An open letter to the KCMO City Council

A couple of weeks ago, an email went out from the person who overseas Kansas City animal control to animal control directors across the country asking for advice as the city was considering allowing for private control of its animal control shelter.   As the city continues to seek areas in its budget to cut costs, allowing for private control of the shelter is a possible solution to the high costs of running a shelter.

Members of the animal welfare community in Kansas City are welcoming the change.

In 2006, the KCMO animal shelter killed 97% of the dogs that it brought into the shelter.  In 2007, they killed 86% of the dogs that came through the door.  This is a huge number of dogs -- killed at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpaying community.  This is a number of dogs that barely makes Kansas City seem like a civilized community, much less a dog-friendly one.

Putting the shelter in the hands of the right organization or group of people would be an opportunity for Kansas City, MO to take a HUGE step forward in becoming a dog-friendly community.   It's one of those rare opportunities to really take some time to get it right.  KC should consider its options wisely.

There are many groups that are interested in helping  KCMO get this right. No More Homeless Pets has certainly become one of the leaders in the community in creating low-cost voluntary Spay/Neuter programs and Trap/Neuter/Release programs for ferel cats.   NMHPKC has embraced much of Nathan Winograd's No-Kill philosophy that has been so successful in many areas at eliminating the senseless killing of dogs and cats in communities. 

Kansas City Dog Advocates has also fully embraced the no-kill solutions, including helping cities to create responsible by-laws that encourage public safety, but are not restrictive in a way that uselessly takes animals out of good homes for silly "violations".  Such laws would be overly-restrictive pet limits, mandatory spay/neuter laws, and breed specific laws.  The group also helps push for better owner education and in promoting voluntary, low-cost spay/neuter programs.

There are also countless rescue groups, independent shelters, and humane societies that would love to get involved.

There is a possibility that no one group has all the resources necessary to completely create a no-kill (or at least low kill) shelter environment in Kansas City, MO.  But there are certainly the resources when all of the interested parties pool their resources together to make a substantial difference in our community.

KCMO would be wise to reach out to all of these interested parties to begin discussing solutions, visions, and ideas of what "could be".  Enough with the closed door policies, and lack of public information.  A meeting with these groups had been scheduled...but we all just received notice of its cancellation.  It appears as if they are shutting out the people who want to help the most and have the knowledge and resources to do so.

As for the animal welfare community, enough with the posturing.  This may be our one chance to get this right for Kansas City...all of us are smarter an any one group of us.

The 2008-2009 budget is approved.  The shelter is not closing any time in the next 12 months.  Let's get together and create a smart, viable solution for Kansas City.  This is no time to make a quick decision without talking with all the people who have a vested interest -- the people who have and are trying to make the shelter/rescue system work in Kansas City.  This is no time to sell out to the lowest bidder, or make the "easy" choice.  It is an opportunity to talk about the possibilities and opportunities with this change.  We have a great opportunity to create a long and lasting impact on the city -- let's do it right -- and get everyone involved.

UPDATE:

Christie has an interesting post over at the Pet Connection on King County WA, that is undergoing much of this same process following Nathan Winograd's assessment.  One great quote:

What’s next? Time will tell. Doing the same thing under the direction of the same people, only harder and with more money, usually doesn’t result in systemic change, and systemic change appears to be what’s called for.

Comments

[Becky]

Well, I do not have time to go over all of Winograd's presentation and book, but for those who have -- do not forget that he has plenty of ideas and methods for a shelter to MAKE MONEY -- enough even to PAY citizens to license their pets. (I know this was in his presentation, but do not remember if it was in his book.)

There are ways for a shelter to save a LOT of money, if not earn a profit, by following all of his steps and thinking outside of the box.

I vote that Michelle approaches this city w/ a proposal: Pay her $60,000/ yr as Director (sorry, that's a paycut for you.... ) and pay ME $35,000 to assist her. The proposal will establish how the city can either break even or possibly make a profit within 1 year. With some support of our policies, it CAN be done.

AND, would sure not be hard to show a kill rate FAR below KCMO's pathetic percentage.

[Marjorie]

Has anyone even tried contacting Winograd, to see if he wants to assist in the conversion? I mean, he might love this as an opportunity to show how a shelter can be turned around...a test case, of sorts, documented from beginning to success.

[Caveat]

Good thinking, Marjorie.

It's 'oversees', not 'overseas', I can't keep quiet any longer! Spellcheck doesn't pick up homonyms.

[Brent]

I know that attempts to reach Mr. Winograd are being made...He's a tough man to track down right now, but I know that he is being reached out to.

[s kennedy]

Systemic change or not, it is my understanding that despite non enforced MSN, the WA shelter still reduced their kill rate consistently over past years.
Staff shortage will always result in something being wrong. So if they could do that even with staff shortage, it doesn't seem like it was as bad as some made it sound. On the other hand, the shelter B says had previously killed 97% and reduced it to 86%, that place needs some big help.

[Christie]

Thanks for the link to Pet Connection.

Nathan Winograd is not hard to track down. The problem is, I believe, that he's often asked to come in and evaluate a shelter or an animal control department by members of the community or even an individual, but there has to be some body of support for the effort -- you can't just show up at the shelter door and say hi, I'm here to inspect you!

In King County, the county itself hired him to evaluate the shelter. In other places, the county has hired other consultants, such as HSUS in San Luis Obispo, CA.

I'm certainly not speaking for Nathan Winograd, but simply observing that without a coordinated, community-based plan, with a strong buy-in from large numbers of stakeholders -- multiple shelter and rescue facilities, someone representing animal control, be it someone from the department itself or someone in local government, pet owners, vets, etc -- these efforts can't succeed. That is because they are not about a shelter or a department, but about a community or a region.

Once a community-based plan is in place, there are funds available, such as from Maddie's Fund, to help develop the plan into a reality.

Again, speaking only for myself, I have seen a lot of reinvention of the wheel as each town or county starts from scratch, thinking its shelter/animal control problem is unique or an isolated incident.

The truth is, most of these situations have many, many counterparts across the country, and examples exist where dire statistics are turned around in one year or sometimes less, simply because someone, usually a new shelter/animal control director, has the will to do that.

This is one of the reasons I've started covering the various efforts to reform shelters and animal control departments across the country, to start identifying the patterns and pointing them out, so that people can see they are involved in a growing movement for shelter reform, and not just one community struggling with a bad situation.

[Brent]

I think in order for the community at large to get on board, the KCMO animal shelter is going to have to make some attempt to improve their situation first. They could make major changes quickly and easily. In fact, the 10 percentage point decrease in kill rates between 2006 and 2007 were almost completely due to the work of one person who cared. The AW community in KC would certainly get behind changes, and I think the rest of the community would soon follow. We're certainly not a unique situation here. We just have an animal control division that doesn't seem to care that thousands of dogs are being put down each year. It certainly doesn't have to be that way.

[Caveat]

Christie is correct - as with most of the issues around animal welfare, the shelter problem is not localized. It's a systemic, cultural problem which Redemption brought to light.

It's also true that without a formal invitation, consultants won't be able to do any studies or make recommendations.

So, before that can happen, you need lobbying to get local officials interested in a better way to do things. The two main concerns of municipalities are financial costs and liability, in my experience. They sweat these things day and night.

So, if you can prove that their costs will decrease, their liability won't be affected and their image will improve dramatically if they take some leadership, you will likely get their attention.

I do agree that the KCMO shelter sounds like a classic example of something that could be turned around if there is the will in the community at large to do that.

That would be a very good thing indeed.

[animaladvocate]

I have not been following this as closely as I should be but I do hope we are not talking about a 97% kill rate next year at this time. That is pathetic and embarrassing! I hope that the Kansas City government and citizens will rise up and help take care of these animals properly.

I have read Nathan Winograd's book and it sounds almost too good to be true. I volunteer at a local no kill shelter and it is really hard...I just hope it can work on a larger scale. People relinquish cats and dogs for the most ridiculous reasons and I think we need to educate the public about what their role is in this problem.

[Maggie Moo]

I think that more people should respect dogs!