Domestic animal population is increasing exponentially in ...



[pic]

PICKENS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND COUNTY COUNCIL

FY2005-06

PROPOSAL

TARGETED LOW INCOME

AND

REDUCED COST

SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAMS

PREPARED BY:

PICKENS COUNTY ANIMAL COALITION TASKFORCE

INDEX

I. SUMMARY

II. BACKGROUND

a. GENERAL

b. HUMANE ALLIANCE, ASHEVILLE NC

c. THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPAY/NEUTER PROGRAM

d. SAN FRANCISCO SPCA

e. PALO ALTO SPAY&NEUTER CLINIC

f. PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA

g. DENVER COLORADO AREA

h. NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES

i. ANIMAL ALLIES AND SPARTANBURG HUMANE SOCIETY

III. COST ANALYSIS

IV. STATICAL DATA

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

a. TARGETED LOW INCOME SPAY/NEUTER

b. REDUCED COST SPAY/NEUTER

VI. CONCLUSION

I. SUMMARY:

Implementing Targeted Low Income and Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter programs is a proven, humane and cost effective method to reduce the increasing request for animal control services and the escalating cost burden on the taxpayers of Pickens County.

Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County Animal Control, Pickens County Veterinarians, Pickens County Volunteers, and Spartanburg Animal Allies. Individual roles and responsibilities are in the detailed implementation plan.

The number of targeted low income spays and neuters are 5 per 1000 population or 564 in 2005-2006 (112,859/1000*5=564). The subsidy cost to the county is an average of $40.00 per animal or $22,500. There will also be minimal administrative and personnel cost. These should not require additional staffing or funding.

Domestic animal population is increasing exponentially in Pickens County and many other counties nationwide. Pickens County Animal Control is experiencing an overwhelming increase in request to provide services. In 2001 and again in 2004 a consulting firm was contracted by Pickens County to review the operation of Pickens County Animal Control. Many of the recommendations are in various stages of implementation. These recommendations are necessary to facilitate the increasing request for services but do little to reduce the number of incoming request. In the first quarter of 2004, a Pickens County citizens group was formed to provide humane and cost effective solutions to animal issues and concerns. Preliminary recommendations were made to the Public Health and Safety Committee. PCACT was requested to develop final recommendations to be considered in the FY 2005-06 budget cycle.

Research performed by many organizations and agencies including International City County Management Association, Humane Society of the US, Animal Allies of Spartanburg and the Pickens County Animal Coalition Taskforce conclude spay and neuter programs are the most efficient and humane method in reducing the number of nuisance and unwanted animals, thus reducing request for animal control services.

Programs developed to assist low-income animal owners in spaying and neutering their pets has yielded the best results. Studies suggest that successfully implementing an aggressive reduced cost spay and neuter program will begin to stabilize, and then reduce the number of euthanasia. Implementing a Targeted Low Income Spay and Neuter program actually reversed the trend and resulted in significant decreases in animal control services and cost.

The Pickens County Animal Coalition Taskforce unanimously recommends adoption and implementation of the Targeted Low Income and Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter programs as outlined in this proposal.

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

A. General:

The context of the background information includes information gathered from 6 different successful spay/neuter programs. Several key elements surface over and over again. One, the programs success depends on targeting those animals which would otherwise not be spay or neutered. Statically these animals are owned and cared for by low income families. Many programs were able to stabilize the rate of increase intake to animal control by implementing aggressive spay/neuter or reduced cost spay/neuter programs. It was after a targeted low-income spay/neuter program is implemented that d significant reduction in animal shelter intake is realized. Another key element is establishing an aggressive yet reasonable target. Understandably, the sooner you get spay/neutered animals into the general population the sooner you reverse the uncontrolled reproduction cycle. A tested, proven, reasonable target is 5 targeted spay/neuters per 1000 population. The target for Pickens County will be 562 for FY2006. The third key element is an aggressive general spay/neuter program. Performing only 562 spay/neuters a year will not be enough to eliminate the animal over population problems. These targeted spay/neuters must be in conjunction with an aggressive campaign to spay/neuter animals that owners do not wish to reproduce. Our plan is to increase awareness through education and advertising and to provide a reduced cost spay/neuter program. Many of our Pickens County Veterinarians have agreed to partner with our citizens to provide reduced cost services to those who need assistance but do not qualify for the low-income program.

Please remember as you review this information, no one program fits all. Each has its own unique set of problems and challenges. Each has chosen to finance the programs in various ways. Many were pioneers in animal control and care. They have through trial and error, proven valuable lessons, compiled volumes of data and statistics, and share those lessons learned with us who face similar issues.

We are extremely fortunate that Animal Allies of Spartanburg is partnering with us. They have arranged a reduced cost per procedure, partnering with the Spartanburg Humane Society (SHS). When ask, the PC veterinarians stated they could not perform the procedures at this reduced price. On an average, a veterinarian clinic can perform 3-4 spay/neuter procedures a day and provide normal clinic services. The spay/neuter clinic at SHS can perform 40-60 procedures a day. Animal Allies will provide an electronic database to facilitate all the records required. They will provide training to our volunteers on the entire process, from the initial call to returning the animal to its owner. Animal Allies will receive each transport and facilitate the process once the animals are delivered. We are very fortunate that they will mentor us through this process.

B. Humane Alliance, Asheville NC

The Humane Alliance Spay/Neuter Clinic in Asheville, NC has been making a tremendous impact on the animal overpopulation problem in region since the spring of 1994. William H. McKelvy founded the organization with the mission to provide low-cost spay/neuter services; the non-lethal, responsible solution to pet overpopulation. What began as a local effort escalated into a regional endeavor. More than 106,000 companion animals have been spayed and neutered at the facility since the organization opened its doors. The cost of each surgery is subsidized with grants obtained and donations raised through the efforts and commitments of every member of our staff, our Board of Directors, and the partner organizations (30 organizations in 22 counties) who participate with us.

Daily operation of the clinic encompasses a wide variety of tasks all addressed by a staff of fifteen (4 veterinarians, 1 veterinary technician, 7 veterinary assistants, 1 kennel manager, 1 transport driver, 1 office manager, and a director). The clinic is further privileged by three reliable volunteers. An average of 75 sterilizations are performed each day, with a maximum of 140 surgeries per day. Morning release and intake begins each day at 7:00 A.M. Surgeries begin at 8:30 A.M. Typically surgeries are completed by 4:00 P.M. Pets are then monitored until fully recovered, snacks are provided, and incision sites are inspected before the surgical staff leaves.

The staff is the heartbeat of the clinic, the engine that drives the mission. They have collectively identified boundary-busting solutions for establishing a protocol that is essential to all accomplishments of the Humane Alliance's program journey. The staff is rare and profound. They are the problem solvers. Their efforts are great and a clear reflection of achievements executed when a staff becomes a team. The staff is the indispensable element to the successful operation of a spay/neuter facility.

We, as a community of citizens concerned about animal welfare, are faced with the challenge of finding a home for every pet. It takes a cooperative partnership of the entire community to solve pet overpopulation. Competent prevention and intervention programs are the key to driving euthanasia rates in our shelters down. Fundamental to all preventive work is sterilization. Neutering is recognized as our best defense against all the sources of shelter overpopulation. Humane Alliance of WNC has addressed this cooperative/ community effort to create a region of "No More Homeless Pets" by working hand-in-hand with all the animal welfare organizations throughout region.

We provide a free transport service in addition to our local public services. It is an effective and innovative service that has been implemented through the coordinated efforts of many talented people. The transport system accommodates delivery of homeless pets for rescue organizations, for pets belonging to low-income residents of WNC, and for county shelter pets to our facility for sterilization. This service is provided for 30 non-profit animal welfare organizations in 22 counties, and five county shelter facilities. These groups have a five year demonstrated history of cooperative participation with the clinic. The clinic belongs to the region. The organizations have, and do, provide comprehensive programs that support adoption guarantee, comprehensive medical treatment, transfer of animals from animal control agencies, foster home networks, and an aggressive spay/neuter component. By 1996 mandatory pre-adopt sterilization was one common goal of animal welfare organizations within western North Carolina (WNC). The participating organizations have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in the cost of spay/neuter since 1995. The endeavors of these organizations last year, 2001, resulted in 13,005 sterilizations and more than 8,400 adoptions. This collaborative effort is well on the way to 20,000 sterilizations this year.

The partnership of these organizations in WNC has been integral to the success of this program. All of the partners agree that spay/neuter is the responsible solution to pet overpopulation and the choice that saves lives. Their purposes are proactive and have served to change the public's perception of their rights and responsibilities regarding their pets. The people in our communities have to embrace the mission of ending euthanasia. They have to support and endorse adoption of shelter animals. Furthermore, the public has to know that sterilization of companion animals is a responsible solution to pet overpopulation. It is a choice that saves lives. It is imperative that we educate and motivate individuals to choose to be a part of the solution to the homeless pet population.

The Humane Alliance is privileged to work with supportive local veterinarians who recognize the value of the service which the clinic provides. These veterinarians and their participation in a "free post-operative exam" program is invaluable to the clinic and the cause of animal welfare. Actually, the cooperative effort between the local veterinarians goes a step further. The NCVMA (North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association) has endorsed the efforts of the Humane Alliance and encourages its ongoing endeavors. Cooperation between the private veterinarians and animal welfare organizations is absolutely pivotal to the well-being of companion pets.

In summary, high volume sterilization is compulsory to a community response to pet overpopulation. It is the best defense against all the sources of shelter overpopulation. A regional spay/neuter facility is the most efficient, effective means of accomplishing an aggressive, targeted sterilization campaign. It is a catalyst in uniting organizations with separate missions to a common purpose. It is no longer satisfactory to concede to less than a nation of "No More Homeless Pets". Community coalitions are critical to the success of our pro-active programs. Through coalitions, humane organizations become the core of the community. The level of diligence we see in the collective, cooperative effort in our region is unparalleled. As suggested by Peter Marsh, "Only two things drive down the number of cats and dogs killed in shelters. Cutting down the number who enter shelters in the first place and increasing the number who are placed in quality homes." These issues are most productively addressed by creating alliances amongst animal welfare organizations, shelters, local government, and private veterinarians.

What Our Surveys, Statistics, and Experience Tell Us

(987 clients surveyed, 2002)

* The Humane Alliance Spay/Neuter Clinic sterilized 13,872 companion animals this year, 2002.

* The ratio of cats and dogs sterilized is approximately 54% cats, 46% dogs.

20% male cats

34% female cats

30% female dogs

16% male dogs

70% of our patients are sexually mature

30% are pregnant

50% are in heat

* Our decease rate this year totaled 14. (2 were idiopathic anesthetic reaction, 12 were as a result of some type of pre-existing unknown condition such as FELV+, FIV+, or some undiagnosed cardiac or other organ system disease or abnormality.)

* 88% of our clients have not taken their pets to a veterinarian in the past year.

* 87% of our clients do not have a veterinarian.

* 85% of our clients have never taken their pets to a veterinarian.

* 11% of our clients visit a veterinarian once a year.

* 2% of our clients visit a veterinarian twice a year.

* 85% of our clients have not had their pets vaccinated against rabies.

* 78% of our clients are female who schedule appointments to have their pets sterilized.

* 30% of our sexually mature female patients are pregnant.

* The Humane Alliance advocates sterilization of companion pets before sexual maturity, and certainly before they give birth to litters.

* We practice and promote early-age spay/neuter.

* 10% of our clients are referred by their private veterinarian.

* 94% of pets neutered at our facility are owned.

* 92% of our clients indicate that money/cost is a factor in the decision to neuter their pets.

* 70% of the pets sterilized at our facility are delivered through our transport system.

* 82% of the pets sterilized are direct referrals from the 30 non-profit partner organizations. The great majority of these organizations activities are executed exclusively by volunteers.

* 100% of our clients indicate that they believe a wellness program is important for their pets. 92% of our clients indicate that it is cost prohibitive for them to participate in a wellness program.

* 95% of the veterinarians we have spoken with in our region indicate they will support a low-cost spay/neuter facility that specifically targets and screens for low-income pet owners; likewise, they would support a wellness program specifically targeted.

* About 11% of our low-cost neutering patrons appear to be in the middle to upper income bracket. This seriously annoys the private veterinarians.

* Do not expect that every veterinarian will greet your plan for a low-cost spay/neuter program with great enthusiasm.

* The euthanasia rate at our local shelter is down by 48% since our clinic opened.

* To succeed, you need to put more of your resources into preventing animals from becoming homeless in the first place.

* Spay and neuter programs effectively reduce euthanasia rates and taxpayers' expense.

* The pet overpopulation crisis is a direct result of animals left unaltered in our communities.

* People expect their government to be fiscally responsible, and to pro-actively address the issue of unwanted dogs and cats in their community.

* Spaying and neutering cats and dogs is not just an animal welfare issue; it's a public safety issue.

* Less than 5% of shelter budgets are spent on pro-active programs that PREVENT tomorrow’s animals from becoming causalities.

* We will never stop the euthanasia if we continue to allocate 95% of our resources to treating symptoms instead of devoting more resources to the factors that cause the problem.

C. The New Hampshire Spay/Neuter Program: Lessons From The First 10 Years:

In New England, we sometimes speak of people who didn't know each other growing up but went through the same changes as having gone to different schools together. All of us working to bring about a world where every companion animal has a loving home are going to different schools together. We go through many of the same things, with the same dream, just in a different place. The more we are able to learn from each other, the faster our dream will come true.

The New Hampshire spay/neuter program is a good example. In the early 1990s, a group of us worked to put together programs that would end the killing of healthy or rehabilitatable cats and dogs in our shelters. After speaking with advocates from one end of the country to the other, we found a New Jersey program that had been among the most successful in reducing shelter overpopulation. So we contacted the people who had worked to put this program together and designed our program to take into account all they told us about what had worked well for them and what had not. This article itself is an example of building on the work done by colleagues because it adopts the same "What Worked, What Didn't" format. It is written to share with others what we've learned from operating our program for the past ten years.

What Worked

1. Targeting a Program for Low-Income Pet Caretakers.

The best decision we made was to target our program to a population that had not been served in the past: cats and dogs living in very low-income households. In part we did that because this approach had succeeded in New Jersey. Even more important to us, in the 1980s we had operated statewide open access programs through which anyone could get his/her cat or dog sterilized for about half of the usual cost. While these low-cost programs seemed to keep the problem from getting worse, they weren't able to make it a whole lot better, which is what we were determined to do. Year in and year out, we continued to put about 12,000 cats and dogs to death in our shelters.

Now we know why a low-income program is so important. It turns out that if you don't provide a way for people living in poverty to be able to sterilize their pets, a much higher percentage of their cats and dogs remain sexually intact, which ultimately leads them to be admitted to shelters or migrate to freeroaming colonies. Even if you have good low cost programs, the copayment remains beyond the reach of the very poor and, at some point, you "hit the wall" and can't make any more progress. That's what happened to us. As soon as we provided poor caretakers with a program they could afford in 1994, the drop in shelter admissions and deaths was dramatic (see graph 1).

Targeting helped us in two other ways that proved critical to the program's success. First, it made the program cost effective, which in turn has made it possible for us to secure and maintain public funding. And it allowed us to gain the broad support of local veterinarians, who had told us for some time that they would work with us on any program that helped people who genuinely needed it.

2. Using Dog License Fees as a Source of Revenue

You learn a lot when you have to generate enough revenue to keep a program operating month in and month out. Not only does the revenue source have to provide enough funding for the program, it has to provide it in a steady stream. Any time that a program has to be cut back or shut down due to a lack of funds -- which has happened to us for several months over the years -- it suffers a setback.

Almost all of the funding for our program comes from a small surcharge on dog licenses issued throughout the state. Dog licenses have to be renewed every year in New Hampshire, so the license surcharge gives us a steady and predictable source of income. The main disadvantage is that the program's income becomes dependent on how many caretakers comply with the licensing laws. At first, the $2 surcharge didn't bring in enough revenue to operate our program throughout the year. Instead of trying to get the surcharge increased, the Pet Overpopulation Committee that oversees the program took steps to have veterinarians send copies of all the rabies certificates they issued to local licensing officials. This simple procedure has increased the number of licenses issued by more than fifty percent. The $2 surcharge generates about 25 cents for each resident of the state every year, enough revenue for us to operate our program year-round. The other revenue source we considered, a specialty license plate, typically generates about 5 cents per resident each year.

A dog license surcharge, then has provided us with an adequate and annualized source of revenue. But our situation is not ideal. Applying the surcharge across the board, to both sterilized and unsterilized dogs, allows us to keep the amount of the surcharge small (an important consideration in New England) but it is not very progressive. A more sensible design would be to increase the amount of the surcharge substantially -- say to $10 -- and apply it only to unsterilized dogs. This procedure would not only provide enough revenue for the program, it would also give people an incentive to have their dog sterilized.

3. Establishing An Oversight Committee

A legislative committee was set up to oversee the program. I had real doubts at first that the committee would accomplish a great deal. There was concern that the diverse makeup of the committee -- which by law included groups that had opposed setting up the program in the first place -- would create a legislative gridlock. I was dead wrong.

Over the years, the Pet Overpopulation Committee has become the program's champion and advocate. A good example is the work of municipal officials and veterinarians on the committee to increase the rate of compliance with dog licensing laws, mentioned above. More than that, the committee has become a place to address problems that arise and help the program adapt to changing times. Every program may need such a benefactor, if it is to thrive.

4. Using Public Assistance Programs to Determine Eligibility.

As soon as you begin to operate a neutering assistance program (if not sooner), you become jealous of the funds spent to administer it. Every dollar spent is not available to pay for sterilizations. So it's important that the program's eligibility criteria be easy to understand and apply. It also needs to reliably identify the people who genuinely need help and not saddle participating veterinarians with a great deal of paperwork.

We've found that the best way to accomplish all of the above is to use people's eligibility for public assistance programs as the way to decide if they are eligible for our program, too. Using the New Jersey program as a model, we selected seven public assistance programs with very low-income limits, which has worked out well for us. It has allowed us to "piggy-back" on the work that the administrators of human service programs have already done. Over the years, the state veterinarian has streamlined the administration of the program to the point that administrative expenses take up less than fifteen percent of the program's budget. In recent years, targeted low-income programs operated by Maddie's Fund have simplified the eligibility determination process even more by selecting eligibility for a single program -- Medicaid -- as the standard, allowing their programs to be administered even more cost effectively than ours.

5. Establishing A Dedicated Account for Program Revenue.

Looking back, I believe the second most important developmental milestone that our program passed, after its birth in 1993, was the establishment of an earmarked or dedicated account for program revenue three years later. Before that, all the revenue from the dog license surcharge was deposited into the state's General Fund and the program was dependent on periodic appropriations through the legislative budget process. Any funds that were not spent by the program at the end of a fiscal year were returned to the State Treasury. All of this made the program's financial base very shaky.

Getting legislation passed to put the dog license revenue into a dedicated fund changed everything. The law sheltered the program from changes in the economic and political climates. It's a two way street, though. The independence of being " off-budget" means that the program must be shut down if the funds in the account are depleted. So far, though, having dedicated funds has been a good trade off for us and probably should be the goal of every publicly funded program.

6. Operating the Program Through a Network of Private Veterinarians.

Veterinary services are delivered in our program through a statewide network of participating veterinary hospitals. This has proven to be one of its greatest strengths. More than 70% of all the veterinary practices in the state have joined the program, making it much more accessible to caretakers than if the services were delivered through widely-scattered low cost clinics or a mobile unit. And accessibility is critical to the success of a low-income program because transportation

to and from the veterinary hospital is often a great barrier.

Using a network of existing veterinary hospitals has also proven to be cost effective, in large part because it takes advantage of the infrastructure that is already in place instead of paying to duplicate it by creating new clinics. The average subsidy paid by the program is about $60.00 per surgery, almost exactly the same as that achieved by Maddies' Fund low-income programs, which are also operated through a network of private veterinary hospitals.

Taken together with the targeted design, which has steeply driven down the number of shelter admissions, and the low administration costs, operating our program through private veterinarians has helped our program be a good investment. Neutering subsidies have more than paid for themselves. Every dollar spent on the neutering program in its first seven years has saved $3.15 in reduced impoundment costs (see graph 2).

What Didn't Work

1. Offering Neutering Subsidies to Encourage Shelter Adoptions.

From the beginning our neutering program attempted to reduce the shelter death toll by attacking it from two directions: neutering subsidies for low-income pet caretakers were designed to reduce the number of cats and dogs coming into shelters while subsidies for shelter adopters aimed to increase the number going out. We hoped that our shelter adoption rate would increase substantially if potential adopters could get shelter animals sterilized for a $25 (now $30) copayment.

Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way. While the shelter adopter's program has proven to be very popular with adopters and veterinarians, the shelter adoption rate has only increased by about 20% over the past ten years. Subsidies for the low-income program have proven to be a much better investment. While each program costs about the same to operate every year, more than eighty percent of the drop in shelter deaths has come from a steep decline in shelter admissions and less than twenty percent from an increase in placements.

Not only has the shelter adopter's program proven to be not very cost effective, by now it is somewhat regressive. It is designed to provide funding only for sterilizations that take place after an animal has been adopted. When our program was set up ten years ago, neutering before-adoption programs were quite rare. By now, they have proven to be the best practice. And they are probably a better investment than a shelter adopters' subsidy program.

2. Not Subsidizing the Cost of Presurgical Immunizations in our Original Low-Income Program

In its original design, our low income program subsidized only the cost of the surgery. If presurgical immunizations were required for any cat or dog that was sterilized through the program, the caretaker had to pay the full cost. This proved to be a significant barrier. We discovered that almost a third of those who had applied to the program and been found eligible failed to follow through and have the animal sterilized. When we followed up with them to find out why, many said they could afford the $10 co-payment for the surgery but the extra $25 - $30 for required shots had put the surgery out of reach.

Once we recognized this barrier, we modified the program to include the cost of shots in the subsidy and increased the co-payment to $15. This has increased the average subsidy by about fifteen percent but has put the program within the reach of those caretakers that we need to reach the most.

3. Using a Complex Fee Structure for Payments to Veterinarians

In our program, participating veterinarians are paid eighty percent of their usual and customary fee for all services they provide through the program, as long as the resulting charge is below the annual fee caps set by the State Veterinarian. To set the caps, each participating veterinary hospital submits a fee schedule every year and the statewide average becomes the cap. The fee structure was designed this way so that we could take into account the variation in costs that veterinary hospitals in different parts of the state had to pay for expenses such as labor and rent. Now it seems to be a needless administrative expense and an extra burden for participating veterinarians. While a wide variation of veterinary expenses may make a design like this necessary in a large state, a small state or county would probably be better served by a single fee structure such as the one used in the Maddies' Fund program.

Conclusion:

I wish I could say that we knew all along how successful our program would be. It didn't happen that way, perhaps because so many other things we tried had not worked out as well as we had hoped, perhaps because so many animals had been put to death in our shelters for so long. I can't say, either, that we decided to try to get funding for a targeted low-income program because we thought the veterinary community would support us. We hoped so, but that wasn't the main reason. We were interested only in saving lives and would have worked to get this program started even if the vets hadn't been behind us.

And I can't say that we wanted to have the program because it would save tax dollars. It just worked out that way.

A targeted low-income program allowed all of these things to come together for us and it can for any community. Perhaps it's luck, perhaps Providence, but all the pieces of a low-income program fit together. A targeted program allows you to get the support of veterinarians, which makes it possible to get public funding. This allows you to provide big enough subsidies to make the program affordable for the people you need to reach the most and to pay vets fairly, which encourages their broad participation and makes the program accessible. All of which makes the program effective in reducing the number of animals who entered shelters and saves tax dollars. But best of all it saves lives.

D. San Francisco SPCA:

|[pic] |

|The San Francisco SPCA and The San Francisco County Animal Care & Control City & County of San Francisco |

| |

|In 1994, The San Francisco SPCA & Animal Care & Control City & County of San Francisco joined forces to pursue an ambitious aim: |

|eliminate euthanasia as the common fate of homeless cats and dogs. The program “Partnerships For Life - Saving Homeless Dogs & Cats in |

|San Francisco,” is now in its 10th year. This unique partnership between SF/SPCA, a non-profit and SF/ACC, a city agency has become a |

|model for communities worldwide. |

| |

|San Francisco has fundamentally reversed the pattern that prevails at many animal shelters, where healthy adoptable dogs and cats are |

|routinely killed to make room for incoming animals. |

| |

|San Francisco's success is based on several key elements: |

|High-volume spay/neuter surgery to reduce pet overpopulation and cut shelter intake. The SFSPCA spends between $1 million and $2 million|

|a year to subsidize surgery at its spay/neuter clinic, with free surgery for San Francisco's feral cats and animals adopted from the |

|SFSPCA, and public fees that are about 60 percent below the city average. The clinic performs approximately 7,000 surgeries a year and |

|has altered more than 100,000 dogs and cats (including more than 12,000 feral cats) since it began keeping records in 1988. |

|Foster care and treatment to prepare dogs and cats for adoption |

|Adoption programs to place shelter animals in loving homes |

|Partnerships between The SF/SFCA and SF/ACC, and with other shelters, rescue groups, volunteers and the entire community |

|The result: between 1990 and 2002, the number of dogs and cats entering the San Francisco shelter system dropped by 41 percent, from |

|13,189 to 7,836. The chart below illustrates the drop in euthanasias from 2,163 in 2002 to 1,606 in 2003. At the same time, the adoption|

|rate has increased from 4,975 in 2002 to 5,218 in 2003. |

| |

|Source: |

|Tracy Pore |

|San Francisco SPCA |

| |

|Ed Sayres |

|Former Pres. of SF/SPCA |

| |

|E. Palo Alto Spay & Neuter Clinic: |

|[pic] |

|Palo Alto Spay & Neuter Clinic: |

| |

| |

|The City of Palo Alto opened a low-cost spay and neuter clinic in 1972 as part of a new animal control and care facility. Promotion of |

|spaying and neutering was a relatively new concept in our area of the time, and the City Council was skeptical that a spay and neuter |

|clinic would have much of an impact on the numbers of animals handled at the public animal shelter. However, though an extensive public |

|awareness campaign of pet overpopulation, the positive effects of the spay clinic were realized within two years of the opening of the |

|clinic. The number of dogs and cats had increased every single year from 1955 to 1973. In 1974, in the second year of the clinic's |

|operation, the number of dogs and cat received dropped every single year from then until 1996 (when there was a large human population |

|spike in Palo Alto. Communities surrounding Palo Alto, who also use the clinic, have reported similar reductions in animal population |

|since the opening of the clinic in 1972. |

| |

|Source: |

|Greg Betts |

|City of Palo Alto |

|F. Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA - San Mateo County, CA |

|Dog and Cat Shelter Population Summary: |

|An Historic Review |

| |

|NOTE: The following numbers are total numbers and do not distinguish between healthy homeless animals and those animals suffering from |

|serious illness, injury, or behavioral problems. |

|[pic] |

|* PHS/SPCA's Low-cost spay/neuter clinic opens in 1970; statistics for years prior to 1970 not available. The Peninsula Humane Society |

|Low Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic is located at: 12 Airport Blvd., San Mateo, CA 94401 Tel: 415-340-7022 |

|** PHS/SPCA's education program created 1975 |

|*** Totals are not shown for 1985, 1995 and 2000 because complete, comparable data is not available; data for 1986, 1993 and 2002 is |

|used instead |

| |

|**** PHS/SPCA's Pet Overpopulation Ordinance (POP) introduced 1990 |

|Source: |

|Peninsula Humane Society |

|G. Denver Colorado Area: |

| |

|Audrey Boag, author of Feral Friends, A Guide to Living With Feral Cats, gathered data over a ten-year period from the major shelters in|

|the Denver metropolitan area including nearby suburbs. The shelters included such large ones as the Aurora Animal Care Center, the |

|Denver Dumb Friends League, the Denver Municipal Shelter and Table Mountain Animal Shelter. The area has conventional animal care and |

|control programs, typical of American shelters, but keep better than average records on cat entries and exits. Since the advent of |

|trap/neuter and return programs in the early 1990's there has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of cats in the shelter system as |

|follows: |

|[pic] |

|Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People magazine, concludes: Return to Owner and adoption are clearly NOT responsible for the 40% drop |

|in cats received since significant trap/neuter/return projects started in the Denver area in 1991-1992. What is happening in Denver, |

|plain and simple, is that feral cats are no longer being born in great numbers (owner surrenders down 40%), hence unwanted litters are |

|no longer turning up in yards, sheds, basements, etc in great numbers, and hence free roaming adult cats are no longer turning up as |

|often (24% fewer). |

| |

|The difference in the drop in “owner surrended” (a very misleading term for animals brought to shelters by the public) and free-roaming |

|adult cats taken in (only 60% as steep a drop) probably reflects the dent that predation and disease make in the feral population before|

|kittens reach reproductive age. |

| |

|All of this was achieved without the participation of the major agencies in trap/neuter-return programs. Incidentally, cat intakes in |

|most categories actually rose slightly in 1999, probably reflecting the warmer-than-usual 1998-9 Winter. |

|Source: |

|Merritt Clifton, editor, Animal People |

|November, 2000 |

| |

| |

|H. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services: |

|[pic] |

|NEW JERSEY STATE ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL |

| |

|In May of 1983, Assembly Bill 1917 was signed into law and became P.L. 1983, c. 172. This law directed the Department of Health and |

|Senior Services (DHHS) to establish a low cost spay/neuter program to be called the Animal Population Control (APC) Program that would |

|utilize the private sector (i.e., participating veterinarians) to provide the spay/neuter services. |

| |

|Client eligibility to participate was based on the client being a recipient of any one of a number of public assistance programs, |

|specifically: Food Stamp Program, Supplemental Security Income Program, Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), Aid to Families with |

|Dependent Children Program (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), General Public assistant Program, Pharmaceutical Assistance to the |

|Aged and Disabled Program, Rental Assistance Program, Lifeline Credit Program, and Tenants Lifeline Assistance Program. Upon |

|presentation to the veterinarian of proof of eligibility for any of the above-mentioned programs, the client's pet would receive a $10 |

|copayment fee, all necessary presurgical immunizations, presurgical examination, surgery, and post surgical care. |

| |

|On December 17, 1986, the DHSS was charged with implementing P.L. 1986, c. 192. The law became effective immediately. This law permits |

|any dog or cat adopted from a licensed non-profit shelter or pound and licensed pursuant to state and municipal law to be eligible to |

|participate in the Low Cost Spaying and Neutering Program for a $20 copayment fee. The objective was to encourage shelter adoptions and |

|increase the number of altered pets reentering the pet ownership cycle. |

| |

|P.L. 1991, c. 405, was approved January 17, 1992. This law opened the spay/neuter program up to dogs and cats adopted from nonprofit, |

|incorporated, animal adoption referral agencies, which do not operate holding facilities. There have been more than 137,000 surgeries |

|conducted on dogs and cats since the inception of the program in 1984. |

| |

|Source: |

|Robert Monyer |

|State of New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services |

| |

|I. Animal Allies and Spartanburg Humane Society: |

| |

|Animal Allies started their low cost, high quality spay/neuter program in July 1998.  The program was administered through local |

|participating veterinarians.  In 2003, the Spartanburg Humane Society partnered with Animal Allies to open the James S. Smith |

|Spay/Neuter Clinic for targeted low-income clients.  In 2003, SHS's intake decreased 2.2% but euthanasia increased 6%.  In 2004, SHS |

|intake decreased 7% and euthanasia decreased |

|13%.  Animal Allies is cautiously optimistic that through collaboration that the volume of targeted spay/neuter surgeries has reached a |

|level to decrease the intake of stray and unwanted pets. |

|Last year Spartanburg County received 18,160 cats and dogs, 4,333 were adopted or were returned to their owners, and 13,730 to be |

|destroyed. There are too many animals and not enough homes. We, the public, are responsible ... and the solution is spay/neuter and |

|education. Animal Allies is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing pet overpopulation in our community. Because our companion |

|animals, primarily cats and dogs, suffer the most extreme consequences, namely euthanasia, at the hands of mankind, our first and |

|foremost goal is to eliminate the need to control pet overpopulation by death. |

|Working in partnership with the Spartanburg Humane Society, Animal Allies facilitates a low-cost spay/neuter program at the James S. |

|Smith Spay/Neuter Clinic onsite at the humane society. Our services are available to anyone who wants to spay/neuter their pet, however,|

|our focus is on targeted surgeries for low-income families. Income qualified clients bring their pets to the Clinic by appointment |

|several days a week. We also work with local vets to provide spay/neuter surgeries to clients who do not meet income qualifications. |

|We offer humane education to the public, and work with animal rescue organizations, humane societies, and animal control. Prevention is |

|the key. By preventing unwanted litters from being born, we remove the need to euthanize them. |

|Working with local vets in Spartanburg, SC and surrounding communities, we facilitate low-cost surgeries. |

|We offer humane education to the public, and work with animal rescue organizations, humane societies, and animal control. |

| |

| |

|III. COST ANALYSIS: |

| |

|Pickens County currently spends $278,591 FY2004-05. $167,591 to PCAC and $111,000 to FHS. |

|Assuming 7-year statistical data from Animal Allies and New Hampshire State wide program, 40% reduction in animal intakeAssuming current|

|Pickens County data, a conservative 6% per year increase of animal control intake. |

|Assuming PC allocates $22,500 a year to subsidize 562 low income spay/neuters |

|Then PC should realize 7-years cost savings of: |

|Gross Savings = $367,195 |

|Cost of subsidy = $157,500 |

|NET Savings = $209,695 |

| |

| |

|IV. STATISTICAL DATA: |

| |

|Pickens County spends $278,591, $2.47/person (FY2004-05), 9% less than the South Carolina average of $2.71/person. |

|Pickens County Animal Control and Care budget has increased 48.13% from $188,064 FY2004 to $278,591 FY2005. $167,591 to PCAC and |

|$111,000 to FHS. |

|The number of animals picked up by Pickens County Animal Control and Care has increased 46% in the past 9 years. Data provided by Joel E|

|Wood & Associates report a 12% increase in the last 2 years which indicates the rate of change is also increasing. |

|Animal Allies in Spartanburg reports than 85 to 90 % of the animals who come in under the Targeted Spay/Neuter program do not have |

|current rabies vaccinations. |

|Estimated dogs and cats owned in Pickens County are 46,758. Less than half are rabies vaccinated. |

|Formula: |

|House Holds = 41,306 |

|Estimated Dogs owned = .534*41,306 = 24,057 |

|Estimated Cats owned = .598*41,306 = 24,701 |

|Rabies vaccinations reported in 2004 = 20,987 |

|Rabies compliance in Pickens County = 44.88% |

|SHS estimates that 40% of the unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized each year are healthy and adoptable. |

|Animal Allies has facilitated low income spays and neuters since 1998, their program has increased the number of surgeries performed |

|each year by 30%. SHS and Animal Allies started a targeted low-income spay/neuter program onsite at the shelter in a high-volume clinic |

|setting in 2003. The shelter intake decreased by 2.2% in 2003. In 2004, the shelter intake decreased by 7.1% and euthanasia decreased by|

|13.8%. During the same period, Spartanburg County has been able to reduce funding for animal control and care by 7%. |

|The common model for a spay/neuter program is 5 targeted surgeries per 1000 residents. Expected results should be a 40% reduction in |

|animal intake to animal control and zero euthanasia of healthy and adoptable animals in 7 years. |

|FHS adopts out approximately 300 animals each year. The FY2004-05 cost to PC taxpayers is $370.00 per adopted animal. The majority of |

|these animals were adopted out of state. Very few were adopted by PC residents. |

| |

|V. RECOMMENDATIONS: |

| |

|A. Targeted Low Income Spay/Neuter Program Implementation: |

| |

|Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County Animal Control, Pickens County Veterinarians, Pickens |

|County Volunteers, and Spartanburg Animal Allies. Individual roles and responsibilities will be in a detailed implementation plan. |

| |

|The program’s success depends on targeting those animals which would otherwise not be spay or neutered. Statically these animals are |

|owned and cared for by low-income families. This program shares the financial burden with those who qualify for assistance. PC Animal |

|Controls support and assistance is crucial to advertise and promote spay and neuter to those targeted residents. |

| |

|PCAC will have administrative and financial responsibilities for the Targeted Low Income Spay and Neuter program. PCAC will provide |

|administrative support, archive records and allocate all income and expenditures. The estimated time requirement for an office assistant|

|will be 4 hours each transport to process the applicant’s co-payment and arrange payment to Animal Allies. Two hours of filing and |

|records will be required each month. An additional 4 hours each quarter will be required to develop reports to county administration |

|management. The estimated total administrative cost will be 11-12 hours each month or 136 hours per year. PC administration will provide|

|a spay/neuter call-in phone line with phone mail. Incoming calls will be serviced by the PCACT spay/neuter program administrator and |

|volunteers. PCAC will provide transportation and pick-up support and will partner in advertising and promoting spay and neuter. Animal |

|pick-up, transportation and delivery will require one PCAC officer, 5-6 hours for each transport or 4 times each month (2 transports |

|each month, delivery to Spartanburg by 10:00 and pick-up from Spartanburg the next day before noon). |

| |

|PCACT will have implementation and operational responsibilities. PCACT will obtain and organize volunteers. They will collect all |

|information, ensure applicants are qualified and coordinate pickups. PCACT will provide reports and achievable data to PCAC. PCACT |

|spay/neuter program administrator and volunteers will service incoming calls. They will determine program eligibility and will |

|facilitate required information and schedule services. |

| |

|Animal Allies will coordinate animal pickup and deliveries to Spartanburg Humane Society. They will provide the electronic database, |

|forms, instructions and training to PCACT and volunteers. Animal Allies will receive deliveries and facilitate the process at the |

|clinic. |

| |

|Program implementation is briefly described below. Detailed implementation plans, including detailed roles and responsibilities, |

|electronic database, training guidelines, transport contracts, applicant qualification forms, reports, release forms and interface |

|agreements will be completed upon final council approval. |

| |

|A Spay/Neuter contact number will be advertised in various locations and media. Calls will be recorded and a trained volunteer will |

|contact the applicant. Information will be gathered to determine the appropriate spay/neuter program. Those that qualify for the Low |

|Income Spay/Neuter program will be ask to provide verification of income or financial need. This will be based on the HUD income |

|guidelines. Arrangements will be made for co-payment, pickup and delivery. Co-payment will be 15.00 for a cat and 20.00 for a dog. |

|Subsidy cost to Pickens County will average 40.00 per animal. We will schedule 2 transports each month. PCAC will provide a driver, |

|vehicle and appropriate caging to transport 25 animals. PCACT volunteers will provide all field administration support and will assist |

|loading animals. Once the PCAC officer arrives at the Spartanburg Humane Society, Animal Allies will unload animals and store cages. |

|Surgeries will be performed as agreed by the Spartanburg Humane Society Veterinarian and staff. Animals will remain overnight at the |

|Spartanburg HS and will be picked up the following day by the PCAC officer. PCACT volunteers will organize return pick up with the |

|animal owners. |

| |

| |

|B. Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter Program Implementation: |

| |

|Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County Animal Control, Pickens County Veterinarians and |

|Pickens County Volunteers. Individual roles and responsibilities will be in a detailed implementation plan. |

| |

|PCAC will provide administrative support and archive records for the reduced cost spay and neuter program. The time requirements listed |

|in the low-income program is sufficient to facilitate the reduced cost program needs. |

| |

|PCACT will have implementation and operational responsibilities. PCACT will attain and organize volunteers. They will collect all |

|information, ensure qualifying applicants and coordinate vouchers. PCACT will provide reports and achievable data to PCAC. |

| |

|Participating Veterinarians will work directly with the qualifying animal owners to schedule the reduced cost spay or neuter. |

| |

|Program implementation is briefly described below. Detailed implementation plans including detailed roles and responsibilities, voucher |

|forms and administrative guidelines, electronic database, training guidelines, reports, release forms and interface agreements will be |

|completed upon final council approval. |

| |

|A Spay/Neuter contact number will be advertised in various locations and media. Calls will be recorded and a trained volunteer will |

|contact the applicant. Information will be gathered to determine the appropriate spay/neuter program. Applicants that may not qualify |

|for the low- income program may choose to participate in the reduced cost spay and neuter program. The applicant will purchase a |

|spay/neuter voucher which can be redeemed at any participating veterinarian. The cost will be based on the procedure performed and will |

|be consistent at all participating veterinarians. Vouchers will be purchased from PCACT and funds made payable to PCAC. The applicant |

|will contact any participating veterinarian to schedule the surgery. Once the voucher is redeemed, PCAC will disperse funds to the |

|veterinarian providing the services. |

| |

|VI. CONCLUSION: |

|Pickens County Council has a rare opportunity to implement a county funded program that will actually result in a tax savings to the |

|citizens of Pickens County. These programs will provide a needed service to our citizens who most need community assistance. Our current|

|strategies for animal control and care are reactive to daily occurrences and do very little to resolve the real issues. Unless we |

|implement a preventative program, our cost will continue to rise and increasing numbers of healthy adoptable animals will be euthanized.|

| |

|The Spay/Neuter programs as described in this proposal have a proven record of success. Targeting low-income animal caretakers assures |

|those animals least likely to be spay/neutered will have a reasonable opportunity. These programs have dramatically reduced the number |

|of calls coming into animal control and care, reduced animal control intake and drastically reduced the numbers of euthanasia. Data |

|shows a 40% reduction in animal control and care intake and virtually zero euthanasia of healthy, adoptable animals in only 7 years. |

|Pickens County Animal Control and Care’s operating cost is 9% below the South Carolina average. They have done a great job managing and |

|delivering services to our residents. Even so, our research suggests we are over spending for the animal shelter and adoption services. |

|Realizing that adoption services are necessary, the current 370.00 per animal adopted cost to the taxpayers is not. We recommend |

|reallocating animal control and care funds to include the amount needed for implementation of these prevention programs. This will |

|result in even greater savings to PC citizens. PCAC should consider other avenues for adoption such as animal rescue groups or other |

|adoption agencies. |

|Top of Form |

|Bottom of Form |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download