BEST PRACTICES IN ANIMAL SERVICES CONTRA COSTA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY TEAM PROJECT

Transcription

1 BEST PRACTICES IN ANIMAL SERVICES CONTRA COSTA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY TEAM PROJECT

2 PROJECT SPONSOR SCOTT HANIN, CITY MANAGER CITY OF EL CERRITO

3 ANDREW DILLARD, TRANSPORTATION MANAGER TOWN OF DANVILLE

4 MARGOT ERNST, HOUSING PROGRAM MANAGER CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

5 JESUS ESPINOZA, ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER CITY OF MARTINEZ

6 LANI HA, FINANCE MANAGER/TREASURER TOWN OF DANVILLE

7 STEPHEN MOORE, UTILITY SUPERVISOR CITY OF PITTSBURG

8 MAYANK PATEL, SENIOR PLANNER CITY OF ORINDA

9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION City of El Cerrito interest in evaluating how Animal Services are provided in local agencies in Contra Costa and Northern Alameda County, and agencies outside the County.

10 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Identify a List of Best Practices for Providing Animal Services Identify Potential Alternatives for Animal Services Delivery Determine if Joint Agreements are Recommended and/or Feasible

11 METHODOLOGY Research and Documentation Interviews / Surveys Analysis & Best Practices

12 RESEARCH Research

13 RESEARCH OVERVIEW Met with Project Sponsor Onsite Interviews with Service Providers Online Surveys with Cities and Providers Independent Research on Best Practices

14 RESEARCH CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Contra Costa County Models: Contra Costa County Animal Services Serves 18 Cities and Unincorporated Contra Costa Full service delivery including field services, animal rescue, adoptions, foster-care, licensing, spay/neuter, education City Operated (Antioch) Full service delivery including field services, animal rescue, adoptions, foster-care, licensing, spay/neuter, education

15 RESEARCH ALAMEDA COUNTY Alameda County Models: Full Service Cities (Oakland, Berkeley) Joint City Operated (Berkeley Animal Care Services) Provides all services for Cities of Berkeley and Albany Provides shelter services for Cities of Piedmont & Emeryville Full service delivery including field services, animal rescue, adoptions, foster-care, licensing, spay/neuter, education Non-Profit/Public Partnership (City of Alameda) Friends of Alameda Animal Services ( FAAS ) - Provides shelter services, animal rescue, adoptions, foster-care, licensing, spay/neuter, education. City of Alameda Provides animal control/field services

16 RESEARCH MARIN COUNTY Marin Humane Society Joint Powers Authority with County of Marin and all 10 Marin County cities. MHS services provided since1946, formal JPA created in 1979 JPA and LAFCO Board have direct oversight of operations Full service delivery including field services, animal rescue, adoptions, foster-care, licensing, spay/neuter, education Cities and County pay on a formula based on per capita and service calls Fees offset cost burden to Cities and County

17 INTERVIEWS KEY FINDINGS CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL SERVICES Flat Per Capita Rate - cost to cities are lower than actual per capita costs absorbed by CCAS Economy of scale Large service area response times vary Administrative and programmatic changes/improvements over last three years Strengthening referral relationships Increased community engagement donations to ABF Program Live release rates increasing

18 INTERVIEWS - KEY FINDINGS CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL SERVICES Live Release Rates

19 INTERVIEWS - KEY FINDINGS CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL SERVICES

20 FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENTS CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL SERVICES New Team, New Policies and Guiding Principals Saving Lives Increasing Public Outreach Social Media Increasing Network of Volunteers & Animal Rescue Group Interaction Pet Retention Program focusing on people, stay-at-home assistance Rescue Group Assistance Maddie s Fund

21 INTERVIEWS KEY FINDINGS NON-PROFITS (ARF AND MILO) Differing facility environments similar core missions Primary Funding donations, grants and adoption fees Animals must be surrendered (can t accept strays) Adoptability and space availability are key factors for intake Not interested in contracting with cities for core service provisions Strong emphasis on animal welfare, adoption, education and outreach Higher adoption fees Sanctuary Alternative (Milo)

22 INTERVIEWS KEY FINDINGS CITY-OPERATED Antioch established a city animal shelter through voter approved ballot measure in 1978 ARF has provided some technical assistance to Antioch Out of area animal drop-offs impact Antioch shelter (no East County shelter) City of Berkeley provides field services to Berkeley and Albany, and shelter services to several additional cities. Both have limited services for wildlife

23 SURVEY CONTRA COSTA CITIES/TOWNS Number of Cities/Towns Surveyed 19 Number of Respondents 7

24 SURVEY CONTRA COSTA CITIES/TOWNS Overall Performance of Delivery of Animal Services 60% 57% 50% 40% 30% 29% 20% 14% 10% 0% Overal Performance Excellent Good Adequate Needs Improvement Poor

25 80% 70% SURVEY CONTRA COSTA CITIES/TOWNS Performance in Service Delivery Areas 71% 60% 57% 57% 50% 40% 43% 42% 43% 30% 29% 29% 29% 29% 20% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 10% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Cost-to-Value Response Times Animal Welfare Advocacy/Outreach Public Safety Excellent Good Adequate Needs Improvement Poor Unsure

26 SURVEY CONTRA COSTA CITIES/TOWNS Interest in Exploring Alternate Service Delivery Models 70% 60% 61% 50% 40% 30% 20% 17% 17% 10% 5% 0% Interested Not Interested Other No Response

27 Analysis & Best Practices

28 RESEARCH STANDARDS OF CARE Hunger & Thirst Fear & Distress Discomfort 5 FREEDOMS Express Normal Behavior Pain, Injury, & Disease

29 RESEARCH BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OF CARE IN ANIMAL SHELTER Shelter Care Checklists: Putting ASV Guidelines Into Action (ASPCA, 2010) Guidelines listed in order of priorities: UNACCEPTABLE MUST SHOULD IDEAL

30 RESEARCH BEST PRACTICES GUIDELINES FOR STANDARDS OF CARE IN ANIMAL SHELTER 1. Management & Record Keeping 2. Facility Design Environment 3. Population Management 4. Sanitation 5. Medical Health 6. Behavioral Health 7. Group Housing 8. Animal Handling 9. Euthanasia 10. Spaying and Neutering 11. Animal Transportation 12. Public Health

31 RESEARCH CONDITIONS OF SHELTER FACILITIES Contra Costa Animal Services Facility Barn Agility Course Play Area

32 ANALYSIS COST PER-CAPITA Cost per Capita - Total and Taxpayer $32.18 $27.24 $7.95 $10.96 $13.61 $11.84 $10.43 $8.70 $9.75 $12.10 $5.94 ANTIOCH ALAMEDA (CITY) MARIN COUNTY BAY AREA AVERAGE CONTRA COSTA ANIMAL SERVICES CCC-UNINCORP CC CITIES IN CONTRACT WITH CCAS General Fund Total

33 ANALYSIS RESPONSE TIME FOR CCAS TO VARIOUS CITIES 120 Response Time (Hours) Brentwood Concord El Cerrito Orinda San Ramon Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

34 ANALYSIS TWO OUT OF THREE RULE

35 Alternatives

36 CURRENT MODEL COUNTY PROS/CONS PROS Economies of Scale Broad Range of Services Capacity Strong Partnerships Stable/Predictable CONS Large Service Area No East County Shelter Less Local Control Less Advocacy

37 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES Joint Powers Authority (Marin County & Cities) City Operated (City of Antioch) Private (non-profit)/public Partnership (City of Alameda) Joint City/County Operated (Tri-Valley, Berkeley/ Albany/Piedmont/Emeryville)

38 ALTERNATIVES JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY PROS Economies of Scale More access to shelter More local control Potential to partner with established non-profit for service delivery Local control/oversight of operations and service delivery CONS Only moderate interest from cities Requires approval from LAFCO Participating agencies must be highly motivated.

39 ALTERNATIVES CITY-OPERATED Local Control PROS Smaller Service Area (faster response times) CONS Higher per capita cost Facility, personnel and equipment liabilities Higher risk Direct exposure to animal rights groups Likely less ability to deliver advocacy/outreach programs

40 ALTERNATIVES PRIVATE (NON-PROFITS) / PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP PROS Increase focus on public outreach and advocacy Potential for wider range of scope of services CONS Currently limited options/interest from non-profit organizations to partner with public agencies Increase in animal intake exposure/shelter capacity limitations Direct exposure to animal rights groups

41 ALTERNATIVES JOINT CITY/COUNTY OPERATED Local Control PROS Smaller Service Area (faster response times for Animal Control field operations) CONS Higher per capita cost Personnel and equipment liabilities to cities Higher risk Direct exposure to animal rights groups Likely less ability to deliver advocacy/outreach programs

42 IN SUM

43 CALL TO ACTION Continue with County Per Capita Cost-to-Value > Researched Models Service Improvements Alternatives: Limited-tono interest Future Contract Renewal New Performance Measures City of El Cerrito

44