solving for animal issues. In 1979, the APS contracted with the County to operate and manage the newly constructed Animal Shelter. The current Shelter staff consists of 12 full-time and 2 part-time employees. The 1992-93 Animal Shelter budget is $354,621 with Orange County contributing $237, 100 of that amount. B. Internal Audit Report At the request of the County Manager, the County Finance Department conducted an examination of the Animal Shelter. This October 1992 report examined the shelter' s fiscal operations and contract compliance. The report provided a detailed analysis of cash receipts and disbursements and a review of the Animal Shelter' s compliance with the County' s contractual obligations. The examination revealed no major findings in either fiscal procedures or contract compliance. Most of the minor problems noted in the Finance Department' s report have been addressed by the APS. 2 5 C. Committee Tasks In addition to the Board of Commissioners ' mandates to the Committee, members also agreed to study: a. Animal Adoption Process b. Animal Control Officers ' Constraints when Enforcing Animal Control Laws c. Animal Shelter Standards d. Animal Cruelty Investigations D. Animal Control and APS Procedures and Regulations At the January 12, 1993 and February 9, 1993 meetings, the Committee reviewed the voluminous procedures, manuals and regulations governing the Animal Control Division and the APS. These documents included: - County Animal Control Ordinance, - County Wild Animal Ordinance, - Animal Control Standard Operating Procedures, - State Laws Pertaining to Animal Control, - APS Policy and Procedural Manual, - Animal Welfare Administrative Code, - Mutual Operating Procedures Manual, - APS staff and board organizational charts, - List of APS programs, services and community relations, and - Illustration of groups and institutions involved in animal control in our community. Although the Committee identified several areas wherein the language could be improved to enhance clarification, the Committee acknowledged that the policies and procedures for both programs were effective. E. Organization Issues In addition to the review of available program documentation, the Animal Control Division and APS representatives provided the Committee with insight into the issues facing each organiza- tion. The descriptions of the following issues were presented by the staff of APS and the Animal Control Division and are not findings of the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee. 3 6 1. Animal Adoption Process The APS presented a handout titled "Adoptable Pets to Adoptable Homes" and reported that their animal adoption philosophy is to match the right pet with a responsible individual or family. The APS adoption policies are consistent with the Humane Society of the United States Animal Adoption Guidelines. Together with the participation of 15 local veterinarians, the APS implements a model adoption program with a mandatory spay/ neuter contract. This sterilization program is designed to reduce the numbers of unwanted animals in Orange County and to reduce the cost of animal control services to the taxpayers. Shelter adoption fees include payments to the vets to help underwrite the cost of the initial veterinary services and sterilization of the animals. Ordinarily, these veterinarian services are approximately $150 .00 for dogs and $100 for cats. Depending on the species adopted through the shelter, only $10 . 50 of the $75. 00 adoption fee for dogs and $14 .00 of the $49.00 adoption fee for cats remain at the shelter. 2. Animal Cruelty Investigations The most discussed issue during Committee meetings was the need for coordination between ACO and the APS during animal cruelty investigations. Both organizations perform animal cruelty investigations. Staff of the Animal Control Division stated that, on average, the County has approxi- mately 250 animal cruelty investigations per year. Of these, there have been minor occurrences, (approximately 10 cases per year) which required coordination between the APS and Animal Control Division. Although minimal, the cases which caused citizens ' frustrations received widespread news media attention. Public statements by both staffs indicated poor communication between the two organizations and added to citizens ' misunderstandings about cruelty investigations. 4 7 The Animal Control staff contend that the APS ' s cruelty investigations interfere with their mandated responsibilities, under the State General Statutes, to perform animal cruelty investigations which follow criminal procedures. The procedures used by APS are often inconsistent with the procedures used by the Animal Control Division which ulti- mately becomes confusing to the citizens. The APS staff described a long and rich history in the County of providing animal cruelty investigations and humane care to animals. The APS presented a "Brief Overview of Animal Cruelty Investigation Practices and Concerns" and described the APS of Orange County' s 30-year record, protocol, staff training, and philosophical approach to animal cruelty investigation. The APS reported that mutual cooperation and procedures on animal cruelty investigations by both the APS and the Animal Control Division had already been agreed upon last summer and a brochure for the public is being prepared. A copy of this brochure was distributed to the Study Group. The APS reported that only 4 out of more than 250 investigations involved overlap between the two organizations. At a follow-up meeting, the APS proposed a written protocol to enhance cooperation. 3 . Animal Control Officers ' (ACO) Views on Constraints When Enforcing Animal Control Laws The Animal Control staff presented concerns regarding the possible duplication of animal services between Animal Control and APS. This duplication of services was identified by the ACO as a major barrier to their enforcement of animal control laws. Rabies Control and Animal Cruelty Investigations are provided by both organizations. Animal Control staff indicated duplication promotes confusion among citizens since APS and ACO have different procedures for performing the same animal services. 5 8 ACO can not enforce the animal control ordinance when animal complaints are received anonymously from citizens. ACO must observe the violation, have actual evidence or a signed complaint before enforcement can be initiated. The County Animal Control Ordinance hinders enforcement by Animal Control Officers. Many provisions of the ordinance are outdated and must be revised. Lack of personnel and equipment was cited as an impediment to comprehensive enforcement. Additional ACO and accompanying vehicles would enable Animal. Control to more effectively enforce regulations. 4. Animal Shelter Standards APS staff presented its Standard Operating Procedures and indicated that the shelter standards exceed state standards and meet national standards of the American Humane Association. The APS is licensed and inspected annually by the NC Department of Agriculture under the Animal Welfare Act. Presentations of policies and procedures by both organiza- tions, along with committee dialogue, gave the members a clearer understanding of the issues surrounding Animal Control and APS. III. RESPONSES TO MANDATES AND COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE MANDATES The County Board of Health responded to the committee mandates listed under "Section I Background" . The Board of Health responses were endorsed by the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee and are as follows: A. Is there evidence that our current animal control program is working to achieve its objectives? The Animal Control Division of the Health Department has evolved steadily over the last five years. The number of animals licensed has increased, the roles and responsibilities of Animal Control Officers have been clarified, standard operating procedures have been codified, and the number of animals impounded has steadily reduced as enforcement measures have increased and improved. The Animal Shelter has 6 9 expanded to provide more adequate space for animals and staff, and the American Humane Association awarded the Animal Protection Society with a certificate for Standards of Excellence in the areas of euthanasia, operational programs, facilities and staff, community relations, and planning. A survey of county animal control ordinances, conducted by the Wilson County Health Department, indicated that the Orange County Ordinance contains more of the desired components than most of the ordinances across the state. B. Should the County continue to contract for the management of the County Animal Shelter? The contract with the Animal Protection Society remains a valuable arrangement for several reasons. First of all, Orange County aspires to high standards of excellence and community involvement. The Animal Protection Society through its well- trained staff, as well as its highly committed volunteers and contributors, generates a level of community support as a non-profit entity that would be difficult for a governmental agency to emulate. Secondly, it reinforces the notion that community based problems require more than governmental intervention to be resolved. Thirdly, it creates options for citizens to receive services from a private, non-profit source when that is more desirable to those citizens. C. Should the County consider managing the shelter with county staff? The current arrangement with the Animal Protection Society has many strengths and benefits as outlined above. The misunderstandings and confusion are issues that can be resolved through structural and functional changes which will be described in the Findings and Recommendations Section. D. Should the animal control progam continue to be organizationally housed in the Health Department or should it be transferred to another Orange County Department such as the Sheriff' s Department or the County Manager's Office? The recent upsurge in the incidence of rabid animals in North Carolina has led the Division of Epidemi- ology of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources to question whether rabies may be the next public health epidemic in North Carolina. Measures have already been taken by the state to streamline the testing of suspicious animals because 7 10 of an overload of testing requests. Rabid animals have been identified in several counties surrounding Orange County. This calls for increased vigilance in rabies control activities and heightened col- laboration among those agencies dealing with animals, both wild and domestic. Because of this clear public health interest, the Board of Health recommends that its responsibilities for animal control not only be retained but be strengthened. E. Should the County consider contracting with a private organization for the operation of the animal control program? The legal enforcement is difficult to delegate by contract. The powers and duties of the Health Department outlined in general statutes to investigate and abate public health problems will be critical in battling emerging zoonotic conditions. "OVERALL FINDINGS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE" No evidence was found, either in the County' s internal audit or in the work of the Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee, to support allegations of incompetence or mismanagement on the part of animal control or shelter staff members. Through the accomplishments of both the Orange County Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society of Orange County, the County has an effective and exemplary program for animal control and the humane care and treatment of animals. Both organizations achieve their objectives, and operations are managed by dedicated and trained professional staff members. The organizations have become leaders within the state in their respective spheres, and the County' s programs deserve to serve as models for other counties to follow. Orange County citizens who entrust animals to both organizations ' care can have complete confidence that the animals will be treated competently and humanely. However, there are areas within both programs that must be improved for continued success. The suggested areas for improvement are as follows: A. FINDING #1 - Need for Effective Coordination and Communication Between Orange County Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society. Under the community' s coordinated program, responsibilities are divided between a public organization and a private nonprofit organization. Although each organization has its own defined responsibilities, and each is accountable for the effectiveness of its own operations, neither 8 11 organization can be fully effective unless both organizations work together in a spirit of mutual coordination and cooperation. RECOMMENDATION: Each of the two organizations should be responsible and accountable for its respective role and duties within the overall County' s animal control program. Each is committed to work with the other in a spirit of cooperation and coordination to make the entire program effective. In those areas of responsibility where one organization depends upon another, or where coordination is essential to the mission of the organization ( such as in the transfer of animals from animal control officers to the animal shelter and animal cruelty investigations) , there should be a clear understanding of the respective policies and responsibilities. To the extent it is appropriate and feasible, this information should be reflected in specific protocols agreed upon by both organizations and incorporated into the Mutual Procedures Manual. Each organization should give timely, professional responses to any inquiry or concern of the other organization. Both organizations should maintain regular communications, and should resume their monthly meetings to address matters of mutual concern, discuss day-to-day or formal procedures, propose resolutions to problems that involve both organizations, make joint recommendations, or discuss other pertinent matters. If citizens, or members of either management staff, have concerns or problems, they should present and discuss these issues with the management staff of the organization in question. If they fail to reach a satisfactory agreement or resolution, the relevant facts and issues should be addressed in letters to the President of the APS, the Chair of the Board of Health, and the County Manager. These three responsible parties should then take steps necessary to resolve the differences. Matters of concern should be handled as quickly as possible, and any unresolved issues should not be allowed to impede resolution of other concerns. As agreements are made, each organization should act immediately, in good faith and with responsibility, to assure that resolutions are fully followed or implemented. 9 12 B. FINDING #2 - Ensuring Public Confidence in Animal Control and Protection Programs. The people of Orange County must be assured that both organizations are staffed by dedicated con- scientious, well-trained and professional staff members who can be trusted to treat animals effectively and humanely. If the two programs lose that confidence, people may not call on the organizations to take care of animals that need attention. RECOMMENDATION: Both organizations should agree that the news media can be best utilized as an avenue for educational purposes, not for registering grievances or resolving conflicts. When persons associated with either organization communicate with the public as a spokesperson for their organization, they will refrain from using their official position to express personal opinions. When appropriate, joint public education initiatives through the news media, cable TV, and brochures, should be developed to describe Animal Control and APS animal services. C. FINDING #3 - Collaboration and Defined Roles When Conducting Animal Cruelty Investigations. Both the Animal Control Division and the Animal Protection Society conduct animal cruelty investi- gations. The Animal Control Division is the govern- mental unit designated by the Board of Commissioners to conduct animal cruelty investigations. The APS conducts animal cruelty investigations as a non- profit humane society whose fundamental purpose is to protect animals. However, the animal cruelty investigations conducted by these two units in Orange County have been running along parallel lines which have occasionally collided rather than result- ing in collaborative efforts. Greater definition of roles and more clearly defined measures to assure collaboration are needed. RECOMMENDATION: A document should be developed which delineates the roles of Animal Control and APS and outlines the specific collaborative measures that will be taken to assure that animal cruelty investigations are carried out in collaboration without undermining either the investigation or prerogative of either APS or Animal Control. 10 13 D. FINDING #4 - Animal Adoption Costs. Citizens who adopt animals from the Animal Shelter must pay a modest fee, but also must pay the costs of spaying or neutering. Thus, the costs of adopting an animal can be as much as $75 . 00, which low-income families and fixed-income senior citizens may not be able to afford. While ownership responsibilities for an adopting family or individual does include ongoing veterinarian care and other costs for the pet, consideration should be given to this area of concern. RECOMMENDATION: The APS Board of Directors or its Shelter Subcommittee should. review the current funding sources to see if aid can be given to people who cannot afford the full cost of adopting an animal. E. FINDING #5 - Animal Control Officers Constraints when Enforcing Animal Control Laws. RECOMMENDATION: Problems involving cases where both APS and Animal Control become involved should be resolved in accordance with Recommendations #1 and #3; the receipt of anonymous complaints should be addressed in public education initiatives under Recommendation #2; lack of personnel and equipment should be referred to the health director and county manager; and revision of the County Animal Control Ordinance should be submitted to the Board of Health appointed Animal Control Advisory Committee. F. FINDING #6 - Community Support for Continued Success. Continued success depends upon having the community' s positive support--support as taxpayers, support through private contributions, support through volunteerism and support from responsible citizens. RECOMMENDATION: Request that the Board of Commissioners endorse the recommendations of the Animal Control/Shelter Committee as a clear message to the entire community that everyone is responsible for controlling the animal population in Orange County. 11 14 IV. CONCLUSION The Animal Control Division and Animal Protection Society should pledge anew to promote cooperation, without any reference to past grievances or to matters that might have impeded full cooperation in the past. Both organiza- tions should view differences as inevitable, given their complementary but distinct roles in Orange County. Such issues should be viewed not as weaknesses, but as opportun- ities to make the respective programs, and in turn, the community' s overall animal control program, stronger and more effective. 12 15 ADDENDUM FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SHELTER In the mid-1970s the County approved the construction of an animal shelter in Orange County, and Chapel Hill expressed interest in the project. Carrboro was asked to participate in the construction and to share the building costs . Carrboro declined and constructed their own shelter within their city limits . Chapel Hill and Orange County shared the expenses of the Orange County Animal Shelter, which was built on University of North Carolina property leased by the Town of Chapel Hill . Orange County contracted Tith the Animal Protection Society (APS ) of Orange County to 'operate the shelter, which opened in 1979 . The Town of Chapel Hill contracted with APS for emergency rescue services after regular working hours and during week-ends . This contract also provided back-up assistance to the Chapel Hill Animal Control Officer. In 1984 , Carrboro approached the APS to contract for the impoundment of Carrboro animals and to perform emergency rescue services . The contract was agreed upon and has been in place since 1984 . During the assessment of the animal control program, Carrboro officials presented information to the Study Committee regarding the shelter's financial contributions . This information indicated that the contributions made by the three municipalities are inequitable. Currently, Carrboro contributes $20 , 213 to the shelter for the impoundment of animals and the provision of emergency rescue services . In addition, Chapel Hill contributes $5 , 734 for emergency rescue services and back-up assistance. Orange County contributes $237 , 100 for the operation of the shelter and Hillsborough does not provide financial contributions . Based upon this information, Carrboro &fficials requested the Study Committee to review this current arrangement for its fairness and effectiveness to the Orange County taxpayers . The Town of Carrboro encouraged the Study Committee to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the development of a two-party contract between APS and Orange County. This contract would prohibit the county taxpayers in Carrboro from making duplicative contributions 16 for services received by other Orange County residents making a single contribution. Also, it would be effective because Orange County would be the only contractor representing local taxpayers providing a single review of scope, quality, and cost of animal shelter services. COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS: The Orange County Animal Control/Shelter Study Committee found that while there was an historical perspective to Carrboro's funding in the past, we recommend that the County Manager include funding for Carrboro animals in the Orange County portion of the budget. The Study Committee further strongly recommends that the County Commissioners support this change and approve the budget. ATTACHMENT I 17 ANIMAL CONTROL AND APS CRUELTY INVESTIGATION COORDINATION PROTOCOL The Orange County Animal Cruelty and Neglect Investigation Programs are committed to the protection of animals and to the relief of suffering of animals . Trained investigators investigate complaints of cruelty and neglect and take appropriate action to insure humane treatment of animals . This document outlines the protocol to coordinate the Orange County Animal Control and the Animal Protection Society of Orange County cruelty investigation programs . 1 . Each of the two organizations is responsible and accountable for its respective role and duties . Each is committed to work with the other in a spirit of cooperation and coordination to maintain strong programs and to provide the best possible protection and service to the animals and citizens of Orange County. 2 . Each agency shall have written procedures for cruelty investigation, which shall include the HSUS guidelines for cruelty investigations and other agreed upon procedures , and it shall be the responsibility of the director of each agency to ensure that these procedures are followed. 3 . Each agency .shall identify the employees that are authorized to investigate animal cruelty complaints, and those employees authorized to exchange information regarding animal cruelty investigations. 4 . Each agency will meet monthly to discuss cruelty investigation program coordination. 5 . Both agencies shall, upon request from the other, provide available information to the other, with the exception of matters of anonymity or confidentiality which could in some way jeopardize the complainant or the investigation itself . 6 . Either agency may invite the other agency into a joint investigation at any time. 7 . Either agency may refer a case to the other agency at any time, upon mutual agreement. 18 8 . When complaints are taken, each agency shall call the other agency within 24 hours (Monday through Friday) to inform it of the name and address of the suspect and the nature of the complaint. a. The preliminary report shall include the question, "Have you reported this to any other agency?" ( If the complainant has reported the situation to another agency within a 12 month period, an attempt will be made to find out why the additional report has been made, a note made of the complainant ' s response, and the original agency notified within 24 hours, Monday through Friday. ) b. If no such complaint is on record with either agency, the case shall be considered a new complaint and the receiving agency shall investigate the complaint, unless otherwise mutually agreed (cf #6 or #7 ) . c. Any complaint concerning a situation that is on record but has not been active for 12 months or longer will be considered a new case with "file information" (unless identified as an exceptional case) . This case may be retained by the agency receiving the complaint or may be passed on to the agency that has previously investigated the situation, with available information from both agencies being available to the investigating agency. d. In the case of a situation which has been investigated by both agencies within the 12 month period, consideration will be given to a joint investigation and/or agreement reached as to which agency shall perform the investigation, using all available information from both agencies . 9-93 eg ATTACHMENT II 19 RESPONSE TO FINDING #4 D. FINDING #4 - Animal Adoption Costs. Citizens who adopt animals from the Animal Shelter must pay a modest fee, but also must pay the costs of spaying or neutering. Thus, the costs of adopting an animal can be as much as $75 . 00, which low-income families and fixed-income senior citizens may not be able to afford. While ownership responsibilities for an adopting family or individual does include ongoing veterinarian care and other costs for the pet, consideration should be given to this area of concern. RECOMMENDATION: The APS Board of Directors or its Shelter Subcommittee should review the current funding sources to see if aid can be given to people who cannot afford the full cost of adopting an animal. APS Board of Directors: The APS Outreach Services provides community assistance for low-income families and fixed income families. The following program has been expanded to include pet adoption fees. Spay/Neuter Outreach Services Fund. Through this program low-income and fixed-income families may apply for a reduced cost or free sterilization certificate for their dog or cat. The APS Board of Directors has expanded this service to include partial or full subsidy for adoptions for low-income and fixed-income families. Those who apply for such assistance will be screened and must meet the standard criteria for adoption, i.e. , be able to provide food, water, veterinary care, shelter.