Kansas City Private Shelter Good for City's Animals, still needs better civic support

Last March, KCMO signed an agreement to privatize the city's shelter operation which is now run by a for-profit company owned by Dr Wayne Steckelberg. The adoptions side of the sheltering operation is run by Half Way Home Pet Adoptions. Last week, Dr. Steckelberg was on the news talking about steps that are being taken in Kansas City, MO to move toward becoming a No Kill city.You can watch the video clip here. A second story appeared in the Kansas City Star on Tuesday.

 

Before I go any further, I want to state up front that the privatized shelter for KCMO has been an excellent move by the city. The city is currently paying $175,000 a year less for the privatized shelter vs the cost of running the shelter themselves. As the city faces a lot of tough economic decisions with the budget, this is money well saved.

 

Under the private shelter arrangement, adoptions are up 150% (from 978 adoptions in 2008, to 2498 in 2009) and euthanasia is down significantly (shelter numbers show a decrease of 35% -- which is close to the number in the KC Star article, but not near the 65% mentioned on the KCTV5 newscast).  The privatized shelter has been great for animals in Kansas City. The saved money has been great for taxpayers.

 

While I am excited by the good news, for animal lovers in KC, it is best to temper our enthusiasm. In order for us to truly become a no kill city, we must be honest about where we really are in our quest to become no kill. And in spite of Dr. Steckelberg's claims, we're really not close.  

In 2009, the shelter killed 3,114 dogs and cats (1821 dogs, 1293 cats) - which is way more than the 100 per month they said they need to save in order to get to no kill.  We don't know where this "100 per month" number comes from but KCMO impounded approximately 7500 dogs and cats this year.  The 90% save rate required to reach "No Kill" status would mean we save 6750 of them, needing to increase true adoptions by 200 per month.

There are two different ways to get to no kill -- and both have to work together in order to achieve success.  One, is increase adoptions. Half Way Homes is making good progress in this regard. The second, is minimize the number of animals coming into the shelter. Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low-cost spay/neuter option for low-income people at Spay/Neuter Kansas City. However, the other part of decreasing the number of animals coming into the shelter involves decreasing animal control's ability to take healthy, non-problems from homes and making them part of the shelter problem. 

There are also a couple of city laws and policies that are making it much harder for Kansas City to achieve its no kill goal.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter of all "pit bulls"

Of the dogs that were impounded, 21% (1086) were 'pit bulls'. 25% (270) of the pit bulls that were impounded were impounded for no other reason than because of the law passed in 2006 that mandated that all pit bulls be spayed or neutered. 686 pit bulls were euthanized in the shelter last year. If we could have prevented all of the pit bulls from coming in because of the ordinance we could have brought down the entire pit bull euthanasia rate by at least 25% -- and if you assume that for each 'pit bull' brought into the shelter replaced another dog that was there, you could have cut 'pit bull' euthanasia down 40% just be getting rid of the law.

 

"Performance Standards"

In August of last year, the city instituted a "performance standard" that required animal control officers to meet a quota of impounding a minimum of 20 animals each month. In the first 7 months of the year, animal control officers averaged bringing in 303 dogs each month. In the final 5 months, it was 338 dogs per month. So with the 'new performance standards', city animal control officers brought in 35 more animals per month that Half Way Homes had to handle and adopt out -- that's an additional 420 dogs a year. While some of these additional dogs are a good thing (additional cruelty/neglect charges, strays picked up), a large number of them are a cause for concern.  

It is possible, and even likely, that we could have cut shelter euthanasia by over 500 dogs just by eliminating these two policies.
 
If the shelter is going to have sustained success, it is not going to be enough to just adopt our way out of it -- we're going to have to minimize impounds as well. This means we need to keep up with aggressive low cost spay/neuter programs (Kansas City is fortunate to have a great low cost spay/neuter program in Spay/Neuter Kansas City) AND getting rid of policies and laws that are taking animals out of homes. And with the current 'performance standards" it will be virtually impossible for us to ever see a decrease in impounds.

In order to do this, we need not just the shelter doing its job, we need civic help as well --and we hope that animal control and the city council will work with us to get rid of these policies that are leading to increased shelter killing.

* Repeal the pit bull Mandatory Spay/Neuter

* Increase the pet limit (and don't confiscate healthy animals from homes that are above the pet limit) 

* Increase the hold period of tame cats from 2 to 5 days. 

* Allow people to care for feral cat colonies and actually encourage Trap-Neuter-Return.

* Get rid of the 'performance standards' that require animal control officers to impound a certain number of animals each month. 

 

The city must focus on the true pupose of animal control departments - protecting the public from dangerous animals and then animals from dangerous humans. Using taxpayer dollars to fund animal control officers to confiscate harmless, healthy animals from people is not a good use of city resources.
 
While great strides have been made now is not the time to sit on our laurels.  We're still a long way from no kill and it is important that the city maintain the contract of a privatized shelter so we can build on that success. While it is not imperative that Half Way Homes keep the contract, we cannot allow the city to take control of the shelter back.  Regardless of who runs the shelter, we cannot expect them to solely adopt our way to no kill. It is also important that the city leaders and the public know exactly where we stand in our quest to become a no kill city, so we can take the necessary steps to improve things further.The privatized shelter is a good first step. Improving animal control policies is a necessary next one.

 

 

Comments

[severe hypertension]

Do people realize we are all animals or is there a documented belief
that humans are not animals?

[eghtyslady]

I was just out at this shelter yesterday. Grant you this is the first time I've been there and if this is much improved over what it was then I would have died if I saw that. This place still has a long way to go in the sanitation dept as it just stinks to high heaven both inside and out! There is no place to walk the dogs and if I were a potential adopter I would be very turned off at the shape of this shelter. Kansas City should be ashamed of itself with so many smaller cities around here getting nice new shelter facilities!

[Brent]

Yes, unfortunately, the shelter is still not doing everything right and has a LONG way to go to be a well-run shelter. They do allow volunteers though which is helping some of the animals get out alive.

Make no mistake, basic cleanliness isn't something that requires a new shelter -- it requires the folks at the shelter to do their jobs and do the basic cleaning that is required of them doing their jobs.

[eghtyslady]

Oh yes, I agree that proper sanitation doesn't require a new shelter and requires that the shelter employees do their job. However, they don't appear to be doing a good job which makes me really question the vet that is managing this kennel. Where is his oversight in all of this? Who's evaluating his performance and what is he being evaluated on? I hope it's not just that more animals are getting adopted because I think that is due largely to THE volunteers and rescue groups getting animals out of there! Do the council members ever just show up unannounced to check the place out? I think I know the answer to that question.

[Brent]

I agree that the current shelter management isn't doing as good of a job as they could be. And I also agree that for the most part, at this point, they are having a lot of success because of the volunteers -- but keep in mind, under city control, they had no volunteers, so none of the animals were making it out alive.

I completely think that they city has taken the right step with allowing a private group to manage the shelter -- I think it's a definite improvement over how it was under city control. But I do think they would be wise to look for alternatives to who to manage the shelter for them, because I don't think the current management is doing a good job (or nearly as good as they could be).

I think there are several other organizations out there who might be interested in managing the shelter that would do a far better job....and I think we should push them and the city to partner to make the shelter the best it can be and not settle for something 2nd (or 3rd) rate.