KCMO Incenting ACO's to Seize Pets

Some of our folks over at KC Dog Advocates just released some news last night about some very disturbing news coming out of Kansas City, MO animal control. While some progress is being made in adopting out animals with the newly privatized KCMO shelter, some new animal control policies are going to make things even harder.

Here's the scoop:

On August 1st, the animal control department in Kansas City, MO implemented a new policy when it comes to evaluating their field officers. Effective now, animal control officers in KCMO will be required to issue a minimum of 15 summonses and impound a minimum of 20 animals per month.   

These minimum standards are being used as a management tool to address Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who are not performing their duties.  Getting GPS devices installed in the trucks was also considered but there was no room in the budget. 

With 18 full time field officers, 20 animals per month is a minimum of 360 animals per month (4,320 per year) that will be brought into the shelter.

Through July 21^st of 2009, Animal Control had impounded 4,137 animals – of those 1,636 of them were killed in the shelter.  With 1 out of every 3 animals that enters the shelter being killed, any increase in pets coming into the shelter – along with the new shelter management’s decision to increase fees for recovering an animal from the shelter during the biggest economic crisis of our lives -- will undoubtedly lead to an increase in kill rates in KCMO. 

We’re making too much progress to allow this to happen.

While yes, animal control needs to pick up stray animals, and animals that are suffering from cruelty/neglect, 384 animals (most marked as healthy, normal seeming animals) were confiscated in the first ½ of this year for basic (non-aggressive) animal control ordinance violations – nearly 3x the number (134) that were prosecuted for cruelty/neglect. We at KCDA keep hearing stories of animals getting confiscated from owners due to inadequate housing (even though Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s outreach program has free dog houses available to needy families), animals confiscated from owners because they are not altered under the mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bulls, and others that are confiscated because they cannot afford the fine associated with having not licensed their dog.

The new evaluation criteria will further increase the number of animals needlessly taken from homes for minor animal control violations.  Just this weekend numerous well fed, up-to-date on shots, altered cats were seized for nothing more than being over the city’s pet limit of four animals. For each of these cats that entered the shelter this past weekend, others in the shelter died to make room for them. This isn’t an acceptable option.

Instead of rewarding animal control officers for creating good outcomes for the owners and animals by offering assistance when needed or for scanning for microchips in the field so animals can get back home, the rewards system is now put in place to encourage animal control officers to bring animals back to the shelter where a large percentage of them end up dying.

If we are to seriously decrease the number of animals killed in our shelters, we must not only work on adoptions on the back end, but also on lowering the amount of dogs coming into the shelter whenever possible on the front end. This evaluation system runs counter to that goal.

Instead of evaluating officers on how many animals they bring in, how about these for better options for evaluating the quality of work for ACOs:

-- The number of low cost spay/neuter vouchers they have redeemed at Spay/Neuter Kansas City

-- The number of unvaccinated animals that get updated shots at low-cost shot clinics

-- The number of cruelty/neglect cases prosecuted

-- The number of animals without proper shelter that they were able to get proper shelter for using already-existing relationships with Spay/Neuter Kansas City’s Outreach program

-- The number of pet owners they got to license currently unlicensed animals

All would be far better alternatives to the current program...

We cannot continue incentivize animal control officer actions that unnecessarily lead to the increase in killing in our shelters. While animal control has a role and responsibility to get animals out of abusive and neglectful situations, and needs to do work to pick up truly stray dogs, there must be an emphasis on getting pets back into their rightful homes, and to keep them in their homes when possible. ACOs that have already proven themselves inept should be fired.  They should not be encouraged to go out and pick the low hanging fruit in order to meet some arbitrary quota.  Being rewarded for behavior that leads to more killing is a completely unacceptable form of ‘management”.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So how about it?  What other incentive/performance goals make sense to monitor ACO activity without encouraging them to take pets and bring them into the shelter? Please post some of your best ideas.

Comments

[Nathan Winograd]

In San Francisco, we had a staff bonus structure based on increases in lifesaving measurements: save rate, adoptions, spay/neuters, etc. It was also based on return rates, etc. to make sure our standards weren't being compromised.

We also incentivized the public: we paid pit bull owners $20 if they allowed us to spay or neuter their dogs for free, we provided lifetime free veterinary care for the pets of homeless people if they allowed us to spay or neuter their dogs for free, we paid people $5 if they allowed us to spay or neuter their cats for free. Before anyone says our community cannot afford that, we did an analysis and found that we could probably pay as much as $50 and still save money from reduced impounds (it was cheaper than taking in the offspring of those animals), but frankly we were afraid people would steal other people's pets. So we settled on the incentives above.

[themacinator]

this is one of the most bizarre programs i've ever heard of, honestly. in fact, before i read this, we were joking yesterday about "working on commission" - we took in so many animals over the counter that it felt like we were doing this. this is NOT the goal of animal services!

it sounds like kansas city already has some awesome programs- free dog houses and low cost s/n. why not work big picture instead of impounding animals- that's not good for anyone. it's high cost for the city, if they want to look at it that way, and we know it's high cost for the animals and families involved. preventing impounding animals is my approach- education and outreach- followups, etc. we've started to impound animals (if you can call it that) long enough to spay/neuter at whatever cost the owner can afford. they bring the dog the day before and pick it up after surgery. we offer it at cost, and they pay that and license fee. this helps people get it done, and in the meantime, we've had them fix their fence or whatever else is the issue.

wow. i just... this is a new one.

[Social Mange]

They're setting quota for living animals? That's just going to incent false seizures. Whoever thought up this KC program is whacked. Or completely incapable of determining which ACO is competent and which is not. Management failure written all over the bodies of dead animals.

[Social Mange]

If KC management wants to monitor their ACOs, management should GET OUT of their offices and GET IN the trucks with the ACOs. Ride with them for a week.

[Alice Harringtion]

Wow, this takes "out of control animal control" to a whole new level. Does it matter what species? Do you get more credit for a big dog than a little one? Do they also have a kill quota employees have to meet? What happens when they run out of animals? I can see it now though - when it comes time to hand out the incentive pay it will be deferred because there won't be any money. They will have spent it all on housing and killing the animals. I hope you all are screaming to your local elected officials about this idiocy. Why do we put people in charge of animal control that hate animals and people???

[Bear]

So if officers can't meet their quotas, then what happens? This is ridiculous. I agree, if management wants to see what's happening out there, they should BE out there. If impound numbers are going down, couldn't that be a GOOD sign that people are being more responsible, rather than that the ACOs aren't doing their jobs?

[Tom K]

If they have to meet a quota, the same lazy bullies who usually park their trucks in the shade and sleep or work second jobs on the sly will be snatching people's dogs out of their yards to make quota, then taking naps and moonlighting. That's not an improvement.

[JAL]

I have a friend who used to work for a county AC. The AC Director at the time instituted a quota policy.

So she tells me that they would drive 50 miles to the county's largest Indian reservation, let the first resident they saw know they were there and just wait until enough people brought unwanted pets to the truck, load up and go back and be done for the day.

She asserts that there was essentially no one checking on welfare, cruelty complaints, strays and at large or injured/killed animals. They could not make quota if they did.

Things are a hell of a lot better here now, but good lord, ANY time you dictate arbitrary rates of impoundment and seizure, the animals and people are going to pay a steep price.

[Pai]

In other words, they're planning to punish their employees if there is a reduction in cruelty cases or reasons to impound animals in their community.

What nutjob thought that would be a good idea?!

[Maryland Dog Federation]

The whole purpose of animal control SHOULD be to educate the public and keep pets in homes, not seize animals needlessly or promote wholesale government-sanctioned animal cruelty. What a costly drain on precious human and fiscal resources! This will have the most deleterious effect on lower-income pet owners, who may not have the funds to bail their pets out. Those pets will wind up a burden on the city, didn't need to be and, sadly, will probably wind up dead. Yes, some will be able to pay the fines, but I would like to see the fiscal impact study. I would rather see them giving out coupons for spays and neuters than bringing animals into the shelter needlessly. It costs far, far more to impound animals than it does to keep pets in homes while educating, and thereby creating better, pet owners. Do they expect to turn a profit with the expense minus the revenue? They will be sadly disappointed. I hope, when the taxpayers see how much this costs versus the return, they will scuttle this bad idea. Again, this approach is mean-spirited, myopic and counter-intuitive for any shelter or public safety professional worth their salt. Is it the elected officials that need educating, or is it the animal control department itself?

[Tammy Zaluzney]

While successful shelters are trying to lower intake by enacting creative solutions and providing life saving tools and resources for pet owners, these folks are instituting draconian policy that will be costly on every front, time, resources and lives. Where the greatest efforts have been made and successes acheived a compassionate commuity has been a significant part of the solution. This type of incentive program will certainly garner no good will from the community. This is a very bad idea.

[KC KS Kills Dogs]

I just hope that other cities in the area don't think this is a good idea and copycat these same draconian policies for their cities.

It is very obvious that city management is not involved in the field and has not taken the opportunity to go out with the inner city dog groups to see what the heck the real issues are.

Good job Brent and Michelle for getting this info out to the public!