Northampton County, PA

Analysis of Community Needs: Stray Animal Control in Northampton County, PA

Northampton County, Pennsylvania

John Stoffa County Executive

August 29, 2013

Analysis of Community Needs:

Northampton County, PA

Stray Animal Control in Northampton County, PA

Contents

Section I: The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County Prepared by David L. Woglom, Associate Director for Public Service Lafayette College, Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center for the Study of State and Local Government

Section II: Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Models and Options for Northampton County Prepared by Karel Minor, Chief Executive Officer, Damon March, Chief Operating Officer; and John Snyder, Consultant Humane Society Management Services, LLC

This reported was supported by a grant provided by the Northampton County Gaming Revenue and Economic Redevelopment Authority

PREAMBLE
At its core, government is an agreement amongst us to jointly work together to meet the needs of our citizens and communities. For several years, our municipalities have been crossing boundaries to work together, both formally and informally in order to bring down costs and cooperatively solve problems. In this vein, Northampton County has been approached to help find solutions to an issue challenging many of our communities. We now have an opportunity to become a leader to address one of these current issues: the increasing problem of stray animals in Northampton County. While officials have largely relied upon the volunteer and philanthropic communities to address this problem, economic and philosophical challenges have presented significant barriers, and new approaches must be taken. Our officials and law enforcement have provided feedback anecdotally. Newspaper reports and editorials recently published in the Express Times reinforce that this is a countywide issue that affects the 38 municipalities in Northampton County. Current systems for controlling and caring for stray animals are stressed and disconnected. Further complicating this matter, state laws only apply to stray dogs; nothing deals with the significant issue posed to communities with as stray cats or other animals. Statewide resources can provide some assistance with animal cruelty cases, but no resources are available to relieve the growing financial and logistical burdens placed on our municipalities in transporting and caring for a growing number of stray animals.

The report you are about to read is an impressive analysis of the increasing problem of stray animals, in particular, stray dogs and an analysis of options for addressing this issue.

What can we do? 1. We can do nothing. 2. We can let the county's 38 municipalities struggle on their own. 3. Northampton County can take a leadership role by facilitating a solution to the problem with its municipalities. We are proposing the third option on what we can do about the stray animal issue in Northampton County. One option is to mimic what occurred in regard to the open space initiative. A referendum was placed before the voters and they voted overwhelmingly for a $37 million bond to address open space. A suggestion is that a referendum be placed on the ballot asking County voters if they would vote for the equivalent of a mil of tax to solve this problem. This mil would be a $12.50 cost per year to a homeowner with a property value assessed at $50,000. This would result in approximately $1.3 million per year which could be used for a state of the art centralized shelter/ facility which could solve this issue. Alternative funding could be through the county's General Fund, or through a 2014 Bond that could include the construction of an animal control center as well as other potential Northampton County priorities such as bridges and a Regional Forensics Center. There may be other viable funding solutions from the 38 municipalities for the construction and operation of this facility. We are requesting input from County Council, other stakeholders, and the public at large over the weeks ahead. We anticipate continuing to work with County Council and our municipalities to address and eventually successfully solve this problem.

John Stoffa
This report was paid entirely through a grant provided by the Northampton County Gaming Revenue and Economic Redevelopment Authority

Section I:

"The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County."

The Handling Of Stray Dogs in Northampton County June 2013

Lafayette College Robert B. & Helen S. Meyner Center For the Study of State & Local Government 002 Kirby Hall of Civil Rights Easton, PA 18042

The Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center For the Study of State and Local Government

The Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center for the Study of State and Local Government, which began operations in August 1994, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, unit of Lafayette College. Robert B. Meyner was a graduate of Lafayette College (1930) and Governor of New Jersey from 1954 to 1962. Helen S. Meyner served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1979. The Meyner Center is supported by an endowment contributed by the estate of Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner, contributions from Richard and Priscilla Hunt of Cambridge, Massachusetts, and other Meyner family and friends, and external grants and contracts from specific projects by private foundations, nonprofit entities, and government agencies. The Center educates students about the vital importance of state and local governments and encourages young people to participate in state and local affairs as volunteers, interns, and future leaders. The Center also works with state and local government officials and civic groups in its Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York region to enhance public awareness, effective governance, regional cooperation, and public policy. For local governments in the region, the Center provides such specific services as administrative and financial reviews, comparative salary studies, executive-search assistance, strategic planning/visioning programs, and educational workshops and forums. The Meyner Center works, as well, with national associations of state and local officials, such as the Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Governors Association, National League of Cities, Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, and Multistate Tax Commission. Internationally, the Center engages in educational and training programs on regional and local governance, federalism and decentralization, and intergovernmental relations at the request of foreign governments and universities, the World Bank, and U.S. agencies. The Center has worked on issues of federalism, democracy, and local governance in, for example, Brazil, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and Ukraine. The Center also has hosted USIA/Fulbright and National Endowment for the Humanities summer institutes as well as visiting scholars, public officials, and delegations from abroad. The Center is a focal point for a long-term project entitled A Global Dialogue on Federalism in the 21st Century, which is sponsored jointly by the Forum of Federations and the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies.

Staff John Kincaid, Director and Professor David L. Woglom, Associate Director for Public Service Terry A. Cooper, Administrative Assistant Stewart E. Morel, Student Assistant

Preface

This report is a review and analysis of the municipal handling of stray dogs in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. The report was prepared by David L. Woglom, Associate Director for Public Service of the Meyner Center, pursuant to a November 1, 2012 contract between Lafayette Colleges Meyner Center and Northampton County. The Center thanks all of the people who participated in interviews and meetings needed to complete the research for this report, and also thanks Chip Morel for his research assistance. Any views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of Lafayette College. John Kincaid Director & Professor

The Handling Of Stray Dogs in Northampton County June 2013

Lafayette College Robert B. & Helen S. Meyner Center For the Study of State & Local Government 002 Kirby Hall of Civil Rights Easton, PA 18042

Table of Contents

Executive Summary1 Interviews Conducted and Meetings Held..3 Definition of Terms.....5 Background and History in Northampton County..7 The Operation of Animal Shelters13 Analysis19

Executive Summary

Northampton County officials commissioned this study because it is their understanding from meetings and conversations with the police chiefs in Northampton County that police departments in the county have been having increasing difficulty locating a final disposition for the stray dogs they pick up in accordance with Pennsylvania law. State law regulates the collection of stray dogs but not stray cats, athough most animal shelters accept both stray dogs and stray cats. There is no law in Pennsylvania that regulates in any way the collection of stray cats. There is no simple or all-inclusive solution to the challenges of collecting stray dogs and finding suitable shelters in Northampton County or anywhere else. The source of the difficulty in Pennsylvania is that while state law requires municipal and state police officers and state dog wardens to seize and detain any dog which is found running at large, either upon the public streets or highways of the Commonwealth, or upon the property of a person other than the owner of the dog, and unaccompanied by the owner or keeper, no state law requires any animal shelter to accept stray dogs. Until 2-3 years ago, most police departments could take stray dogs to nearby private animal shelters at little or no cost, even though the shelters were under no legal requirement to accept them. The problem that has developed during the past several years is that the animal shelters fees to municipalities have increased significantly due to the escalating cost to feed, medically treat, spay/neuter, and house these animals. Although the problem has not become as acute in rural sections of the county, in some urban areas in Northampton County and elsewhere in suburban Philadelphia, police departments have had to shoulder the administrative burden and financial responsibility of finding either a home for stray dogs or paying much larger fees than they paid before. In this report, we provide a significant review of animal-shelter operation and municipal animalcontrol programs in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia. The following is an abbreviated list of our conclusions: 1. We discussed with officials of the Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW) how they might become an open facility and again accept stray dogs from municipalities. According to its website, the CAHW accepts municipal strays in a similar manner to a private relinquishment with a drop-off fee of $150 per animal, but only when the CAHW has capacity. Currently, Northampton County contributes $5,000 per year to the CAHW, although the shelter is generally closed to municipal strays. We inquired if larger contributions from each municipality or the county would enable the CAHW to accept more animals. CAHW officials informed us that their main issue is not cost, but space for more animals. When questioned about a possible expansion of their facility, the officials indicated that expansion would be only a temporary answer because within a short time, additional space would fill up with animals. In contrast to when the CAHW operated as a kill shelter, it appears that CAHW officials believe that, as a no-kill facility, they will never again become an open facility, able to accept stray dogs and cats from municipal police departments at any fee.

2. Even though municipal officials do not want to assume the operational and financial responsibility for finding homes and/or final disposition locations for stray dogs, it is their legal responsibility to do so. Animal shelters are available to take their stray dogs, but the cost is often $100-$250 per dog. 3. Fees charged by the animal shelters are increasing. The principal reason for the increase is that animal shelters operational costs are increasing at an even greater rate, according to all shelter managers we interviewed. They also indicate that the fees charged for stray dogs do not cover the cost to spay, neuter, immunize, and house the animals. Municipal officials have expressed frustration with area animal shelters because of these increases, but it is important to understand the cause for the increased fees. 4. The science of shelter management is evolving, with some shelters now advocating a nokill policy. This is a sensitive issue among shelter managers, professionals, shelter organizations, and the general public. Everyone we interviewed indicated that to be financially sustainable in the short and long term, no-kill management requires significant skill and hard work, especially in securing adoptions. Otherwise, shelters fill up, as evidenced by the current situation in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia where two of the three existing no-kill shelters are closed shelters that no longer accept stray animals. 5. Some municipalities could save money and operational difficulties by cooperating jointly to operate smaller kennels to act as temporary holding facilities. For instance, the municipalities in suburban Easton could perhaps work with the City of Easton to increase the size of its kennel to include the strays picked up by the other municipalities. By sharing in the construction and operational costs, a joint municipal kennel might save money for all the municipal participants. 6. As many municipal police departments have done already, municipalities can be more aggressive in searching for the owners of lost dogs picked up by police officers and animal control officers by, for example, thoroughly canvassing the neighborhood where the dog was found and utilizing its city website to show the dogs for recovery or adoption as does the City of Easton. 7. Stray cats are a community problem across the United States, including eastern Pennsylvania. Currently Pennsylvania and its municipalities do not legislatively regulate cats, meaning that police officers, animal control officers, and dog wardens are not picking up stray cats despite their large population. 8. Municipalities in Northampton County do have some other alternatives, but usually with greater cost. The Sanctuary at Haafsville in Breinigsville will contract with a municipality at a cost of $110 per stray dog and $30 per stray cat. Municipalities can request a contract with the Berks Animal Rescue League. With either of these options, municipalities would have to transport the stray dogs, which would require an employee to drive the animals to the shelter, thus adding to the cost depending on time and distance.

Interviews and Meetings Conducted

During the preparation of this report, the following individuals were interviewed either in person, via email, or on the telephone: 1. Andrew Flegler, CAHW Shelter Manager 2. Dan Roman, CAHW Director 3. Bruce Fritch, Lehigh County Humane Board of Directors President 4. Liz Jones, Sanctuary at Haafsville Owner 5. Nicky Thompson, Bucks County Director of Education and Outreach 6. Dayna Villa, Delaware County SPCA Operations Director 7. Michael Dempsey, Chester County SPCA Acting Manager 8. Karel Minor, Berks County Humane Society Executive Director 9. Carmen Ronio, Montgomery SPCA Director 10. Harry Brown, Berks Animal Rescue League Executive Director 11. Thomas Judge, Delaware County Animal Protection Board 12. Carl Scalzo, City of Easton Police Chief 13. Roy Seiple, Colonial Regional Police Department Police Chief 14. Steve Parkansky, Wilson Borough Police Chief 15. Larry Palmer, Palmer Township Police Chief 16. John Christman, South Whitehall Police Lieutenant 17. Jack Meyers, Whitehall Township Deputy Mayor 18. Ann Saurman, Allentown Recycling Bureau Manager 19. Scott McElree, Quakertown Borough Police Chief 20. Mark Toomey, Hatfield Township Police Chief 21. Dan Pancoast, Bethlehem Township Police Chief 22. Kristen Wenrich, City of Bethlehem Acting Health Director 23. Thomas Beil, Upper Saucon Township Manager 24. Jon Hammer, South Whitehall Township Manager 25. Joyce Lambert, Plainfield Township Manager 26. Thomas Ryan, West Bradford Township Manager 27. Mary Flagg, East Vincent Township Manager 28. Bernard Rodgers, East Coventry Township Manager 29. Rose Nonnemacher, Macungie Clerk/Assistant Treasurer 30. Robert Schurr, North Coventry Township Police Chief 31. Gabriel Khalife, Kutztown Borough Manager 32. Ernie McNeely, West Chester Borough Manager 33. Casey LaLonde, West Goshen Township Manager 34. Joseph Gleason, West Goshen Police Chief 35. William Martin, Tredyffrin Township Manager 36. Jess Landon, Tewksbury (NJ) Township Manager 37. Anthony Cancro, Springfield (NJ) Township Manager 38. Kathy Andrews, Northampton County Dog Warden 39. Mike Peckart, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Executive Deputy Secretary 40. Angela Messer, Pennsylvania SPCA Operations Director 3

41. Dr. Stephanie Janeczko, Sr. Director of Community Outreach and Shelter Medicine/President of the (US) Association of Shelter Veterinarians 42. Inga Fricke, humane Society of the United States Director of Sheltering and Rescue 43. Erin Mattes, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Membership Correspondent 44. Nathan Winograd, No Kill Advocacy Center Director 45. Rich Avanzino, Maddies Fund President 46. Josh Cromer, Humane Society of Henderson County, Kentucky Shelter Director 47. Cheryl Schneider, Williamson County Animal Shelter, Texas Animal Service Director During the preparation of this report, we met with officials from the Center for Animal Health and Welfare, police chiefs through a meeting of the Northampton County Chiefs of Police Association, and Liz Jones of the Sanctuary at Haafsville. The majority of our investigative time was spent interviewing on the phone all of the individuals listed above. The Meyner Center thanks all of those who communicated with us during this study.

Definition of Terms

Understanding the collection of stray dogs and cats and the administration philosophy of animal shelters involves knowledge of the terms used in the industry. Like most states, Pennsylvanias laws do not regulate the collection of stray cats; they only regulate the collection of stray dogs. However, it is common across Pennsylvania and the rest of the United States that most animal shelters accept stray cats, dogs, birds, and other domestic animals. While stray dogs come to the shelters from municipal police officers, animal control officers, state police officers, state dog wardens, and residents, stray cats and other animals typically come from residents. Animal control officer is a term used in slightly different ways in different municipalities and states. Generally, it refers to a person whose job it is to collect stray dogs and find either the owner of the dog or an animal shelter to take the dog. In Pennsylvania, some municipalities have appointed an animal control officer to collect stray dogs; other municipalities simply leave the responsibility to their police officers. For this report, it is not important to distinguish the title of the municipal official who picks up stray animals. Animal shelters are frequently referred to as either SPCAs or Humane Societies. The distinction is not important; it is merely an historical fact of how the agency was created. This study will generally and generically refer to all of these facilities as animal shelters. Animal shelters are also commonly categorized as either open or closed. An open facility will accept stray dogs and/or cats from almost anyone who brings the animal to the shelter, including police officers, animal control officers, dog wardens, and residents. Typically, the only restriction of an open shelter is that it will accept animals only within a specified geographic regionmost commonly within the county of its location. A closed facility does not accept stray dogs or cats from police officers, animal control officers, or dog wardens: they usually only accept stray dogs and cats from residents, and sometimes only when they have room (capacity) in their facility. There are two main management philosophies in animal shelters, and some shelter-management professionals are very sensitive about how the terms are used. All animal shelters euthanize stray animals for such reasons as sickness, disease, age, and dangerous behavior. Until approximately 15-20 years ago, most shelters in the United States also euthanized animals when the shelter needed space to receive new animals. Therefore, all shelters used to be what is now referred to as kill shelters. However, approximately 10-15 years ago, a no-kill philosophy of animal shelter administration started to develop across the United States. These no-kill shelters do not euthanize animals in order to create more space in their facility for new animals. In order to operate effectively, they focus on finding homes for stray animals through such efforts as aggressive adoption programs and partnerships with other animal-rescue shelters. The no-kill movement has also spawned several national educational and financial support groups, including the No-Kill Advocacy Center and Maddies Fund. The main goal of the no-kill

philosophy is to administer animal shelters so as to achieve a 90 percent save rate for the animals entering the facility.

Background and History in Northampton County Northampton County officials commissioned this study because it is their understanding from meetings and conversations with the police chiefs in Northampton County that police departments in the county have been having increasing difficulty finding a final disposition location for the stray dogs they pick up in accordance with Pennsylvania law. State law regulates the collection of stray dogs but not stray cats, even though most animal shelters accept both stray dogs and stray cats. There is no law in Pennsylvania that regulates in any way the collection of stray cats. Section 459-302 of the Pennsylvania Dog Law states: (a) General rule.--It shall be the duty of every police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer to seize and detain any dog which is found running at large, either upon the public streets or highways of the Commonwealth, or upon the property of a person other than the owner of the dog, and unaccompanied by the owner or keeper. Every police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer may humanely kill any dog which is found running at large and is deemed after due consideration by the police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer to constitute a threat to the public health and welfare. (b) Licensed dogs.--The State dog warden or employee of the department, the animal control officer, or the chief of police or his agents of any city, borough, town or township, the constable of any borough and the constable of any incorporated town or township shall cause any dog bearing a proper license tag or permanent identification and so seized and detained to be properly kept and fed at any licensed kennel approved by the secretary for those purposes and shall cause immediate notice, by personal service or registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, to the last known address, which shall be set forth in the license application record, of the person in whose name the license was procured, or his agent, to claim the dog within five days after receipt thereof. The owner or claimant of a dog so detained shall pay a penalty of $50 to the political subdivision whose police officers make the seizures and detention and all reasonable expenses incurred by reason of its detention to the detaining parties before the dog is returned. If five days after obtaining the postal return receipt, the dog has not been claimed, such chief of police, or his agent, or a constable, or State dog warden or employee of the department shall dispense the dog by sale or by giving it to a humane society or association for the prevention of cruelty to animals. No dog so caught and detained shall be sold for the purpose of vivisection, or research, or be conveyed in any manner for these purposes. All moneys derived from the sale of the dog, after deducting the expenses of its detention, shall be paid through the Department of Agriculture to the State Treasurer for credit to the Dog Law Restricted Account. (c) Unlicensed dogs.--Except as otherwise provided by section 305, any police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer shall cause any unlicensed dog to be seized, detained, kept and fed for a period of 48 hours at any licensed kennel approved by the secretary for those purposes, except any dog seriously ill or injured or forfeited with the owner's permission. The 48-hour period shall not include days the approved kennel is not open to the general public. Any person may view the detained dogs during normal business hours. Any 7

unlicensed dog remaining unclaimed after 48 hours may be humanely killed or given to a humane society or association for the prevention of cruelty to animals. No dog so caught and detained shall be sold for the purpose of vivisection, or research, or be conveyed in any manner for these purposes. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Dog Law holds municipal police officers, state police officers, and state dog wardens responsible for picking up stray dogs. In response to this law, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania created a division of dog wardens under the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. This division utilizes 53 dog wardens across Pennsylvania whose responsibility it is to enforce the dog laws, which include collecting stray dogs, licensing and inspecting animal kennels, and investigating rabies bites and dangerous dogs. Northampton County has 38 municipalities, with 27 municipal police departments in 29 municipalities (the Colonial Regional Police Department encompasses three municipalities). Therefore, the collection of stray dogs is solely the responsibility of the Northampton Dog Warden in nine of the countys 38 municipalities. Until approximately two years ago, the Northampton County police departments and the Northampton County Dog Warden had no difficulty with their legal responsibility for handling stray animals; whenever they had a stray dog or cat for which they could find no owner relatively quickly, they took the dog or cat to the Northampton Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW), which accepted the dog for little, if any fee. Located in Williams Township, the CAHW, which was called the Northampton County SPCA from its inception in 1913 until 2007 when it became a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency, was an open facility. In 2003, the CAHW changed its basic shelter management philosophy from that of a kill shelter to a no-kill shelter while still remaining an open facility. In 2011, the CAHW instituted a fee structure for animals brought to its facility and required municipalities to sign a contract guaranteeing that they would pay the fees. According to CAHW officials, this change was caused by overall financial difficulties, including the rising cost of treating stray animals and a shortage of space in the facility. Believing that the fees were too high, many municipalities refused to enter into a contract. In 2012, the CAHW became a closed facility when its officials determined they no longer had the capacity to accept stray animals. The result of this change in the CAHWs policy is that municipal and state police departments and the Northampton County Dog Warden are no longer guaranteed the ability to bring a stray dog to the CAHW, and even if space exists on a given day, the municipality must either pay $150 per stray dog at the time it delivers the dog to the CAHW or deposit money into a pre-paid account with the CAHW. Since the CAHW shelter became a closed facility, it has, from time to time, accepted only a few dogs from municipalities, including Easton. Northampton County is a very diverse mix of urban, suburban, and rural municipalities. From the statistics provided by municipalities, it appears that there is a correlation between the number of stray dogs handled by municipal departments and the population and density of the municipality. For 2012, the total number of stray dogs handled by municipal police departments was more than 808 jurisdictionally divided as follows:

Bethlehem Township City of Bethlehem Bushkill Lehigh Colonial Regional Wilson Easton Palmer Bangor Forks Hellertown Moore Plainfield Northampton Washington Lower Saucon Upper Nazareth Pen Argyl Freemansburg Nazareth East Bangor Roseto

150 100 82 72 59 (3 municipalities) 56 51 45 33 30 21 21 21 19 11 9 7 6 6 4 3 2

[Note: Despite repeated requests, the police departments in Portland, Stockertown, Tatamy, and Wind Gap did not supply us with statistics for 2012.] According to the Northampton County Dog Warden, there are currently 14 licensed animal holding pens operated by municipalities in Northampton County, and according to the records being kept by these municipalities, there were 197 dogs held in these facilities from January 2012 to approximately April 2013: Facility Bushkill Easton Colonial Regional Hanover Hellertown Lehigh Moore Northampton Pen Argyl Plainfield Washington Walnutport Wind Gap Number of dogs held 28 51 0 3 21 21 17 18 6 2 11 3 16

Only six of the 26 police departments in Northampton County handle an average of more than one dog per week. Police chiefs in all of these municipalities expressed frustration with the amount of time it takes their department to process a stray dog. As a result of their municipality not having a contract with a licensed kennel, most of these departments (and several of the others) have constructed small facilities to hold their stray dogs temporarily, and Eastons facility of six cages is licensed by the state. Police chiefs indicate that the time it takes to find a home for each dog varies greatly from several hours to several days. No information is available on how many dogs are returned to their owners or sent to shelters or rescue groups. The reality of the current situation is that while state law requires municipal police departments to handle stray dogs, it does not require private animal shelters to accept stray dogs picked up by municipalities. The mission of the CAHW (and most animal shelters whose directors we interviewed) is generally to find homes for homeless animals as determined by their organization; state law does not require them in any way to assist municipalities with a facility to house stray dogs. The Northampton County Dog Warden is also experiencing great difficulty in finding shelters to bring stray dogs. The Northampton Dog Warden says that while she used to rely on the CAHW, she has not been able to take stray dogs to that facility since last year because even if there is capacity on a given day, the state will not pay a fee to an animal control facility. With no open animal shelter in Northampton County, she has to travel hours to take stray dogs either to private rescue groups or to animal shelters outside of the county. Michael Peckart, the Assistant Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agricultures Dog Law Enforcement Office, says that the problems experienced in Northampton County are not unusual across the state. He says that many of the states 53 dog wardens frequently travel hours across county lines to find a shelter for a dog they picked up. Additionally, he indicates that the dog-warden program in the state is experiencing financial difficulties, which has resulted in an elimination of overtime for wardens. Annual dog licenses cost pet owners $6.45 per year ($5.00 of this fee goes to the state and $1.45 is kept by each county). Following estimates developed by the Humane Society of the United States, Mr. Peckart estimates that there are 2-3 million dogs in Pennsylvania despite the fact that the state (and its 67 county treasurers) issue only 1 million dog licenses each year. The City of Easton has constructed its own licensed kennel to handle stray dogs picked up by their police officers. The four-cage facility was built at a cost of approximately $35,000 and is monitored 24 hours per day by employees at the citys wastewater treatment facility. They have been successful in finding the owners of many of the stray dogs, and have partnered with some rescue groups to locate adoptions for others. From time-to-time, the CAHW has agreed to accept some of their stray dogs at a cost of $150 per dog. The City Administrator believes that within 1-2 years, the citys overall cost of animal control will be less than it was 3-4 years ago. The Palmer, Plainfield, and Colonial Regional police departments are constructing kennels and applying for licenses from the state. Their police chiefs have expressed concern over their ability to find owners, adoption homes, or rescue groups to handle all the stray dogs they pick up during the year. Other police chiefs say that because of the low number of stray dogs they handle each year, they are able to find homes for all of the stray dogs they pick up. No information is

10

available on the number of dogs that the police departments either found homes for or sent to shelters or rescue groups.

11

12

The Operation of Animal Shelters Rich Avanzino, president of Maddies Fund in Alameda, Californiaa family foundation helping to achieve and sustain a no-kill nation by providing solutions to the most challenging issues facing the animal welfare community through the synergistic work of grant giving, handson animal care, and research and education estimates that there are 180 million pets in United States homes today, with the percentage of home pets that were adopted from animal shelters or rescue groups being perhaps as high as 30 percent. He expects the number of pets in homes to grow to more than 200 million by 2015. Our interviews with animal shelter managers and national organization leaders revealed that it is impossible to gather accurate national statistics on animal shelters because no one agency monitors animal shelters in the United States. Although animal shelters in some regions or states operate differently (such as in portions of Texas), it is quite common for animal shelters to be privately owned and operated by non-profit organizations. Ordinarily, municipal and county governments are not directly involved in the ownership and operation of shelters. Only 15 states require that shelters submit data to a state agency. Pennsylvania does not require this reporting; consequently, no accurate information is available on shelter characteristics statewide. Additionally, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes an animal shelter because of the existence of various animal rescue leagues, adoption centers, and other organizations. Most state laws do not regulate the control of stray cats, but most animal shelters accept cats and dogs, and according to the shelter managers we interviewed, many shelters also accept birds and some other wild animals. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), millions of dogs enter animal shelters each year. The ASPCA estimates that 60 percent of these dogs are euthanized, 15-20 percent are returned to caregivers, and the remaining animals are adopted into new homes. At best, therefore, only 20-25 percent of stray dogs go to adoptive homes. The best estimate by all professionals we spoke to is that there are about 3,500 animal shelters in the country and that approximately 90 percent of them are kill shelters. Most are non-profit agencies that receive some funding from local or county government. The typical geographic boundary lines of their services follow county or multi-county borders. All of the shelter managers we interviewed told us that it is significantly more challenging to follow a no-kill philosophy and remain financially sustainable, and that most shelters that follow the no-kill philosophy are also closed shelters because of space limitations. The issue of euthanizing animals for reasons other than illness and disease is a very sensitive one for many people. Even shelter managers who follow the kill management philosophy are animal lovers who say that euthanasia is utilized because the quality of life for animals in overcrowded shelters is inhumane. Several shelter managers who operate kill shelters told us that they refer to themselves as humane or life-saving shelters. They believe that no-kill shelters are euthanizing more animals than they are reporting so as to solicit greater public support. Kill shelter managers told us that the only reason they euthanize for more than health and dangerous behavior is that a no-kill shelter is not sustainable in the long term as an open facility that will accept stray animals. 13

While it is estimated that only 10 percent of current shelters across the United States follow the no-kill philosophy, the number of facilities that are converting to this philosophy is growing because education on how to operate a no-kill shelter is spreading. The No-Kill Advocacy Center says only 25 people attended its first conference in 2005; in 2012, the attendance was 860. President Nathan Winograd started one of the first no-kill management shelters in Tompkins County, New York, in 2005. According to Mr. Winograd, the only way to manage a successful and sustainable no-kill shelter is strict adherence to all of the following strategies: 1. A comprehensive and low-cost, trap-and-neuter program for feral cats that results in a decrease in cat population in animal shelters; 2. A very close relationship with animal rescue groups in the region that help to find homes for dogs and cats; 3. A large foster-care community that helps to care for sick animals, reducing the cost to shelters; 4. A comprehensive adoption program that finds homes for animals; 5. An innovative and educational program that encourages pet owners to keep their animals and reduces the number of dogs and cats surrendered to shelters; 6. Effective medical programs in the shelters that prevent animals that enter the shelter from becoming ill and treat animals that enter the shelter sick in a thorough and cost effective manner, along with a behavior modification program that treats animals to help them become more adoptable; 7. A dedicated army of compassion driven volunteers to save the shelter from otherwise having to pay employees; 8. Aggressive programs to find the original owners of animals housed in shelters; and 9. A compassionate director of the shelter who works with his or her staff to implement the eight strategies listed above in order to avoid unnecessary euthanization. Mr. Winograd cites more than 90 shelters in the United States representing more than 300 municipalities that have been successful in following the no-kill management philosophy, achieving a 90 percent save rate among the animals in its shelters. Maddies Fund President Rich Avanzino agrees with Mr. Winograd that the no-kill management philosophy can and will grow among shelter managers, but that it is a movement in its infancy that needs to increase the skill and knowledge of its shelter managers in order to be sustainable. He also believes that management of no-kill shelters should involve municipal and county governments as financial partners. Mr. Avanzino echoed what several other shelter managers told us: government leaders need to accept the fact that controlling stray dogs and cats is the financial and operational responsibility of government, not private animal shelters, and that in the future animal shelters will not be financially stable without the financial assistance of government. Josh Kramer is the shelter director of the Humane Society of Henderson County, Kentucky. The society operates an open shelter that accepts stray animals for a county of 46,250 people. Mr. Kramer indicates that shelters are regulated in Kentucky, and that his facility is one of only four out of a total of 236 shelters in the state that follow a no-kill management philosophy. His shelters average daily census is approximately 100 animals (50 percent dogs and 50 percent cats). The annual budget is $125,000, and Henderson County funds approximately 25 percent of 14

the revenue needed to operate. In order to achieve its 90 percent save rate, the shelter follows the steps advocated by Mr. Winograd and also believes that an active social media program helps it to find adoptees for its animals. Cheryl Schneider is the Animal Services Director of the Williamson County, Texas Shelter. Her open shelter accepts stray animals from municipalities and residents in a county with a population of 442,782 and has an average daily census of approximately 120 dogs and 100 cats. The shelter is owned by the four cities in the county and has been open for five and a half years, with the last two years being operated through a no-kill management philosophy during which time the shelter has achieved a 90 percent save rate. She indicates that animal control is the legal responsibility of municipalities in Texas; thus it is very common that animal shelters are owned by municipal and/or county governments. She says that most shelters are also funded almost solely by municipal and county governments. Her shelters annual budget of $1.2 million includes direct funding from the four municipalities totaling $850,000 per year. We interviewed animal shelter managers in Lehigh, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware, Philadelphia, and Berks Counties. All managers were very knowledgeable and passionate about their job and organization. The approximate daily census of animals in these facilities is: Facility Northampton CAHW Lehigh (LC Humane) Lehigh (Sanctuary) Bucks (both facilities) Montgomery (all three facilities) Chester Berks (Humane Society) Berks (Animal Rescue) Delaware (SPCA) Daily Census 330 200 35 275 280 300* 170 175 135* County Population 297,735 349,497 625,249 799,874 498,886 411,442 558,979 Status no-kill, closed kill, open no-kill, open kill, open kill, open kill, open kill, closed kill, open no-kill, closed

*The Chester statistics include animals taken from the Delaware County municipalities. The Delaware SPCA statistics are only from its closed facility. Of all the nine shelter organizations listed above, only three (i.e., Delaware SPCA, the CAHW, and the Sanctuary) are no-kill shelters; the Delaware SPCA and CAHW shelters are closed facilities that do not accept stray animals. It also is noteworthy that despite Northampton having the smallest population of any of the seven counties, the average daily census of Northampton Countys CAHW is higher than any other countys combined daily census. Given that no licensing occurs in Pennsylvania, there is no standard for measuring any animal shelters capacity, nor are there data for determining whether shelters are operating under capacity or over capacity. Lehigh County Lehigh County hosts two animal shelters: the Lehigh County Humane Society (established in 1906) and the Sanctuary at Haafsville (established in 2012). The Humane Society accepts stray dogs and cats from residents and from municipal agencies in approximately nine municipalities 15

through contracts; the Sanctuary accepts stray dogs and cats from residents and municipal agencies through contract in approximately 13 municipalities (some of which do not have a police department). The Humane Society operates as a kill facility; the Sanctuary is a no-kill facility. The Humane Society charges a flat fee to each municipality based on the size of the municipality and its history of how many dogs and cats have been brought to it from municipal agencies and residents. Based on the number of stray animals brought by either municipal officials or residents in 2012, Upper Saucon, Whitehall, and Fountain Hill each paid approximately $100-150 for each animal. The Sanctuary charges $110 per stray dog and $30 per stray cat. The Humane Society will not accept stray dogs from any municipality not under contract or from any municipality outside of Lehigh County. The Humane Societys president indicates that the shelter is currently close to capacity (with a daily census of approximately 200 cats and dogs). The Sanctuary is willing to enter into contracts with municipalities outside of Lehigh County at a fee of $110 per dog and $30 per cat. With a population of 118,000 people, Allentown is by far the largest municipality in any of the seven counties in suburban Philadelphia and the Lehigh Valley. The city employs one full-time Animal Control Officer whose duty is primarily focused on picking up stray dogs and cats and bringing them to the Lehigh County Humane Society. According to City Recycling Bureau Manager Ann Saurman, each year the citys Animal Control Officer and residents bring more than 2,400 animals to the Humane Society for which the city pays the Humane Society $115 per animal. She estimates that the residents on their own bring one-half of the strays to the shelter, which is located in the middle of the city and is convenient and close for many residents. Ms. Saurman told us that she had conducted a survey of many counties and individual shelters within Allentowns geographical region recently to compare the rates charged by the Lehigh County Humane Society. Her conclusion was that their cost of $115/animal being paid to the Humane Society was fair and typical of other shelters charges. The City of Bethlehem (which is located partially in Northampton and Lehigh Counties) has required its health department to assume responsibility for stray dogs in the city. Unable to take dogs to the CAHW, the city now initially takes its stray dogs to the Christmas City Animal Hospital for a period of 2-7 days while the owner is sought. After seven days, health department officials transport the dogs to the Berks County Humane Society at a cost of $200 per animal. City officials estimate that approximately 20 percent of the stray dogs that they pick up are transported to the Berks Humane Society facility. Suburban Philadelphia Counties In Bucks and Montgomery Counties, municipalities and residents pay no fee to bring stray dogs or cats to the Bucks County and Montgomery County SPCAs. Shelter directors in these two facilities indicate that donations and other revenues provide sufficient funds to operate their shelters on a no-fee basis. In Berks County, there are two animal shelter organizations: the Berks Humane Society (a closed facility that does not accept stray animals) and the Berks Rescue League, which accepts stray dogs from all 67 municipalities in the county through contract at flat fees that are between $1,500 to $2,000 per year. The league also accepts stray animals through contract from several municipalities in other counties. 16

In Chester County, the Chester County SPCA accepts stray dogs and cats and charges municipalities a flat fee per year plus a $35 per animal boarding fee. The costs vary according to the municipality. West Chester, which has the third largest population among the 73 municipalities in the county, paid approximately $73 per stray animal (including boarding fees) brought to the SPCA in 2012; West Bradford Township paid $155 per animal; East Coventry paid $166 per animal; and West Goshen paid $800 per animal. Delaware Countys situation is somewhat similar to that in Northampton County, but the current resolution is quite different. For many years through 2009, the Delaware SPCA operated as a kill facility that was open to municipalities and residents; the SPCA charged $25 per stray dog that was brought to the facility. In 2010, its fee increased to $116 per dog. In 2012, the SPCA became a no-kill shelter and a closed facility, not accepting any stray animals from municipalities. That year, the Delaware County Board of Commissioners appointed the County Animal Protection Board, which ultimately contracted on behalf of all the municipalities in the county who have police departments with the neighboring Chester County SPCA. Through this contract, for more than a year now, the Chester County SPCA has accepted all stray dogs from the municipal police departments in Delaware County at a fee of $250 per dog. Philadelphia, New York City, and New Jersey Philadelphia has two major animal shelters: the Pennsylvania SPCA (the second oldest animal shelter in the United States created in 1867) and a shelter owned by the city. The citys kill shelter is responsible for the more than 30,000 stray animals picked up each year. The Pennsylvania SPCA also owns a closed, no-kill facility that accepted approximately 7,500 animals in 2012. New York City has many animal shelters. The largest shelters in the city are operated by the American SPCA (ASPCA) and the Animal Care and Control Facility (NYCACC). The NYCACC operates five kill shelters in the city (one in each borough) and is under contract with New York City to handle the more than 30,000 stray dogs and cats brought to their facilities each year. The ASPCA provides a number of services in the city and operates one closed kill facility. New Jersey does not have a law that requires municipal police departments to pick up stray animals. Additionally, no statewide information is available on how many stray dogs or cats are brought to private animal shelters in the Garden State. Stray Cats Even thought cat control is not regulated or required of municipalities, it is a problem across the country, including the Lehigh Valley. Although there are no statistics that track stray cats, municipal officials and shelter managers all agree that there are more stray cats in the public than stray dogs. In the animal shelters that we surveyed, the ratio of cats to dogs is at least 1:1, and in many shelters the ratio is as high as 4:1. In the CAHW shelter, the ratio is almost 5:1. In Allentown where the City Animal Control Officer picks up all stray cats and dogs, 60% of the animals they pick up are cats.

17

Stray cats also include feral cats, which according to Wikipedia are defined to be an animal that does not appear friendly when approached by humans, but the term can apply to any domesticated animal without human contact that was born in the wild. Feral cats are typically only caught through the use of traps and/or cages, and can be carriers of disease, such as rabies. Because property owners are fearful of being bitten and object to the defecation they leave, complaints about feral cats are very common. All animal shelters that we surveyed have cats in their facilities, but many do not accept feral cats. More commonly, feral cats are trapped, neutered, and returned to the wild through programs referred to as TNR. Some shelters have acquired grants to cover the cost of TNR programs. Recently the City of Easton and the CAHW received a grant from Pet Smart to conduct this type of program.

18

Analysis

There is no simple or all-inclusive solution to the challenges of collecting of stray dogs or cats in Northampton County. The source of the difficulty in Pennsylvania is that while state law requires municipal and state police officers and state dog wardens to seize and detain any dog which is found running at large, either upon the public streets or highways of the Commonwealth, or upon the property of a person other than the owner of the dog, and unaccompanied by the owner or keeper, there is no state law requiring any animal shelter to accept stray dogs or stray cats. While the law states that every police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer may humanely kill any dog which is found running at large and is deemed after due consideration by the police officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer to constitute a threat to the public health and welfare, until 2-3 years ago, most police departments took stray dogs to private animal shelters at little or no cost even though the shelters were under no legal obligation to accept them. The problem that has developed over the past several years is that the animal shelters fees to municipalities have increased significantly due to the escalating cost to feed, medically treat, spay and neuter, and house these animals. Although the problem has not become as acute in rural areas, in some urban areas in Northampton County and elsewhere in suburban Philadelphia, police departments have had to shoulder the administrative responsibility and assume the financial responsibility of finding homes for stray dogs or paying much higher fees than they paid in the past. Even though state law appears to give municipalities latitude to euthanize stray dogs, municipalities are reluctant to do this for financial and humane reasons. In this report, we have provided a significant review of animal shelter operation and municipal animal control programs in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia. We have spoken to some of the national associations involved in animal shelter organization, seeking their opinion as to the best practices of animal sheltering, focusing on potential options that are financially sustainable in both the short and long term. The following is a list of our conclusions: 1. We discussed with officials of the Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW) how their shelter might become an open facility and again accept stray dogs regularly from municipalities. According to its website, the CAHW accepts municipal strays in a similar manner to a private relinquishment with a drop-off fee of $150 per animal, but only when the CAHW has open capacity. Currently, Northampton County contributes $5,000 per year to the CAHW even though the shelter is generally closed to municipal strays. We inquired if larger contributions from each municipality or the county would enable the CAHW to accept more animals. CAHW officials informed us that their main issue is not cost, but space for more animals. When questioned about a possible expansion of their facility, the officials indicated that expansion would be only a temporary answer because within a short time, additional space would fill up with animals. In contrast to when they operated as a kill shelter, it appears that CAHW officials believe that, as a no-kill facility, they will never again become an open facility regularly able to accept stray dogs and cats at any fee. 2. Even though municipal officials may not want to assume the operational and financial responsibility for finding homes and/or final dispositions of stray dogs, it is their legal 19

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

responsibility to do so, and they do have options of animal shelters to which they can take their stray dogs, even if it is at a cost of $100-$250 per dog. While their frustration with the existing animal shelters in Northampton and Lehigh Counties is understandable, they must recognize that these shelters are non-profit or private organizations whose mission is assist whatever animals they choose to help. They are under no legal obligation to accept stray animals from municipalities. Animal shelters fees are increasing. The reason for the increase is that animal shelters operational costs are increasing at an even greater rate, according to all shelter managers we interviewed. Animal shelter directors indicate that the fees charged for stray dogs do not cover the full costs to spay, neuter, immunize, and house the animals. Municipal officials have expressed anger at area animal shelters for these fee increases but they need to understand the cause for the increase in fees. The science of shelter management is evolving to include the no-kill philosophy. The kill versus no-kill policy is a very sensitive issue among shelter managers, professionals, shelter organizations, and the general public. However, everyone we interviewed indicated that to be financially sustainable in the short and long term, no-kill management requires significant skill and hard work so as to ensure a high rate of adoptions. Otherwise, the facility has to close its doors to receiving new stray animals, as evidenced by the current situation in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia where two of the three existing no-kill shelters are not open to stray animals. The third shelterthe Sanctuary at Haafsvilleis an open facility that is fairly new. Some municipalities could save money and operational difficulties by cooperating jointly to operate smaller kennels to act as temporary holding facilities. For instance, the municipalities in suburban Easton could work with the City of Easton to increase the size of its kennel to include the strays picked up by the other municipalities. By sharing in the construction and operational costs, this joint municipal kennel might save money for all municipal participants. Additionally, municipalities could charge a fee to pet owners who claim the stray dog held by the municipality. This would enable the municipality to recoup some of its expenses. As many municipal police departments have done already, others can be more aggressive in searching for the owners of lost dogs that are picked up by municipal police officers and animal control officers. Police officers and/or animal control officers can canvass a neighborhood by knocking on doors to find an owner. The City of Easton has a Lost Dog page on its website. Stray cats are a community problem across the United States, including eastern Pennsylvania. Currently Pennsylvania and its municipalities do not legislatively regulate cats, meaning that police officers, animal control officers, and dog wardens are not picking up stray cats despite their large population. Municipalities in Northampton County do have some other alternatives, but with greater cost. The Sanctuary at Haafsville in Breinigsville will offer a contract with a municipality at a cost of $110 per stray dog and $30 per stray cat. Municipalities could take their stray dogs to Berks Animal Rescue League; Executive Director Harry Brown says that the league will consider signing a contract with out-of-Berks County municipalities for a per-animal fee. Northampton County could become more proactively involved in partnerships with municipal police departments through any or all of the following actions: 20

a. Conduct stronger enforcement of dog licenses to require more pet owners to comply with state law and license their dogs, which would also provide a small stream of revenue for the county; b. Work with the CAHW on an education program to increase awareness of responsible pet ownership to reduce the number of stray animals; c. Dedicate a section of the countys website to highlight the stray animals picked up by municipal police departments so as to increase both the return of dogs to pet owners and adoption of unclaimed dogs; d. Meet with police chiefs in the southern portion of the county (where the number of stray dogs is largest) to discuss the feasibility of creating and operating a small, regional kennel to temporarily hold stray dogs; and e. Conduct a feasibility study of the construction of a new animal shelter dedicated to stray dogs picked up by municipal police departments, and to stray cats brought to the shelter by county residents.

21

22

Section II:

"Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Models and Options for Northampton County."

Stray Animal Facilities and Management

ModelsandOptionsforNorthamptonCounty
June28,2013

Humane Society Management Services, LLC. 1801 North 11th Street Reading, PA 19604

Humane Society Management Services, llc. Humane Society Management Services, llc. (HSMS) was formed in 2012 to provide animal welfare consulting and management services to public, private and governmental organizations throughout the United States. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humane Society of Berks County, a national leader in animal welfare founded in 1900. HSMS brings together skilled and extensively experienced animal welfare and non-profit professionals to provide high quality, affordable services in an effort to improve upon and elevate the level of animal welfare nationwide. By offering access to a wide array of talented professionals which might not otherwise be available organizations in an often underserved nonprofit sector, HSMS allows for swift and efficient implementation of improved systems and models in animal welfare, animal control, and organizational management. HSMS staff and consultants include nationally recognized leaders in shelter and facilities management, animal control, Euthanasia by Injection (EBI), non-profit organizational development. HSMS staff and consultants are regular trainers and presenters at national and regional animal welfare conferences and trainings and serve on a numerous state, regional and national animal welfare organizational and advisory boards. The goal of HSMS is to improve the lives of animals by improving the quality of the programs, services, and organizations serving them.

Senior Staff Karel Minor, Chief Executive Officer Damon March, Chief Operating Officer Kristen Freeman, Chief Financial Officer Lorraine Storms, Administrative Programs Director Dr. Alicia Elwell, Chief Veterinary Officer

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Preface Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Options and Models for Northampton County has been prepared under contract with Humane Society Management Services, llc, at the request of Northampton County officials. It serves as a supporting document for a recently completed review and analysis of municipal handling of stray dogs in Northampton County prepared by the Meyner Center of Lafayette College. The purpose of this document is to provide a range of options available to the County of Northampton and its municipalities regarding animal control efforts, as well as resource estimates for each approach. This document relies in part on the data previously collected as part of the Meyner Centers prior report. HSMS extends thanks to David Woglom, Associate Director for Public Policy of the Meyner Center. Where cost estimates are provided, they are based on published and reported costs attributed to similar programs, services, and facilities. The document had been prepared by Karel Minor, HSMS Chief Executive Officer; Damon March, HSMS Chief Operating Officer; and John Snyder, HSMS Consultant. Because the various models and form of animal shelters and animal control facilities are not generally familiar to those outside of the animal welfare community, this document also serves as a shelter primer. Pricing and costs are based on similar past examples elsewhere and, due to variation in region and markets, are only intended to be general estimates. HSMS offers no guarantee of current or future costs or expenses associated with any estimate included in this report. The views expressed within this document are entirely those of HSMS and the authors of the report. This report provides an overview of what could be done and for the most part does not attempt to define what should be done. However, in a handful of places a value judgment on a specific topic is noted based on the authors professional experience and beliefs and these are noted in italics.

Karel Minor Chief Executive Officer Humane Society Management Services, llc.

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Options and Models for Northampton County June, 2013

Humane Society Management Services, LLC. 1801 North 11th Street Reading, PA 19604

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Considerations for Selecting an Animal Control Facility Model ................................................... 9 Types of Facilities/Service Models ............................................................................................... 13 Operational Management Options ................................................................................................ 26 Facilities and Capital Investment .................................................................................................. 29 Operational Cost and Service Comparisons ................................................................................. 32 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 34

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Executive Summary
Northampton Countys animals, citizens and municipalities face a service crisis relating to the collection, housing and disposition of stray animals as a result of a withdrawal of service by the local private animal shelter providing stray animal intake. The recent Meyner Center report, The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County, provided a thorough overview of the history and background of the recent service withdrawal, as well as state of the animal welfare and control market and industry. It also identified the need to identify options and possibilities available to the community. John Stoffa, Northampton County Executive, commissioned this report to outline the options available to the County and municipal governments and to provide a sense of what outcomes these options would provide, what the associated capital and operational costs would be for the possible options, and what the benefits and drawbacks of each approach may be. This report identifies several approaches to the stray animal issue- as well as addressing the ways in which a response to the stray dog issue is different than the issue of strays or homeless animals generallyby focusing on service models, types of services, management models, and facilities. Each of these models is reviewed in the light of the estimated number of stray dogs reported to be handled by municipalities in 2012, 808, and reasonable estimates for the numbers of animals handled if stray cats or publicly sourced or surrendered pets were housed. In summary, the following types of service model are identified as possible to address the needs of stray animals in Northampton County: Outside service/stray export service Stray dog (exclusive) intake facility Stray dog (exclusive) intake facility with animal control pick up capability Stray animal (dog and cat or all species) intake facility Stray animal (dog and cat or all species) intake facility with animal control pick up capability Open Access Facility (acceptance of strays and owner relinquished pets) Enhanced service facility (additional services offered to animals, public, or municipality) Comprehensive service facility (broadest possible array of services available) The costs of these service models are estimated and ranged from a low of about $240,000 for the most basic of stray export models to basic enhanced services starting at only $400,000 to a comprehensive service model of as much as $1million or more, based on comparable services models within Pennsylvania. The following facilities management models are identified: Outside non-profit/for-profit management contract (stray export model) Outside non-profit/for-profit management contract (in-county facility) County managed facility The minimum sizing for each model and population is identified as ranging from 3,000 4,000 square feet based on minimum caging footprints to the average sizes of comparable stray intake shelters in Pennsylvania of 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. The average per square foot capital
5 copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

investment is estimated to range from $144 to $250 per square foot, with great variation based on service model, size, and capacity. Average facilities construction or renovations costs, based on comparable recent capital facilities projects in Pennsylvania, are estimated at between $875,000 to well over $1 million, with wide variation possible. Based on the low end costs of stray interventions which serve only to assist the smallest number of stray dogs to be shipped to an out of county facility and face extremely high euthanasia rates and the highest end costs of providing the most comprehensive services to all animals are only multiples of two to three times the lowest costs. With service fees or potential donor support, the gap between the worst and the best service models closes further. National averages of investment in animal control programs are $4 per person. Funding based on Northampton Countys population at that rate could not only address the stray animal issues it faces but could do so in an extremely effective and comprehensive manner and serve as a model within the region and throughout Pennsylvania. A wide variety of solutions are available to Northampton County, its municipalities, and its residents which are viable, effective, and affordable.

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Background
Northampton County finds itself in the midst of a sea change in the way in which animal control services and stray animal sheltering and disposition are handled within Pennsylvania. For many decades animal control services have been provided to municipalities either entirely by nongovernmental, non-profit animal welfare organizations or through some substantial partnership/service support relationship between governmental animal control authorities and non-profit animal welfare organizations. Non-profit animal welfare groups offered these services as an extension of their mission. State and municipal government made use of these services because of their artificially low, far below market rate costs as a result of subsidies provided by charitable donors. In the past several years, however, animal charities throughout Pennsylvania have been opting out of animal control or stray sheltering contracts, either for financial reasons or because of mission shifts. Because animal control service contracts through charities have traditionally been paid at a rate of 10 to 50 cents on the dollar compared to free market rates established in the absence of charitably subsidized service contracts1, economic forces have resulted in some shelters altering, limiting, or entirely cancelling service contracts. Recent changes to the limited subsidies offered by the PA Department of Agriculture to shelters accepting stray dogs resulted in further declines in the number of shelters willing to accept strays under contract. Some organizations made the decision to opt out simply for philosophical reasons as the no kill agenda gains wider acceptance in the broader sheltering community. Northampton County municipalities have recently faced the same issues. In early 2013, the Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW), the private animal shelter which had previously accepted unlimited strays under municipal contract made the decision to become no kill. They dropped all animal control contracts and refuse to accept any stray animal without prior approval based on space and other factors, and required either advance payment or established payment arrangements with a municipality. The effective result was to cut off access to stray animal holding services at the sole animal shelter in Northampton County. Although several municipalities adjusted to a limited extent in order to handle strays, the level of capability and service varied by municipality and has resulted in a fractured, variable system of animal control response in Northampton. Additionally, these efforts were limited to stray dogs since they are the sole species which benefits from a legal animal control response mandate under Pennsylvania law. Recognizing the problems facing stray animals in the absence of a uniform, Countywide animal control response, Northampton County Officials undertook the process of evaluating the current state of animal control services. The Meyner Center report provided an overview and history of the current status of animal control efforts, programs and services in Northampton, as well as a general discussion of the issue in other portions of Pennsylvania and other states. The Meyner Center report established a lack of a comprehensive service alternatives, both within and without
1

Two notable examples are Delaware County SPCA, Humane League of Lancaster County, and Berks County SPCA. DCSPCA reportedly sought to increase its stray intake fee from $25 to $116 but was rebuffed by municipal officials. After dropping their service contracts municipalities accepted a stray holding contract with Chester County SPCA for $250 per animal. Humane League of Lancaster County sought an increase of about 35% to an effective rate of $135 per animal. After cancelling its remaining contracts, county municipalities announced a service contract with the newly formed Lancaster County SPCA for a reported $300 per animal.

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

the County. It identified the disparity between services required or offered for cats and dogs (and other stray species) and the increasing philosophical divide between those responsible for addressing state and municipal animal and stray control responsibilities and those charitable animal welfare organizations which exist to benefit animals generally, as well as an extensive list of associated issues and hurdles. Finally the report suggested a a feasibility study of the construction of a new animal shelter dedicated to stray dogs picked up by municipal police departments, and to stray cats brought to the shelter by county residents. Despite the general fatalism expressed by many dealing with the reality of stray and animal control in Pennsylvania, there are many successful models to look to. While the prior service model in Pennsylvania is in a state of collapse, nationally there are many successful municipal shelters, as well as successful municipal/charitable partnerships which deliver both high quality of service to residents and a high chance of positive outcomes for the animals entering them. There are also new approaches which could be undertaken to best suit the unique needs of Pennsylvania state, county, and municipal which may serve as new models to others. These solutions simply require a combination of proper planning, a will to successfully implement that plan, and suitable and sustainable resources to realize implementation and ongoing operations. The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the various options available to Northampton County should it seek to establish a County/municipal stray intake and animal control facility. It offers a general assessment of the needs and resources required based on a variety of service offerings and an analysis of the benefits and shortcomings of each approach.

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Considerations for Selecting an Animal Control Facility Model

Fundamentally, the decisions which must be made when making choices regarding animal control services and facilities boil down to a few: What is the purpose of the facility, what will it cost to build it, and what will it cost to run it? Answering these three questions is not as easy as it might seem since each requires careful consideration, leading to more critical questions. The selection of a model on which to create and operate an animal control facility involves answering a longer list of questions which will define the operations and cost of any facility. Any animal control facility can be as limited or expansive in scope as is desired or affordable, but the extent of services and desired outcomes should be made in advance and with clear eyes. An extremely limited animal control facility may have the lowest possible operating costs. It will almost certainly also have the highest euthanasia (death rate) compared to a facility which offers additional services. Nationally, animal control facilities range from the traditional pound to shelters which are of the highest operational caliber and which boast service programs and save rates comparable to the best no kill charitable animal shelters. What form a potential Northampton County animal control facility takes will be driven by the following service option decisions: Will the facility accept dogs only or also accept cats and other species of domestic strays? Will the facility only accept stray animals from police or municipal officials or will it also accept strays from the general public? Will the facility accept owner surrendered animals (animals which are not strays)? Will euthanasia services be provided in-house or outside of the facility and will it be performed by facility staff or a contracted outside service provider? Will legally required veterinary care be provided in-house or out of the facility and will it be performed by facility veterinary staff or a contracted outside service provider? Will the facility engage in adoption services for unclaimed animals and, if so, how aggressively will those services be pursued? Will the facility be operated by County employees or under contract with an outside company or organization? Will the facility provide stray pick up services, either from municipal sources or from the general public? What level of effort to minimize animal stress and illness through enrichment or facilities design is desired? Is there a desire to engage the public in the operations of the facility through volunteerism or donations?

Some of these decisions are Yes/No, but most offer a continuum of possibilities, as well as a continuum of projected facilities and operations expense. This report provides general estimates for costs associated with the most basic of animal control operations, a mid-level operation facility, and a full animal welfare model, along with means of estimating the costs and savings of adding and subtracting various services and facilities options. Pros and cons of the various approaches will also be offered for consideration.

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Initial and ongoing costs are almost exclusively determined by three overlapping areas; holding capacity, services provided, and staffing. Any decision made in one arena will directly impact both of the others. The simplest calculation is: More Holding/Service/Staff = More Money/Fewer Animal Deaths. However, many factors play a role in determining the success of any animal sheltering or control facility. While the cost financial difference between doing nothing and providing exceptional animal control services to the community and its animals is potentially great, the gap is much smaller between providing exceptional service and simply providing the bare minimum of services. Exactly what those costs will be are driven by choices on holding capacity, services, staffing, euthanasia, type of facility/service model, type of operational management, and the approach to building or renovating a facility. Holding Capacity Holding capacity, or the number of animals a facility is capable of housing at any given time, is based on the highest projected number of animals which can be expected to be in a shelter on any given day. This is determined by purpose of the facility and it is always possible to have more. The Meyner Center report noted the daily holding rates of many shelters in the region but this number is unrelated to animal intake overall and is a factor of operational management and policy decisions. A facility with 300 cages may take in 300 animals a day or ten animals a day. Both are capable of holding 300 animals but one will face a space issue on the second day of operation, the other on the 31st day of operation. Holding capacity decisions are driven by how many animals enter a shelter over a given period of time; how long an animal must be held by law or how long an animal is chosen to be kept by policy; and how many animals are exiting the shelter through adoption, owner claim, or euthanasia. If a shelter is viewed as a bucket, it can only hold so much before overflowing. The only way to avoid that is to empty the bucket faster than it is filled (adoption, owner claim, or euthanasia) or keep the bucket from being filled (admission prevention programs or closing access to the shelter). How big the bucket is going to be is a policy and financial choice, with some legal constraints for stray dogs in Pennsylvania. If a facility is a strict animal control depository and holding facility which is explicitly intended to address the governments legal obligation to address dog control law and ordinance requirements, with no effort at adoption efforts and a pre-determined willingness to control the sheltered animal population through time and space based euthanasia as needed, it will require the smallest number of cages/kennels. In Pennsylvania this would be determined by the maximum number of stray dogs which are projected to enter a shelter of over a given period of time which allows for incoming and outgoing processing and the state mandated stray holding period. During peak intake periods all cages would be filled and during slower intake periods there would be additional kennel space and holding time available to animals being housed. Providing animals during non-peak intake periods additional time, such as for adoption efforts, would result in higher daily holding numbers of animals, and increased staff and operations expense. There will always be animals to fill any cage or kennel installed in a facility. How

10

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

many, what type, and for what purpose an animal is kept is a facility function, policy, and mission decision. Services The scope of services which may be offered in a sheltering setting are essentially unlimited. A strict animal control facility may only offer those services which are legally required: minimum care and housing requirements, minimum holding periods, assure minimum health and veterinary access as required by law, euthanasia programming as required by law, essential reporting and owner claim staffing, etc. The most basic of facilities and services allows for the smallest possible physical, financial and staffing footprint. It also ensures the lowest possible positive outcomes- i.e. how many leave the facility alive- for animals in the facilitys care. Conversely, the more services offered to assist animals and people, the higher the costs, but with the potential of substantially higher success rates. Generally, the minimum services required are those driven by law or municipal need in an animal control facility. These services do not address the needs or positive outcomes of the animals entering the facility. As animal health and welfare begin to be addressed, additional services become necessary. These may include adoption services, more aggressive owner identification efforts, increased veterinary care, in house veterinary care, sterilization for outgoing animals, behavioral enrichment programs, and a host of other services and programs. Most animal control facilities which function with any effort beyond being a place for stray animals to enter, sit for the legally mandated stray period, and be euthanized and disposed of, incorporate some additional services, especially in the area of adoption or animal transfer efforts. Many of the services which are viewed as extras in Pennsylvania are required by law in states with more extensive legal requirements aimed at saving animals lives. These services add to long term personnel costs, as well as to facilities construction and service related operations costs, and must be accounted for in any budgeting process. Staffing Post facility construction and startup, the single biggest operational expense at any animal control or sheltering facility is staffing. Staffing needs are driven by a combination of the holding capacity of the facility, the holding policy of the facility, and what services and programs are required of and offered by the facility. For basic animal care, there are industry best practices which are widely accepted. Notably, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians has published guidelines for standards of care in animal shelters. These standards help establish the minimum requirements within any shelter and inform the levels of staffing required for a given number of housed animals. Services, programs and administration beyond the basic care and keeping of animals will drive other staffing considerations.

11

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Euthanasia Euthanasia- putting animals to sleep- is a reality in any animal shelter. Even no kill shelters must deal with animals at the end of life, facing terminal illnesses, or massive injuries in which a humane death is the appropriate course. In an animal control facility it is to be expected that euthanasia of housed stray animals will occur. However, the quantity, reasoning for, and method of euthanasia and disposal is very much within the control of those responsible for operating the facility in most circumstances. A facility which serves merely to be the place to which stray animals are taken and housed for the legally mandated stray period and which makes little or no effort to reunite pets with owners or get those not reunited with owners adopted can expect huge percentages of its animals to be euthanized. A facility which is created with the purpose of both aiding municipalities in their need to get strays off their streets and to find those animals a positive (live) outcome could expect to save the large majority of the animals it takes in, perhaps as many as 90% or more for dogs, although generally less for cats. This would make it a functionally no kill shelter for dogs, despite it being an animal control facility. Multnomah Animal Control Services in Oregon is an example of a strictly stray intake, municipal facility which matches or exceed the best save rates of charitable open access animal shelters in Pennsylvania. While the decision regarding the amount of resources or effort directed at avoiding euthanasia is one of policy and budgeting, the means and method of euthanasia are very much prescribed by law. Pennsylvania law was recently modified to require that any animal shelter in Pennsylvania which euthanizes any animal must use specific methods and techniques. Only a veterinarian, a supervised Certified Veterinary Technician, or a Certified Euthanasia Technician may perform euthanasia. The requirements and regulations of the newly created Certified Euthanasia Technician are currently being drafted by the Pennsylvania Board of Veterinary Medicine and, once promulgated, will provide the guidelines any facility must follow if euthanizing in-house. Until that time a valid veterinary relationship must be established to conform the currently accepted practices. The alternative is to transport animals to a veterinary office or another sheltering facility in compliance to perform euthanasia.

12

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Types of Facilities/Service Models

If You Build It, They Will Come There are several approaches to providing for the intake, care and keeping, and disposition of stray animals available to Northampton County and its municipalities. Each has its benefits and drawbacks and all have varying levels of associated expense. Animals can be shipped to an existing intake facility under a service contract. A limited stray dog only or an all stray species facility can be created. The intake can be limited to municipal officials or police only or strays can be accepted by the general public. For any type of facility, there are a wide variety of programs and services which may be utilized based on the goals of those funding and operating it. Put simply, the greater the barriers placed on admission to a facility, the lower the costs to operate. More barriers also means fewer residents and animals served. The greater the access and services offered, generally, the greater the costs. However, greater access also means more people and municipalities assisted, more animals saved, and possibly long term progress made in dealing with the underlying causes of animals straying and associated problems. Each of these approaches would largely be determined by the model which might be selected by Northampton County. No Facility/Outside Contracted Agency The simplest option for handling stray animals is to attempt to find a solution within the prior typical animal control model and locate an organization willing to accept any stray presented to it from Northampton County. This eliminates the need for any capital, ongoing operations, or personnel expense. There are organizations which currently accept strays under contract, with regional stray intake market rates pricing ranging from $200 per animal (Humane Society of Berks County) to $250 per animal (Chester County SPCA) to $300 per animal (Lancaster County SPCA). Based on the stray handling figures of dogs by municipalities in 2012 reported in the Meyner study, costs can be estimated for simply transferring every stray dog out of Northampton County, assuming an agency could be contracted to provide the service. Based on the reported 808 stray dogs, contracted stray intake fees could range from $161,000 to $242,400. Actual fees would likely be less as not every animal would be transported out of county. Some would be returned to owner or adopted directly from municipal holding kennels following stray holding periods. If stray cats were also transported, costs would increase in direct proportion. Most stray intake facilities in Eastern Pennsylvania which accept stray cats as well as dogs do so at a ratio of at least two cats for every dog. Based on Northamptons CAWH stray intake figures from 2012, that ratio could be as high as four to one. If the maximum prior estimate and ratios of stray dogs and cats were transported to a contracted stray intake facility the annual cost could range as high as $800,000 to $1.2 million, although actual costs would almost certainly be lower due to the inconvenience and service barriers to admission of this approach.

13

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

There would be additional costs if a countywide transport program was provided to residents and municipalities. The easier ability to transport strays would also likely increase the number of animals transported to a contract facility. Transport program costs would be based on vehicle expense, fleet maintenance costs, and personnel expense. Industry standard animal transport vehicles vary in price. A Mavron AT-350 animal transport outfitted in a GM cargo van costs approximately $50,000. Vehicles have a useful life of between five and ten years with standard maintenance and mileage costs of $17,000 and above annually based on a single daily round trip delivery during weekdays of 120 miles (distance to nearest out of county stray intake facility from central Northampton County). Stray transport personnel costs would be based on the level of service provided. A minimal once daily stray transport delivery picking up from municipalities or the public as available during weekday hours, such as State Dog Wardens offer, would require as few as one employee. Median Pennsylvania Dog Warden salaries are reported to be $32,090, which is comparable to private, non-profit salaries for similar position in this region. Additional costs associated with benefits vary between sectors. Costs associated with additional hours, services, or overlapping coverage would be a multiple of these costs. Benefits of this approach: Because there is no dedicated sheltering location, there are no capital facilities expenses associated with an outsourced stray intake model. The addition of transport or pick up services would add to this expense. There are also no staffing or operations expenses- outside of transport expense- using this model. If an appropriate and affordable stray intake contact can be identified, every stray in Northampton could be transported out of county and require no further consideration. Depending on the cost of the service, the total costs could be lower than the cost of operations in a government owned facility using municipal workers or under contract to an outside private service provider. Drawbacks of this approach: The lack of a dedicated stray holding facility within the control and ownership of the County and/or municipalities leaves Northampton at the mercy of an outside agency which may alter pricing, term of service, or simply choose to cease offering a stray intake service. A dedicated county facility would ensure that the stray intake shelter remains in the operational control of Northampton governmental entities. An out-of-county intake contract also adds substantial distance and associated costs due to greater delivery distance. The greater distance from searching owners will result in far fewer pets being identified and claimed by owners and greater likelihood of subsequent euthanasia at the contracted facility. Current market rates for stray intake services are comparable to the actual operational costs of an in-county stray intake facility once a certain animal number threshold is reached. There is little or no operational control or accountability which can be exerted on an outside contractor. Basic In County Dog Control Only Operations Facility A basic dog control facility is the least complicated and least costly. Since Pennsylvania law only requires law enforcement response for stray dogs and no other animal, accepting stray dogs only and only from law enforcement or municipal officials would provide for the least number of

14

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

animals being housed, cared for, and disposed of by any means. The Meyner Center report estimated an approximate handling of 808 stray dogs by all Northampton municipalities in 2012. While this potential County dog control facility is not obligated by law to accept confined strays from any entity, including municipal officials, police, or State Dog Wardens, it seems likely that accepting these animals would be the base, minimum function of the facility. Therefore it is reasonable to project that the minimum intake of stray dogs over the course of one year would be in the range of the total strays handled by municipalities in 2012. It is also reasonable to assume that this number would increase by some percentage as police, municipalities and wardens become accustomed to having an easy depository for stray dogs, rather than taking the extra time and effort to find owners in attempt to avoid having to keep dogs for the legally mandated stray period. As a result, the annual intake from these sources could increase by 25% to 50% based on Northamptons population when compared to other animal control facilities in the region. The holding facilities (number of kennels) required to house these animals will be dependent on the time of year and the length of time the dogs are held. Stray intake increases during the spring and summer and declines during late fall and winter. Pennsylvania Dog Law requires a stray holding period of 48 hours, excluding days the holding kennel is not open for public view, for unlicensed stray dogs and 10 days for licensed stray dogs. Licensed stray dogs which go unclaimed for the full ten days are the vast minority since licensing allows for immediate owner identification in nearly every case. The number of stray dogs and their holding time provide a general estimate of the amount of staff man hours required for basic care- cleaning and feeding- of strays in a holding facility. This does not include any exercise or enrichment time, owner claim processing, or personnel management time associated with kennel staff. The number entering a shelter on any given day and with seasonal variation offer an estimate of the number of kennels required to provide the legally mandated holding period for each dog. The Association of Shelter Veterinarians estimates a minimum of fifteen minutes per animal, per day, to provide for the basic care and keeping of animals in a shelter setting. This is exclusive of time for intake, clerical, veterinary care, euthanasia, adoption, owner claim efforts, etc. Assuming an intake of 808 dogs over the course of one year and assuming a worst case scenario that all stay for a full 48 hours as required by law, it is possible to estimate the man hours required for both the base intake and a possible 25% and 50% increase in intake. It is also possible to estimate the number of animals entering the facility on a daily basis.

15

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Dogs Housed:

800 Dogs

1,000 Dogs (25% increase) 2.73 500 man hours per year

1,200 Dogs (50% increase) 3.28 600 man hours per year

Average intake per day Basic care and keeping man hours (15 minutes x 2 days per dog)

2.19 400 man hours per year

These numbers seem quite low because they assume all animals are sheltered and exit the shelter within precisely 48 hours and include no other work time for staff. This is, of course, not possible in the real world. Due to stray holding period and standard daytime staffing schedules, it is more realistic to expect that a stray dog may enter the shelter at some time during day one after public viewing hours and require care, even though the 48 hour stray clock has not begun. It would then require up to an additional two days of care and housing if it is not owner claimed in that period. An additional day of care is likely regardless of disposition so a reasonable average estimate of holding time for any stray could be as much as four days, which doubles the potential care and keeping man hours for each incoming animal. Estimating the minimum required daily holding capacity of the kennel is a matter of taking the average daily intake, between 2.19, 2.73, and 3.23 dogs, rounded up to three or four dogs per day, and multiply by the full four day estimate for holding to account for intake, 48 hour hold, and disposition (owner claim, adoption, euthanasia). This amounts to 12 to 16 dogs housed per day on average, with seasonal intake variation resulting in up to a doubling on individual intake days, or the potential of 24 to 32 dogs housed at any given time requiring kenneling. Most days will not attain this highest kenneled population and for the colder months most days will run somewhat below the daily projected average since intake shifts to the warm months. However, unlike staffing, kennels are not as easily adjustable. If the highest maximum projected for a daily intake is 24, based on 2012 stray dog handling figures, there must be the capability of house at least 24 animals. For this reason the kennel should be built to ensure the ability to house the highest estimated daily intake potential, even though this will occur only sporadically, and given construction economy it may make fiscal sense to install the additional kenneling space based on reasonable future intake projects (current plus 50% or 32 kennels). Because of the legal barriers to lowering housed populations through euthanasia during the holding period and the inability to adopt during the holding period, it is operationally far easier to install the maximum possible holding space based on projections, even if it is likely that a percentage of those cages will remain unfilled during much of the year were a strict 48 hold before disposition be adhered to. Average daily intake demonstrating the highest possible holding numbers based on greatest possible incoming/outgoing processing (each * represents one dog). These estimates can be doubled to account for maximum seasonal increases.

16

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Day 1 ****

Day 2 **** ****

Day 3 **** **** ****

Day 4 **** **** **** ****

Day 5 **** **** **** ****

Day 6 **** **** **** ****

Day 7 **** **** **** ****

Day 8 **** **** **** ****

16 to 32 dogs held on a daily basis require one employee to provide basic care (16 to 32 dogs x .25 hours per dog = 4 to 8 hours per day). During maximum holding periods one staff person would require every minute of a standard work day to complete basic care and keeping for every dog. During normal or seasonally low holding periods the staff person would be able to complete the required care and keeping in less than eight hours but greater than four hours, allowing for additional work to be accomplished. For this reason seasonal part time employees are generally suited to address seasonally high workloads. To address the average housed population over seven days, 1.4 Fulltime Equivalent employees (FTE) will be required. Basic intake/outgoing transactions, state and municipal reporting, owner claim matching, and euthanasia/disposal processing will require additional personnel time. If a facility functions strictly as an animal control depository for dogs, basic care and keeping operations can be handled by as few as two staff, per day, or 2.8 staff members per week. With overlapping schedules three staff members would be required. If additional stray animals are accepted by the facility, such as cats, an additional staff member would be required for basic care and keeping at the minimum rate of one staff member per each additional 32 animals added to the daily holding capacity of the organization. A doubling of the housed population would also require the addition of another staff member to address the additional euthanasia load. Additional staffing would also be a consideration if the facility opened to accept strays directly from the public, which would likely increase the intake to the higher end of the intake estimate on a more regular basis. Animal Intake 800 Animals 1,000 Animals 1,200 Animals Annually Average intake per 3 (2.19 ) 3 (2.73) 4 (3.28) day Seasonally adjusted 5 6 7-8 high daily intake Average daily 10+ kennels 10-12+ kennels 16-20 kennels holding Maximum daily 20+ kennels 20-24+ kennels 28-32 kennels holding requirements Minimum full time 3 3 3 staffing Additional staffing at a rate of 1 to 2 staff per each additional 32 animals carried on a daily basis.

17

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

These figures hold true should the basic stray intake services be extended to cats as well, assuming the same stray holding period is observed. Pennsylvania law does not require a stray holding period for cats. Benefits of this approach: A basic animal control repository approach is the simplest and least expensive type of facility to build and operate. Because it does not attempt any bells and whistles the staffing requirements are the lowest, daily holding capacities are the lowest as they are determined by basic legal requirements, facilities requirements and facility location can be less user friendly as the only patrons are municipal and state employees, or the public availing themselves of a government service. Operations are simple and driven by legal or policy need alone. Drawbacks of this approach: With no efforts at adopting or transferring animals which have not been claimed by owners during the stray holding period, extremely high euthanasia rates are to be expected. Owner claim rates, even with aggressive efforts at identifying and reuniting strays and owners should be expected to be no more than 25% - 50% for dogs and 1% - 4% for cats. Among those in the animal welfare field, and increasingly among the animal control field, these euthanasia numbers are not considered defensible since very limited investments beyond basic operations can return significant improvements in positive outcomes. Public ill will or even active protest should be expected if a facility is operated with no purpose other than to accept, house, and euthanize strays. Enhanced Services In County Stray Housing Facility Nationally, as a result of the increased scrutiny and expectations on the part of the public and tax payers, even most municipal facilities have begun to expand and enhance the services offered to the public and the animals in their care in an effort to improve positive outcomes. Positive outcomes are those in which the animal leaves a shelter alive. Without substantially changing the function or scale of the basic facility described in the previous section, additional services and programs can be added to operations which would improve upon animals outcomes. The two most basic add on services are more active and aggressive owner identification for strays, adoption services for unclaimed pets, and adoption transfer efforts to other animal shelters for strays following the conclusion of the mandated stray holding period. The primary functional result of the addition of these efforts is the keeping of animals for longer period than the state stray hold of generally 48 hours for dogs (there is no holding period for cats). This additional time would allow for the opportunity for animals to be adopted by the public or transferred to another sheltering organization for adoption, as well as adding additional time for a searching owner to find a lost pet. Because it is rare that animals are adopted faster than new animals come in, the daily holding capacity could and generally does remain at the maximum possible every day, year round. As a result, the seasonal variation on intake, with fewer than average incoming animals during the winter months and greater than average intake during summer ceases to be as relevant in care and keeping workload expense as the shelter remains full to a pre-determined capacity all year round. Care and keeping and animal care personnel needs and costs remain elevated over seasonal lows and reasonably flat year round.

18

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Euthanasia and disposal costs are still variable with intake as intake may be unrestricted in a stray intake facility. However, the overall euthanasia rate is decreased due to the extra efforts made to adopt and owner claim and the greater the effort, the higher the save rate. Also increased is the operational expense for the facility. The chart displayed earlier remains effective the same except the seasonally maximum daily holding requirement becomes the year round daily holding requirement. Prior seasonal add-on staff becomes a requirement. Animal Intake 800 Animals 1,000 Animals 1,200 Animals Annually Average intake per 3 (2.19 ) 3 (2.73) 4 (3.28) day Seasonally adjusted 5 6 7-8 high daily intake Average daily 20+ kennels 24+ kennels 28+ kennels holding requirements Minimum full time 3 (plus additional 3 (plus additional 3 (plus additional staffing service support) service support) service support) Additional husbandry staffing at a rate of at least 1 staff per each additional 32 animals carried on a daily basis or 1.4 staff weekly. This level of staffing provide the bare minimum time for animal cleaning and feeding allowing for no additional work. Additional adoption and owner claim initiative services staffing at a rate of at least 1 staff on a daily basis or 1.4 staff weekly. Additional intake/health monitoring staffing at a rate of at least 1 staff per each additional 32 animals carried on a daily basis or 1.4 staff weekly. In-house veterinary care, public outreach veterinary programs (vaccinations, microchipping, low cost sterilizations) would require at least one veterinarian and at least two qualified veterinary support staff. Staffing would be based on the extent of services provided. An additional staff member or more may also be required to handle the additional workload needed for adoption and owner claim efforts. Additional kenneling and holding facilities can also be added, essentially without limit, since the rate of adoption and owner claim will never reach 100%, even in the best of possible facilitates. Therefore, additional staffing and operations considerations will be driven by the decisions made in design, planning and budgeting regarding how many additional animals, if any, would be held, how extensive the additional services will be and at what level of staffing support, etc. These numbers hold true for cat intake and holding, as well, assuming cats are held for a similar holding period as dogs. This is not required by law in Pennsylvania. Stray holding periods are only required in the case of dogs. Cats may be adopted or euthanized immediately upon entering an animal control facility. However, with the exception of feral cats, which face nearly immediate euthanasia in virtually every animal control facility in the state, most non-profit and animal control facilities attempt to apply some holding period for cats- often in parity with the 48

19

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

hour holding period required for dogs- for stray cats. This allows for an opportunity for cats to be reclaimed by an owner prior to euthanasia or adoption. Owner reclamation rate of stray animals The rates at which stray animals are identified and returned to owners varies wildly between holding facilities and by species. Dogs are substantially more likely to be owner claimed, nationwide and within Pennsylvania, than cats. Anecdotally, the national average of owner claim rates of dogs is estimated to be 20%, while cats are owner claimed at a rate of 1%. Holding shelters which make very little effort to match stray animals in their facility with owners searching for lost pets have a substantially lower rate of stray pets being reunited with lost owners. Those which take more aggressive actions, such as active maintenance of lost pet reporting registries, posting of stray pets online for easy identification, and increased holding periods, have a higher return to owner rate; generally more than double the national average. As a result they also face decreased population pressure as more animals are quickly transferred out of a holding facility to return home. Additional animal control efforts, especially directed in the area of proper identification, result in substantial increases in return rates. Dog licensing sweeps and identification micro chipping efforts result in easier identification and return of strays to owners. Increased animal control ordinance and law enforcement, supported by public awareness campaigns, can also serve to decrease the number of strays roaming the streets. The owner claim disparity between cats and dogs remains, despite more aggressive owner identification efforts, and even the most aggressive efforts do not reunited all animals with owners. Adoption Programs Adoption and animal transfer programs are the only means of providing a positive exit from a holding facility, aside from being reunited with an owner. Under Pennsylvania law, any cat may be placed up for adoption upon entry to an animal shelter. Unlicensed stray dogs must be held for display for a minimum of 48 hours (public view during business hours) if unlicensed, and 10 days if licensed (along with specified owner notification protocols). Following this period dogs may also be placed up for adoption. Pennsylvania law requires that any animal which is not sterilized be adopted with the requirement of a sterilization deposit of $30, refundable upon proof of sterilization. Adoption fees may be set at whatever amount is desired by the facility. Adoption fees at rescues and adoption shelters in Pennsylvania range from hundreds of dollars for pure bred animals and puppies to no cost adoptions, often for special needs, older animals, or during periods of high intake. There is increasing research which shows that the cost of an adoption has no bearing on the long term success of an adoption. In other words, a free animal does not have a lower adoption success rate than an animal which cost an adopter a higher fee. Another method of finding positive outcomes for stray animals within an animal control shelter is to partner with another adoption agency, which can choose to accept animals following their stray holding period. These adoption transfers programs are increasingly prevalent as former

20

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

animal control shelters move toward no kill models. Because these shelters no longer take in strays under contract, they face decreased intake which, along with decreasing their rates of euthanasia, serves to decrease their available adoption pool. As a result, private adoption shelters will often assist animal control shelters by accepting adoptable animals, primarily dogs, into their adoption programs. This can often swiftly move stray animals, along with the associated costs of their care and keeping, out of the animal control facility. One down side of adoption transfer programs is that adoption shelter partners will generally cherry pick the most adoptable pets. However, the overall impact is to get animals out of an animal control shelter more quickly and into a shelter with greater resources and options than might be available at an animal control facility. Adoption success is generally more a factor of effective screening and matching of potential adopters. As a budgetary matter, greater screening and matching efforts require more time and staffing, and increases the time it takes to adopt and the time an animal remains in a holding shelters. Regardless of screening efforts, some percentage of adoptions fail within the life of the animal and it returns to a shelter, either the shelter of origin or another shelter. Ultimately, the balance between seeking to recoup operations expenses through adoption fees must be weighed with the desire to quickly move animals out of a holding shelter, thereby decreasing the husbandry, healthcare and possible euthanasia and disposal expenses. Similarly, increased adoption screening efforts must be balanced with the desire to swiftly move animals out of a holding facility. Benefits of enhanced service facility approach: Enhancing services results in fewer animals being euthanized unnecessarily and improved positive outcomes. If the facilitys goal is more than simply getting stray dogs or other animals off the streets with no concern about outcomes, some enhanced services are required. Public image is improved as the public sees the extra efforts being made to save animals lives. A positive public perception can inspire volunteer support, larger adoption numbers, and direct donor support, depending on the service model chosen. Drawbacks of enhanced service facility approach: The biggest negative to enhanced services would be the additional operating costs, as well as increased startup and facilities costs. The more offered to animals and the public, the greater the required operational budget. The other issue which has arisen in other municipal shelters which have made the attempt to upgrade services offerings is that the general community expectation begins to increase. A facility which is unapologetically a place for stray animals to go until they are euthanized is not well perceived by the community but there are also little or no expectations. By making the attempt to do better, the bar becomes raised and real progress is expected of the managers and employees of the shelter. Comprehensive Animal Welfare Services Within In County Stray Handling Facility The final model available to Northampton County for the handling of strays is a one which provides comprehensive animal welfare programs targeted at not merely getting strays animals off the streets and providing a somewhat improved chance of a positive outcome, but

21

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

aggressively pursues the best outcome for all animals entering the facility. While this approach is almost exclusively the domain of charitable, non-profit animal shelters offering animal control services in Pennsylvania, in other states this approach has been taken with success by municipal animal control facilities. Because each sheltering entity is unique in the population is serves, services it offers, and type and number of facilities managed, there are is no way to perform a true apples to apples comparison. It is possible to look at the services provided animals handled, population served, and costs of operations to get a general sense of what a given operational dollar amount can provide to a community. A representative example of a municipal managed, 100% stray intake facility which offers comprehensive animal welfare services is Oregons Multnomah County Animal Care. This facility meets or exceeds best industry practices and standards in nearly every area. It provides all stray intake, housing, pick-up and animal control services for the County. It also operates a comprehensive adoption program as well as veterinary services. It serves a county population of 748,000, handles 7,348 animals a year (2012), and operates on a budget of $6,618,093 (2012)2. That budget total is divided in the following ways: Client Services: $1,947,392. 15 full-time equivalent (FTE) - Customer service, adoption, intake, licensing staff; 6 FTE- Administration (Volunteer Coordinator, administrative support, TNR coordinator, Director); all associated operations. Field Services: $1,481,155. 14 FTE- Cruelty law and animal control enforcement, field rescue and transport, fleet costs. Animal Care - $3,189,516 (includes about $500,000 in restricted funds - private donation fund) - 12.5 FTE animal care staff and 4.0 FTE veterinary staff.

These costs are not atypical for a wholly governmentally operated facility of this size providing this level of service to the community. To provide a counterpoint of a charitable organization which provides similar comprehensive services in Pennsylvania, Humane Society of Berks Countys (HSBC)3 budget can be compared. In 2012, HSBC handled 2,744 animals in a County with a population of 411,000 with an operating budget of $1,781,250. HSBC does not provide field animal control services but operates a full service public veterinary practice serving 4,000 clients a year and operates a satellite adoption and veterinary facility and a dog park and equine rescue center. This total also includes fundraising expenses which account for approximately 6.5% of expenses at HSBC. Roughly subtracting all non-animal housing and care related expenses from the budget, the total budget is approximately $1.1 million. Very broadly speaking, comprehensive animal welfare service centers tend to cost within a range. HSBC houses approximately 1/3 the number of animals as Multnomah and its costs are approximately 1/3 (with significant variation of service offerings noted).

Based on email correspondence with Mike Oswald, Multnomah Animal Care Director, and public budget reporting. 3 Disclosure note: Humane Society Management Services, which has prepared this report, is a wholly owned subsidiary llc of Humane Society of Berks County.

22

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

As a matter of example, should Northampton County opt to create an industry leading, comprehensive service agency which accepts any and every stray presented to it, manages a near no-kill save rate for dogs and exceeds industry standards, maintain satellite adoption facilities, a free public dog park and equine rescue facility, hold major pet-related community events, and provide 2,000 free sterilizations and thousands of free veterinary services a year, it could expect the operating budget to be about $1.5 million per year to do so (plus public sector employee carrying cost mark ups should it municipally managed), assuming 100% of all services were literally given away for free. The net cost could be substantially less when services fees are factored in (the HSBC subsidizes 40% of its budget with charitable donations). While this is significant, it is worth comparing to the cost of simply transporting the same number of strays to an outside accepting facility with the expectation that most or all will simply be euthanized. 2,744 strays transported would cost between $548,860 and $883,200 based on current intake charges in Southeast Pennsylvania with no return other than having that many fewer animals in Northampton. Compared to a comprehensive services shelter cost of $1.1+ million (for strictly animal related services), the amount required to provide full service as opposed to merely transportation and euthanasia is not nearly as substantial. The gap closes further with the addition of service fees intake. Benefits and drawbacks of a comprehensive service model: Because this model represents the highest industry standard, effectively the only drawback is cost. Services, programs and facilities in this model can be undertaken which are the pinnacle of the industry and help the most animals and people and service municipal and county government most effectively. Doing so brings a financial cost which is ultimately a community judgment of whether the value brought by comprehensive services and the lives benefitted are worth the cost. Intake Considerations: Strays and/or Owner Surrendered Pets? Although the focus on this report has been to address stray intake needs, the issue of whether to accept owner surrendered pets should be visited. Almost without exception in Pennsylvania, animal shelters providing animal control and stray intake services also accept owner surrendered pets. While Multnomah County Animal Care is used as a representative example of a comprehensive service but exclusively animal control facility, their political and social situation make them unique and aberrant compared to Pennsylvanias shelters. The Portland, Oregon, community has established a strong and expansive partnership between public and private animal welfare and control agencies. As a community they have ceased to segment animal needs and issues into categories or public/private, stray/owned, cat/dog and have instead recognized that a holistic approach is required to address the community challenges involving animals. Multnomah Animal Control can limit its intake strictly to strays because there are multiple partner agencies which focus on assisting owner surrendered pets. Northampton County is not in the same position. There is a single shelter available to support owner surrendered animals and it is a no-kill, limited access shelter which turns away animals if the facility is full, which it perpetually is.

23

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Refusing to accept owner surrenders at a County controlled facility may seem like a cost savings choice initially, but it can often result in animals being called stray and resources expended by municipal officers to go out and pick it up as a stray and ultimately still enter the county facility. However, if an owned pet is surrendered to the county agency it can obtain pertinent information to help place it in a forever home through adoption or transfer programs. There is a realistic presumption that euthanasia will occur in a stray intake facility. Accepting owner surrendered pets would certainly increase the number of animals entering a shelter and likely increase the numeric count of animals euthanized, even if the percentage of animals euthanized, or save rate, remains the same. Ultimately the decision of what animals to accept is a policy, financial, and value decision. However, any exclusive stray intake will be bringing in owned animals which are being reported as strays in the absence of another facility willing to accept owner surrendered pets. Therefore, the decision regarding acceptance policy should be carefully considered during any planning process. Intake fees and other reasonable cost offset and limited service barriers or service supports to redirect owner relinquishment can be a part of any intake decisions. It is the value judgment of the authors of this report that it is in the best interest of animals and the community to accept all animals, stray and owner relinquished, in the absence of a community partner facility which can accept owner surrendered pets on demand. Veterinary Service Considerations The issue of whether to provide veterinary services to the public and what type of services to provide can sometimes be a controversial one. That is especially true when those services are provided by a government agency, which can be accused of unfair competition with private service providers. This charge has long been brought against charitable animal shelters and in some states they are actually barred from providing veterinary services as a result. There is no such prohibition in Pennsylvania and increasing number of organizations offer veterinary care not only to their own housed animals but to the general public. The services can range from limited vaccination and sterilization services to comprehensive veterinary care just like any veterinary practice. Some organizations provide these services exclusively to the poor; others provide them to the general public, regardless of income, often with sliding scale fees for poor clients. These programs are expanding rapidly across Pennsylvania and the nation because of an increased belief that veterinary services are a core mission service and because of increasing research demonstrating a link between access to veterinary services and the long term success of an owner/pet relationship. Humane Society of Berks County has demonstrated anecdotally, and is currently beginning the process of a formal study, that stray and surrendered pets are more likely to lack veterinary care and a stable veterinary relationship. Veterinary service delivery, whether provided through veterinary staff employed by the facilities management directly or through a private service provider contracted for the purpose, offer a valuable service to pet owners, may decrease the instances of stray or owner relinquishment, can provide an alternative to owner relinquishment, allows for an offsetting of high veterinary care

24

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

mandated under law for stray animals held in a facility, and also offer the potential for a significant revenue stream in support of operations. Additionally, the presence of staff veterinary support can address the legal issues surrounding euthanasia protocols and medical care requirements for injured animals entering the facility.

25

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Operational Management Options

Any animal control facility can be operated in one of three ways, or with some overlapping public/private management structures. 100% municipal operations The staff and management are government employees. This provides complete control and oversight of a facility and its operations by the funding municipality. Staff are employees working for and reporting directly to the municipal authority funding operations. Hiring, firing, benefits, operations protocols, policies, etc. are entirely within municipal control. This provides for direct and immediate accountability on the part of the facilitys management. This also makes employees subject to municipal pay scales, benefits, retirement programs, and potential Union contract issues. Municipal hiring requirements may require the employment of staff based on seniority or other factors, rather than actual experience in sheltering or animal handling. Despite this and the higher overall operations costs associated with this model, it is the model which provides the most certainty year to year. Non profit/for profit management services, outside facility In Pennsylvania contractual arrangements for the handling and disposal of animals has been the traditional model. Non-profit animal sheltering organizations can generally offer animal care services at a lower cost because of the ability to operate in the role of a private employer at reduced costs, they bring efficiencies of scale as they already house and care for animals, and they have tended to subsidize these services with donations as part of their charitable mission. Non-profit shelters also provide their own sheltering facilities. However, because animal control has increasingly been seen as not being a central mission of non-profit shelters, these services are increasingly subject to changes in organizational mission focus, pricing variation as charitable subsidies are lessened, or service changes with little or no notice due to economic or charitable environments. While a governmentally owned facility prevents a lock out of facilities access for strays, chances of non-profit shelters dropping in and out of an shelter service provider role are still an issue. This service model has proven to be highly volatile in recent years, although certain organizations have begun to focus on these services and established multi-year, stable service contracts with outside of county municipalities (Chester County SPCA and Berks County Humane Society are prominent examples). Non profit/for profit management services, in county facility Although not common within the animal control or animal welfare community, outside management service providers are ubiquitous in other private, public, and non-profit sectors. Outside private sector management service providers can offer greater skill and expertise, as well as operational costs which are lower than those in the public/governmental sector. Within animal sheltering/control operations there have been three recent examples of management services being provided at a privately or governmentally controlled animal control facilities.

26

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

In Philadelphia, a City owned facility was under a series of contract management organizations over the past several years including Pennsylvania Animal Care and Control Association PACCA), Pennsylvania SPCA (PSPCA), and now Animal Care and Control Team of Philadelphia (ACCT). With the exception of PSPCA, the other management entities were organizations created to allow for outside management of the Citys animal control service needs. Humane Society of Lebanon County, which is a private, charitable animal shelter which provides stray intake services for Lebanon County municipalities and the State, has contracted the for-profit company Humane Society Management Services, llc. to provide comprehensive facilities operations management services. In Lancaster County, municipal government funded and built a stray housing shelter and contracted with the Lancaster County SPCA, which was newly created to provide contract services. Management Considerations There are three major considerations when evaluating the type of management oversight to put in place of any animal control/stray housing program: cost, quality, and stability. Complete municipal management of a facility can cost more, bring less operational skill, and can carry organizational and efficiency impediments. Public sector wages, benefits, and hiring practices can result in higher costs and staffing by employees based on seniority or considerations other than ability and experience. But municipal management ensures accountability to some extent and, most importantly, continuity. However, outside non-governmental management has been fraught with instability as organizations opt in and out of service contracts from year to year, or dramatically change the terms of service. Outside animal care contractors, on the other hand, bring much more experience, expertise, and generally a higher standard of care than has been demonstrated in municipal shelters in Pennsylvania in the past. Regardless of the approach taken, cost must be a consideration, high quality should be ensured in whatever service provider is selected, and a stable, longer term contract model or commitment should be considered to ensure there is not a repeat of prior examples of management service turnover. Political Considerations There are significant political considerations for local governments who have been dependent on non-profits (humane societies, SPCAs, etc.) for the provision of animal care/control and are now considering operating their own animal care and control agency with government staff. If the previous service provider has been a private contractor, complaints received about them can be referred back to them for resolution. That will change if the operation comes in house. Complaints will come to both administration and local elected officials for resolution. Even when governmental animal welfare agencies are well managed and have progressive animal welfare programs, citizen complaints come with the territory. Past surveys have revealed that animal control complaints are in the top five areas that citizens complain about to local government. Animals are very important to a large segment of

27

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

population, with an estimated 68% of the population of the United States owning one or more animals. This places government between those people who love animals and those that do not want them around. To minimize these complaints we cannot overemphasize the importance of hiring qualified staff and providing training as required or ensure that any outside management service provider be highly skilled in shelter and program management. Unfortunately, in some communities animal control is a last stop for public employees being disciplined. This can be very problematic, for all the reasons you can imagine.

28

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Facilities and Capital Investment

Facilities construction for any animal shelter mirrors the development of operations protocols and programming. Anything is possible with sufficient investment but there are some minimum requirements to comply with state law and minimum best management practices. There is a minimum number of square feet required based on the number and type of animals housed and the amount of space afforded them. The addition of enhanced or comprehensive programming to help animals and people add to the square footage required in order to have the space for adoptions, added space for the wellbeing of animals, veterinary services, administrative space, etc. The costs associated with the creation of a facility are greatly impacted by whether there is a need to design and build from scratch, land acquisition costs, or whether the project is a renovation of an existing building. Recent design/build and renovation projects at animal sheltering organizations in the region have varied widely in cost ranging from about $125 to well over $200 per square foot. Bucks County SPCA recently designed and built a new 11,000 square foot comprehensive service facility with a 1,800 square foot barn for $3.2 million (exclusive of land acquisition), for a construction cost of $250 per square foot4. The new Bucks facility has 40 dog spaces and 100 cat spaces. Clearfield County SPCA recently completed a more modest 9,000 square foot facility for approximately $1.3 million or $144 per square foot5. Clearfield has 32 dog spaces and 27 cat spaces. Recent and ongoing major renovation projects at Lebanon County SPCA had initial project pricing of $209 per square foot but design revisions were able to cut that cost to approximately $150 a square foot6. Berks County SPCA is beginning construction on a 7,000 square foot partial demolition/build, partial renovation project which is projected to cost $125 per square foot7. A reasonable floor for a square foot estimate for construction or renovation of a facility is at least $125 to $150 per square foot but that price can increase dramatically depending on service and facilities choices. Within the cost of a facility the expenses of caging and kenneling and the square footage required for installation can be established and can provide a minimum square footage required for any facility desiring to house a given number of animals. 2008s Puppy Mill Bill (HB 2525) instituted minimum requirements for private licensed Pennsylvania kennels but most of the sizing requirements do not apply to a non-profit municipal kennel. While an eye to the private kennel requirements8 serves as a good starting point for kennel design considerations, the PA Department of Agriculture, which oversees kennel licensing and inspection, has been extremely flexible and supportive of shelters offering animal control intake services. Standard kennel sizing is generally acceptable to Dog Wardens. For ease of cleaning and animal management, most kennels employ a two part kennel systems with a separation wall and an industry standard size is about 4 by 12 feet, although this is highly variable.
4 5

Self-reported by Anne Irwin, Bucks County SPCA executive director. Self-reported by Pamela Smith, Clearfield County SPCA executive director. 6 Self-reported by Trinelle Wyles, Humane Society of Lebanon County board vice president. 7 Self-reported by Karel Minor, Humane Society of Berks County executive director. 8 PA Dog Law

29

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Cat holding facilities are not regulated under Pennsylvania law. UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program recommends at least 11 square feet of space per cat to decrease stress and behavioral problems. Caging manufacturers now manufacture cat cages meeting or exceeding this recommendation, although they are significantly more expensive and require more square footage of floor space per cat. Most standard cat cages used in high turnover animal control environments when longer term stress is either not a consideration or not a concern tend to be only four square feet and are stackable, further decreasing the square footage required, and are significantly less expensive. However, these smaller holding cages induced greater stress and more stress related illnesses in cats. The following charts provide a sense of the variation in square footage and costs associated with different types of caging and kenneling available on the market and based on different numbers of cats and dogs housed. Maximum daily holding requirements, dogs Total sq. ft. (4 x 12 kennel) plus minimum hallway space per kennel (16 sq. ft.) Kennel cost range ($1,500 to $3,000 per kennel) Maximum daily holding for cats (2:1 intake ratio) Total sq. ft. (2 to 4 sq. ft. floor space depending on style and stacking) plus minimum hallway per section (8 sq. ft.) Cage cost range ($250 to $2,500) 20 kennels 24 kennels 32 kennels

1280 sq. ft.

1536 sq. ft.

2048 sq. ft.

$30,000 to $60,000

$36,000 to $72,000

$48,000 to $96,000

40 cages

48 cages

64 cages

200 to 480 sq. ft.

240 to 576 sq. ft.

320 to 768 sq. ft.

$10,000 to $100,000 $12,000 to $120,000 $16,000 to $160,000

There is obviously a broad variation in cost, especially for cat holding, and most facilities provide for a combination of caging and holding facilities to balance the needs of the animals, the management, and the available budgeting. However, any facility which intends to maintain animals for any period of time beyond the mandated holding periods must consider the long term impact on animals, staff, and public opinion of its holding facilities and caging choices. It must also weigh the financial impact of providing sub-par or below best management practice holding space for animals on the health of animals and the associated health care cost increases, as well as increased euthanasia rates and quantity, which they lead to.

30

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

While decisions on the size and type of cat caging offer much room for consideration, especially when made in conjunction with appropriate ventilation or enrichment considerations, there are some basic kennel requirements which are not. While chain link kennels are inexpensive and often widely used, they are not appropriate for animal control and high volume shelters due to dog health and behavior considerations. Kenneling which provides a full physical barrier between animals and reasonable barrier to the spread of disease are a requirement. It is the value judgment of the authors of this report that below industry best practice kenneling systems are not acceptable due to the substantial risk posed to animal health. Additional Space Requirements While basic animal holding kennels and cages may require anywhere from a few hundred and a couple thousand square feet, additional space is also required. Space must be provided for animal care and vaccinations, as well as euthanasia space and freezers for holding animal bodies. Administrative and clerical space must be provided for even limited service offerings such as basic owner claim efforts and more added for adoption efforts, including adoption meeting rooms. Any public veterinary services such as vaccination and micro chipping clinics or sterilization clinics require dedicated space. If pick up or delivery services are provided, garage space should be considered. The majority of basic animal sheltering agencies in Pennsylvania operate within facilities which accept strays are in the range of 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. Based on recent capital construction or renovation projects a reasonable cost range estimate for a Northampton facility offering comparable services and holding capacity would be from at least a minimum of $875,000 to over $1 million for a 7,000 square foot facility.

31

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Operational Cost and Service Comparisons

Having described the types of services which could be offered to address the current needs of municipalities within Northampton County, they types of management services option available, and some representative example costs of these services, we can provide some side by side service comparisons and costs. Below are estimated costs and outcomes based on prior animal handling estimates, potential handling increases by model, required staffing and nonmunicipal/tax service revenue potential. Costs are private/non-profit sector estimates and are the broadest possible estimates because of the extreme variation in costs based on services and operations. Service Model: Out of county transport, holding and disposition, dogs only Animals transported: 808 (dogs only) Expected outcomes: Negligible owner claims due to distance, unknown-generally low- save rate dependent on accepting facility policies. Approx. annual cost: $221,600 to $302,400 ($200 to $300 intake fee with 1 FTE and single vehicle) Minimum FTE: 1 Non-municipal service fee potential: None Service Model: Out of county transport, holding and disposition, dogs and cats (typical 1:2 ratio) Animals transported: 2,424 (dogs and cats) Expected outcomes: Negligible owner claims due to distance, unknown-generally low- save rate dependent on accepting facility policies. Approx. annual cost: $664,800 to $907,200 ($200 to $300 intake fee with 1 FTE and single vehicle) Minimum FTE: 1 Non-municipal service fee potential: None Service Model: In County stray intake facility, limited holding and disposition, dogs only Animal intake: 808 (dogs) Expected outcomes: Live save rate approximately 50%, increased chance of owner claim due to more accessible facility location Approx. annual cost: $300,000 (based similarly sized animal control facility in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania) Minimum FTE: 3 Non-municipal service fee potential: Limited owner claim and adoption fee potential

32

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Service Model: In County stray intake facility, limited holding and disposition, dogs and cats (typical 1:2 ratio) Animals transported: 2,424 (dogs and cats) Expected outcomes: Live save rate approx. 50% for dogs, approx. 20% for cats, increased chance of owner claim due to more accessible facility location Approx. annual cost: $400,000 - $500,000 (based similarly sized animal control facility in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania) Minimum FTE: 5-6 Non-municipal service fee potential: Limited owner claim and adoption fee potential Service Model: In County Expanded or Comprehensive Service Facility, dogs and cats (typical 1:2 ratio) Animals transported: 2,424 (dogs and cats) Expected outcomes: Live save rate 70-90% for dogs, 50 to 80% for cats, increased chance of owner claim and adoption due to more accessible facility location and active owner claim and promotion efforts, dependent on level of service offered. Approx. annual cost: $1 million to $1.5 million (based similarly sized facility and operations in Pennsylvania) Minimum FTE: 10 to 20 FTE Non-municipal service fee potential: Significant but widely varying service revenue potential for adoption, owner claim, donation, sterilization/vaccination, etc.

33

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Conclusions
This reported has outlined a wide range of service models. These range from the least beneficial to animals, government and residents; merely shipping off a the 808 stray dogs handled by municipalities each year to another county to face a 50% or higher euthanasia rate; to comprehensive service models in which a high end estimate of perhaps 6,000 animals of all species, stray and relinquished, could be housed, cared for and adopted with a save rate as high as 90%. Although an enormous divide exists between the two levels of service and the number saved- up to 7.5 times more assisted and saved- there divide between the cost to provide these two disparate level of service to the community could be as low as a multiple of 1.5 to 4 times. Nationally, the cost of municipal animal control services is estimated to be $4 per resident9. In Northampton County, with a 2010 population of 298,476, that would amount to $1.2 million dollars. This is an amount which would allow Northampton to provide spectacular services to its animals and residents if it was approached in a well thought out, thoroughly planned, and sustainable fashion. Certainly anything less than this amount would provide more service and value which is currently being offered: next to nothing. Northampton County is fortunate in some ways to have been forced into a position of taking action. Animal welfare efforts are undergoing a renaissance in Pennsylvania as the performance of many of its organizations and the models under which they operate are improving and beginning to keep pace with better models around the nation after decades of stagnation. State and local government are now, by choice or by necessity, beginning to take on the responsibility of community animal control. And increasingly, the public expects that our communities will direct the resources needed to keep both people and animals safe and secure. Northampton has an opportunity to become a leading humane community in Pennsylvania and do so in an effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible manner. This report provides many means of accomplishing those possibilities should Northampton Countys governments and resident determine they have the will to do so.

9 Pietroburgo, J. Saving Fido: A Case in the Privatization of Local Animal Control Services, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, Volume 17(2), 2012, article 6.

34

copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.