|
|
In this article reprinted from the September-October 1998 issue of the HSUS magazine, Animal Sheltering, Nancy Lawson explores some key questions animal welfare organizations will want to ask themselves as they consider the pros and cons of contracting for animal control services.
Before your organization signs its first--or next--government contract for animal care and control services, take stock of how such a move will affect existing programs and goals.
BY NANCY LAWSON
In an ideal world, more local governments would recognize the importance of animal control and sheltering. The public would lend its wholehearted support to humane organizations. And shelters would receive all the money they need for housing, adoptions, cruelty investigations, field services, and humane education.
Of course, if this world actually existed, shelters would be obsolete, their missions already accomplished. Companion animals would be safe inside the homes of caring owners, and over- whelming public sentiment would lead to more strict laws intolerant of animal neglect and abuse.
Barring such a miracle, however, local governments and animal shelters around the country will continue to search for avenues of compromise. In the real world, most elected officials believe their first obligation is to provide their taxpaying constituents with affordable public services. Most humane organizations, on the other hand, believe their main function is to protect the animals in their communities regardless of cost.
Within these two missions lies an array of essential services--picking up and housing stray animals, responding to reports of neglect and animal bites, issuing citations for unlicensed animals--that are technically the responsibility of cities and counties but that often end up in the hands of those who care most about animal welfare. In many regions of the country, sheltering services have long fallen under the domain of private nonprofit agencies. But more recently, the trend toward "privatization"--the process of hiring companies and organizations outside the public sector to provide essential services such as garbage removal and public transportation--has prompted even more local governments to place not only sheltering services but also animal control duties in the laps of private organizations.
Signing on the Dotted Line
The motivations behind contracting are as different as the communities themselves: Some elected officials turn to outside organizations to take advantage of their expertise and experience. Others outsource the responsibility because they lack the resources to build a facility or are unwilling or unable to respond to citizen complaints. Still others have viewed contracting as a bargain, a way to get less expensive labor out of people who will do anything to help animals--even if it means subsidizing public dollars with private donations.
Humane organizations often sign contracts so they can work more closely with government to make positive changes for animals, increase their presence in the community, and, most importantly, directly help a greater number of animals by enforcing laws against abuse and neglect.
But many of these nonprofit organizations take on government contracts without first evaluating the feasibility of such monumental new tasks or the effect these tasks will have on current operations. Some even renew contracts at unfair prices, fearing that abandoning their agreements would leave the animals to an uncertain future. "Humane societies started taking over [animal care and control] years ago because they saw the conditions that municipal shelters used to be in," says Marcia Mayeda, director of animal services for the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley in California. "They felt that if they didn't do it, it was going to be done really poorly, so they took it over. But they did so at a price, both literally and figuratively."
Without sufficient funds for animal control and sheltering contracts, humane organizations end up in tenuous financial positions that threaten their standards of operation. And whether humane groups are dipping into donor dollars to help subsidize public services or losing donors who don't understand their enforcement role, the financial consequences can be serious enough to drain the resources usually reserved for private initiatives.
"It concerns me when I see nonprofit humane societies doing animal control at a loss, because, in the long term, that will really eat away at [your private programs]," says Mayeda, who has helped negotiate contracts in both California and Kansas. "Donations being used to fund animal control work could be going toward an endowment to build a new facility or a mobile spay/neuter clinic for low-income neighborhoods, or toward developing an education program or lobbying for more effective cruelty legislation. But instead, many shelters are putting it into services like picking up dead dogs or writing tickets to pet owners."
Contracting to house animals is also a costly endeavor that can take a toll on the long-term goals of a private organization. If properly funded, however, such arrangements can benefit the government, the shelter, and the community at large. The Humane Society of Vero Beach, Florida, provided public sheltering services for about 40 years before requesting--and receiving--more equitable funding from local government.
"We began to realize that the work we were doing was essentially a governmental function from a public-health standpoint, that the government is mandated to provide public-health services, and that animal control housing is part of that," says Joan Carlson, executive director. Though the organization still subsidizes some public animal services, those subsidies do not come at the expense of the agency's most important work, she says. "As long as we're able to maintain our private programs--our adoption services and education--and still do the animal control housing, then it works out fine," says Carlson. "But we never want to get to the point where our private programs or our real mission is undermined by the public health needs."
Bite Off Only What You Can Chew
That's not to say that private organizations should drop existing contracts with government or refuse to take on government services. While some feel that nonprofit humane organizations should keep their focus and their funds on their missions--and leave governments to protect public health on their own--others recognize that the provision of government services and the animal- protection goals of nonprofits often coincide. For example, providing animal control and sheltering services to a community offers humane groups an excellent opportunity to protect more animals and educate more people than they might otherwise reach. "An animal control [contract] allows you the chance to positively affect all those animals [outside the shelter]," says Bill Garrett, executive director of the Atlanta Humane Society in Georgia. "When you prevent animals from being chained up with no shade or food, you have a chance to literally affect the health and well-being of thousands of them, whereas inside the shelter you might affect the health and well-being of dozens of animals."
By contracting with local government, a humane organization can also heighten its credibility in the eyes of public officials--an important step toward legitimizing not just the organization itself but also its programs. For example, a contractor's request for spay/neuter funding is more likely to garner a favorable response than the same request from an organization with no ties to government. And when making such requests, those organizations that already provide animal control services have plenty of statistics at their fingertips to back up their proposals.
A constructive relationship with government has even helped the Atlanta Humane Society convince Georgia's Department of Natural Resources to fund housing for wild animals and address wildlife issues. "It's always nice to get paid for something you do anyway," says Garrett. "We just did it by simply working with these people and saying, 'This could save you guys a little time and effort. You have a place to leave your confiscated cougar for two or three days until you can do the court releases. We'll provide that. We've been doing it anyway.' "
Access to both donor dollars and county funds has enabled the Humane Society of Carroll County, Maryland, to build a highly effective animal control division that benefits both the animals and the community, says Executive Director Nicky Ratliff. "If we were totally county-run, I don't think our organization could have ever reached our level of service, resources, and training," she says. "We could not be as good as we are, so the county has benefitted immensely by having the humane society run animal control."
Putting it All Under One Roof
Some organizations consider animal control services outside their purview but see sheltering services as integral to their mission. In Buffalo, New York, the SPCA serving Erie County houses animals for up to 17 municipalities at a time because many animal control officers in the area have nowhere else to go, says Executive Director Barbara Carr. "We can provide a better place collectively for the sheltering of lost and stray animals than individual townships can," she says.
The Mississippi Animal Rescue League (MARL) started taking on government contracts about eight years ago after the citizens of Pearl, Mississippi, sought an alternative to their county impoundment facility, which was selling unclaimed animals to researchers. Soon word of the contractual relationship between MARL and Pearl spread to other municipalities, and MARL now houses animals for nine communities in the Jackson area. Through these arrangements, the animals receive better care and medical attention, and MARL has an opportunity to educate more people in the community, says Debra Boswell, director. "It can be a real burden on the agency doing it, but for us, there are more pluses than minuses," she says. "That's not to say that it would be the same everywhere, because some communities have very good animal control programs and therefore animal control staff . . . but in our community, we feel it's the best thing for the animals."
Organizations that take on sheltering contracts, especially those in rural areas with fewer resources, can also help educate and train ACOs in neighboring jurisdictions and thereby extend the network of humane professionals in a given region, Boswell says. "When ACOs come into our shelter, they see how the animals are treated here and how they're cared for, and they see the attitudes of our staff," she says. "That's a big plus. At a certain level, we've been a support base for them."
While the impact of a nonprofit's involvement in government animal services programs can be far-reaching, it's critical that you take a hard look at your own organization before renewing a government contract or entering into an agreement in the first place. Remember, too, that the answer to contracting is often more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no"; negotiations can play an important role in the process. If government officials balk at the cost of your services, you can either walk away from the negotiating table or work even harder to convince them your programs are worth every dime. By answering some of the following questions, you'll be better able to decide whether or not providing government services is an effective way to accomplish your mission.
1. Is Your Concern for Animals Enough to Make it Work?
Humane Organizations have long felt compelled to perform sheltering and animal control services in their communities because they have trusted few, if any, other entities to do so correctly and humanely. And that sentiment is not lost on elected officials, says Jim Tedford, executive director of the Humane Society of Rochester and Monroe County in New York. "Oftentimes, government takes advantage of the fact that we're so passionate about what we do, and they know that we're going to do it whether they pay us or not," says Tedford. "And we do. Most of us have been working at a loss in these contracts for a number of years, so it's worked for government."
Unfortunately, these contractual arrangements frequently work to the detriment of humane organizations, say many directors. Depending on an organization's mission and the nature of community support, a government contract could end up hurting the very animals the organization is trying to help. "I have heard more than one board of directors say, 'Oh, we have to continue to [provide services], even though we're losing money, because if we don't the animals will suffer,' " says Garrett. "And I point out to people all the time, 'Who will take care of the animals when you bleed yourself to death?' "
Running a municipal animal services operation requires a lot more than compassion; it calls for business know-how, abundant human resources, sufficient facilities and equipment, and a constructive relationship with both the government and the board of directors. And that combination is often a tough one to come by, says Arizona Secretary of State Betsy Bayless, a former Maricopa County supervisor who explored privatization options when she became distressed with county animal control. Unlike national or regional vendors contracting to provide health care, garbage removal, or transportation services, humane organizations are usually small, locally oriented nonprofits that lack the resources and staffing to simply add a whole new segment to their operations, Bayless says.
Animal contracting allows shelters to do more for animals, but it also brings with it added burdens. For that reason, Bayless eventually dropped the idea of privatizing animal services in her county and instead lent her support to the existing animal control department, in the hopes that the new director at the time could improve the current program. (For more information on working with existing animal control agencies, see the sidebar beginning on page 8.) As Bayless discovered in her unsuccessful search for a private organization to provide animal control services, much more than a love of animals is required to do the job right. Drawing on her experience as an elected official with concern for the animals in her community, Bayless says local governments must exercise extreme caution when choosing an organization to handle animal services. "It's a big management operation," she says. "It's also a health care and sheltering operation. And all of these aspects need to be handled professionally."
Successful humane groups such as the Mississippi Animal Rescue League have employed the same philosophy when broaching the subject of government contracts. To avoid sacrificing the soul of the organization for the sake of a poorly funded government service, MARL is refusing a contract with the city of Jackson until city officials agree to provide enough funding for additional staff and a new facility.
But even though MARL doesn't have the resources to care for all the animals in its region, the shelter still fulfills its mission of caring for as many animals as possible through its contracts with smaller municipalities in the Jackson area. In these suburban communities, industrial tax bases are so insubstantial that officials are barely able to pay for basic public services, let alone build shelters. Without MARL's services, many animals in these locales would end up in crude holding pens with no one to care for them during off-hours. Although attempts to protect all the animals in a large city like Jackson would strain MARL's current resources, the organization is well equipped to shelter animals from these smaller communities, says Boswell.
2. Will a Government Contract Bring More Money Into Your Shelter?
Despite the fact that many nonprofits with contracts end up subsidizing public services, some humane groups nonetheless see dollar signs when they explore the possibility of working with the government. But just as contracting to help more animals outside the shelter will be ineffective without the proper resources, signing an agreement with the intention of bolstering existing operations is bound to backfire.
It's true that if the books are already balanced and the price of the contract is right, humane groups may be able to take advantage of discounts, complimentary services, and government buying power to purchase trucks, gasoline, and other supplies. But contracting organizations should not count on public funds to supplement their existing programs. That's because, as many nonprofits have found out the hard way, the extra funds are not discretionary dollars. Every cent obtained through a contract goes toward caring for more animals, purchasing more kennels and cages, hiring more employees, enforcing animal control ordinances, and purchasing or leasing vehicles and other new equipment.
Even those who operate animal services as a business say it's an unprofitable venture if done correctly. "Every year that we have been here, we have placed every bit of money that we make back into the shelter," says Don Grub, a retiree who houses animals for five counties at his private, for-profit shelter in Greenup, Kentucky. "It's for very, very little profit. There is no money in [animal care and control]."
Because no county in his area can afford to build a facility, Grub has added onto his Tri-County Animal Shelter seven times in ten years. The costly additions are necessary to provide better care for the animals, says Grub, who adds that his primary motivation in operating the shelter is to help both people and animals in his community. "Our county was shooting the animals, and they had just a tiny dirt hole to place them in," Grub says. "It was terribly inhumane. I just felt sorry for the animals and got involved in it."
Elsewhere, private companies that try to profit from animal control and sheltering most often fail or give up before they start when they discover that profits are virtually nonexistent, or that animal control and sheltering is more complex than they had anticipated. That's what happened to a small start-up company that took on sheltering contracts for five municipalities in California's Santa Clara Valley. "It was a big mistake," says Mayeda, whose group took over the contracts after two years. "They just wanted the business, and they really underbid us. They bid much lower than what it costs to provide this service, and wound up going out of business."
If for-profit organizations can't make money on animal services, nonprofits certainly can't expect that contracting will automatically fortify private initiatives such as subsidized sterilization services and outreach programs. It's possible that in the long run, adequately funded contracts with government may help organizations pursue their private programs, since they will not have to spend charitable dollars to supplement public services. But many humane groups fall into the trap of assuming that in the short term, public dollars can be applied immediately to existing private services, says Garrett. "They see all this money, and they're struggling already, and they don't realize they can't use this money," he says. "It's money for a service. If I'm a car dealer and someone comes in and gives me twenty thousand dollars for a car, it's not like I've got twenty thousand dollars to do anything I want. I've got to pay the manufacturer. I've got to pay my people. So I ask everybody, 'If you haven't balanced your own budget in the last several years, how are you going to handle this?' "
3. Are You Ready to Enforce Laws?
Even An Abundance Of physical and financial resources doesn't guarantee an organization will succeed in government contracting. The right mind-set is key to providing a government service that not only satisfies elected officials and taxpayers but also complements the organization's core mission to protect animals. While it's true that running an animal control department or a shelter for strays allows a humane group greater access to the community at large, the role also carries with it a greater level of responsibility. Shelters that have never confiscated animals as part of a cruelty case or sent out ACOs to chemically immobilize an animal need to examine possible ramifications and be prepared to defend their actions.
Does your shelter have the resources and the wherewithal to enforce animal control laws?
In working closely with government to enforce laws and municipal codes, humane organizations have a better chance than they otherwise might to influence animal protection legislation. Still, animal control agencies and contractors must enforce laws and codes that, while intended to protect animals, are nevertheless often misunderstood by the public. By responding to civil complaints about barking dogs while also investigating criminal complaints about animal cruelty, an organization could blur the lines that many shelters try to draw in the public mind, say some directors.
Many humane groups mistakenly assume public dollars will help bolster existing private services.
To illustrate the point, Mayeda uses the example of a town that allows only three dogs per residence. The local humane society might not concern itself with the citizen who owns four dogs, as long as the animals' well-being can be guaranteed. But faced with the same situation, the animal control department could be forced to cite or fine the owner. Says Mayeda: "If we do have to go out to counsel somebody . . . sometimes they'll say, 'You're the humane society! What do you want me to do--get rid of my animal?' . . . They think we're being overly harsh or unsympathetic when we counsel them about their excess animals and the problems they're causing."
While a relationship with government will likely affect a humane group's role in the community, it will certainly change operations within the shelter's walls. For instance, a humane group taking on an animal housing contract must be prepared to care for many more cats, dogs, and other animals with unknown histories. And its representatives must be prepared to educate government decision-makers, says Sally Fekety, director of animal sheltering issues for The HSUS. "Local governments seeking proposals for animal services may try to set lower euthanasia rates in the language of the contracts, hoping to quell those in the community who complain that the numbers are too high," Fekety says. "If elected officials see a 70-percent euthanasia rate at a public shelter in their community and a 30-percent euthanasia rate at a private shelter, they might come to the false conclusion that the private shelter can take over and solve the problem."
Organizations responsible for animal control must also be prepared to euthanize animals deemed dangerous or threatening to public safety. And even though most members of the community understand the need to euthanize dangerous dogs, criticism from a vocal minority less clear on the concept is inevitable, says Garrett, who, like others in his field, is routinely called names such as "butcher" or "murderer."
Humane agencies that contract for animal control must enforce laws that are often misunderstood by the public, but with that responsibility comes the opportunity to influence new legislation.
As a government contractor handling both animal control and sheltering for its county, the Humane Society of Carroll County recently had to euthanize a dog who had bitten several people. The dog's owner was devastated by the decision, making the job of euthanasia even more difficult, says executive director Nicky Ratliff. "It doesn't always make you feel good," Ratliff says. "The public doesn't always agree with your position. But you have to be willing to make those hard choices."
4. How Will Contracting Affect Your Relationship With Supporters and Other Citizens?
Because of misconceptions of the mission and duties of animal control agencies, humane organizations considering contracts with government should attempt to win public support for the cause of animal control services with their newsletters, special mailings and other educational activities. But to stem the tide of critics who would still insist on disparaging organizations that enforce animal control laws, some groups are now attempting to draw clear distinctions between their housing and enforcement departments. Leaders of the Cedar Bend Humane Society in Waterloo, Iowa, are planning to differentiate between their animal control department and their private programs by giving animal control a separate phone number and a new name. "We want the public to dissociate us to a certain degree, just to know that there is a division between animal control and the humane society," says Executive Director Jean Burr.
A similar dividing line has already been drawn at the Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley, where ACOs staff a separate booth in the building to take care of owner reclaims, licenses, citations, and other animal control duties. They've even chosen a new name for their division: South Bay Animal Control Services. The arrangement resulted from a chronic public-relations and fund-raising problem the organization experienced after assuming animal control duties in eight cities several years ago. When confused citizens began seeing ACOs with humane society badges performing government services, they concluded that tax dollars were fully funding the nonprofit organization and that private donations were no longer necessary.
Moreover, some citizens who saw the humane society's name on badges and trucks had an opposite but equally damaging reaction, harboring unrealistic expectations of the agency because of their assumptions about humane organizations. Members of the public were upset to learn that the humane society couldn't perform services beyond those it had been paid to provide; for instance, ACOs could not pick up injured birds because city officials had excluded that costly service from the contract. Consequently, humane society employees who instructed citizens to deliver injured birds to the shelter or to nearby wildlife rehabilitators were often met with surprise and anger.
Even worse than not providing services that the public expects is providing services that otherwise supportive citizens neither expect nor desire. In a recent case handled by Mayeda's organization, ACOs issued a written warning to a woman whose ten cats were creating a nuisance in neighbors' yards. All were spayed and neutered and well cared for, but officers had to enforce the municipal codes. "Our officers were doing the jobs that we're hired to do and expected to do," says Mayeda. "The woman turned out to be a large donor to the humane society; she had donated three thousand dollars the year before. She called our executive director, very angry, and she's not giving us any more money. And it's because 'the humane society' was out there doing this--it said 'humane society' on the uniform and 'humane society' on the warning we issued her."
Of course, by taking on law enforcement responsibility, humane organizations can make a difference for neglected or abused animals--work that can't be measured in dollars. Still, those that provide animal control services have often faced the uncomfortable prospect of citing known donors or influential members of the community for violations. Ratliff has cited members of her own board of directors for violating restraint laws, and once thought she might get fired for refusing to reveal who had initiated a complaint against a board member's friend. These kinds of situations present private contractors with more tough choices: Is it better to be fair and risk erosion of donor support, or to play favorites and risk losing credibility?
5. How Will a Contract Affect Your Autonomy?
Entering a contractual relationship with government can also restrict a humane group's autonomy if the organization is not careful to protect it. Taking on a municipal animal services contract could mean taking on government mandates incongruous with the organization's practices or goals. Shelters may be asked to revise their adoption procedures, for example, or change the time allotted for stray-holding periods. Government officials might even try to dictate hours of operation and euthanasia policies if humane organizations fail to stipulate in their contracts that they have the final say on such issues.
"Any time you accept a county [or city] contract for sheltering, you're not as autonomous as you might have been if you were a private facility with your own building," says Ratliff. "If you are the county animal control authority, you may have to have some really clear-cut reasons to not adopt a dog to a citizen, so you can't be quite as picky. Your gut feeling can't always prevail when you're running a [government] facility."
When MARL submitted proposals for sheltering contracts to the city of Jackson, Mississippi, the government handed back a long list of conditions that MARL wasn't ready to accept. City officials wanted to set the shelter's operational hours, designate what days it would close for general maintenance work, and dictate who could euthanize animals.
When negotiating an animal sheltering contract, be sure you have the cage space and other resources necessary to fulfill the commitment you're about to make.
When public dollars are being poured into a service, however, government officials may have a right to some say in certain operational functions. That's why it's imperative that organizations contracting for animal services explain their policies and set their own limits before negotiating a contract. For example, shelter leaders might insist on retaining their high adoption standards in exchange for agreeing to pick up the extra cost of long holding periods. If they can back up their policy decisions with evidence illustrating benefits for both animals and the community--as well as savings over the long haul--humane organizations will be more successful in maintaining their own high standards.
6. How Can You Show Your Importance as a Public Service?
One of the problems many animal protection organizations face in their dealings with government is that elected officials tend to get so caught up in applying the most grease to the squeakiest wheels that they often forget about those services that are already fine-tuned. When the Atlanta Humane Society began contracting with the government more than two decades ago, strays were pervasive in the city and the need for animal services was obvious. Dogs elicited more complaints than high taxes, potholes, and problems in schools. But many years and many dollars later, the animal control and sheltering situation is in such good shape that Garrett now has a hard time convincing some elected officials of the continued need for his organization.
Keeping public officials aware of the programs they are funding is critical to maintaining their support.
"In our last negotiating session," he says, "the county commissioner looked me right in the eye and said, 'I don't understand why we should spend all this money on animal control services. I hardly ever get any complaints.' I said, 'You just made my best point. We're doing a good job.' "
Keeping elected officials and public administrators aware of the programs they are funding is critical to maintaining public support, says Diane Allevato, executive director of the Marin Humane Society in California. Decision-makers should receive regular mailings and should be invited to events and tours of the organization's facility. "If they're not [directly] providing the program, they can quickly become distanced from it," Allevato says, "so they see themselves as just giving away money."
To avoid digging into their own coffers to subsidize government functions, humane groups first must show public officials that animal control and sheltering are government functions in the first place. Some organizations have lobbied to have their departments fall under the auspices of the public-health or public-safety divisions in their locales. "I've worked very, very hard to finally get our organization under the public-safety budget," says Ratliff, "because when you're doing animal control, it's public safety. When you're rounding up stray animals, it's public safety. When you're housing animals that may be running along the highways or biting children, it's public safety. And public safety gets more funds."
By categorizing government services as a public-health necessity and keeping those services distinct from private programs, humane groups can also fend off critics who decry the use of taxpayer dollars for animal services, says Carlson. Recently, in Vero Beach, a local organization for homeless people was denied public funding, prompting accusations from citizens that their community was more interested in supporting animal organizations than it was in servicing human needs. "The commissioners came to our defense because their position was that they fund the humane society for strictly public-health purposes, and if the humane society doesn't do the service, then the city has to do it," Carlson says. "And [they recognized] that it would cost more to do the service themselves."
7. Are You Ready to Play Hardball?
Nonprofits are under pressure to perform at a high standard with fewer dollars and resources than many other organizations. But just because they are charitable groups doesn't mean they cannot earn a profit; it simply means that the profits must be funneled back into the programs the organizations were established to provide. And while it may hurt emotionally to refuse an animal control or sheltering contract, it's extremely important to approach relationships with government from a business perspective. "You're going to have to play hardball," says Garrett. "If you get into contracts of any kind, you have to think in terms of business, not emotions."
Humane groups taking on government contracts must demand to be treated like other vendors, pointing out that they have the same right to appropriate funding as the companies that pour sand on icy roads or pave public highways. Says Garrett: "I simply say that if the city asks for a bid on paving ten miles of road, and a contractor says it costs a hundred thousand dollars, the city is not going to come back and say, 'Well, we're only going to pay eighty thousand.' Because the contractor will say, 'Well, you only get eight miles of road then.' "
Often, the wake-up call for government officials comes when they are forced to determine the potential cost of running their own animal services operations. After granting a request for emergency funding from the Humane Society of the High Plains last year, city officials in Hays, Kansas, decided to explore other options for future contracting. They researched the funding levels of animal control agencies in cities of comparable size, only to arrive at the same conclusions that many humane groups around the country have known for years: "The city couldn't do it for even nearly what we were doing it for," says Juli Reiss, executive director. "They couldn't possibly do it for less than a hundred thousand dollars, and we were only asking for [about] seventy thousand." In the end, the government landed right back where it had started, with the city and the humane society finally agreeing on a three-year contract that both parties could live with.
Similarly, when the Humane Society of Vero Beach approached the government for more equitable funding four years ago, the organization asked local officials to investigate what it would cost to run their own facility or to contract with another agency. The tactic worked. "They did go out for bid," says Carlson, "and I believe they got [proposals from] one boarding kennel and two veterinarians who would only be open five days a week and at the end of [the holding period,] they would not provide any euthanasia. More or less, it showed the county that either they needed to build their own facility and their own program, or they needed to fund our program."
8. How Far Are You Willing to Go to Get What You Need?
Some organizations have resorted to more extreme measures to force the hand of elected officials. As executive director of the Knox County (Tenn.) Humane Society in the late 1980s, Jim Tedford went so far as to lock the gates of the shelter when the city cut off his funding. For six years the shelter had seen no increase in funding, but continued to house animals for both the city and county animal control departments. City officials had suggested they might raise the budget if voters passed a proposed tax hike, but passage of the tax referendum came and went without the increase. Meanwhile, the humane society contract had expired and the organization was providing services on a month-to-month basis--until the finance department suddenly stopped issuing checks altogether.
"If the city wasn't going to give us enough funds to provide optimum care for these animals, then we weren't going to provide care at all. If we couldn't do it right, we would rather not do it."
Faced with no funding and no one listening to their pleas for help, Tedford and the shelter's board president decided to put a chain and padlock on the front gate of the facility. When trucks full of animals began lining up outside, however, Tedford opened the gate to let the ACOs enter--with the caveat that they not pick up any more animals until they found an alternate place to house them. "It was tough, and it was cold," he says. "We started getting calls from people saying, 'How can you close your doors to animals in need?' But our contention was that if the city wasn't going to give us enough funds to provide optimum care for these animals, then we weren't going to provide care at all. If we couldn't do it right, we would rather not do it. And so if somebody was to blame for this, it was the city."
If your shelter begins renegotiating a housing contract, would you go so far as to close your doors to animals to get a fair deal?
After a week-long standoff that included televised debates, the city liaison sat down with the humane society attorney to negotiate the contract. The city at first threatened to contract the services to a private kennel, but the kennel owner quickly backed out after learning that the work involved caring for 14,000 animals a year and euthanizing many of them. When the two sides finally reached a fair price, the city made up for what it lacked in cash by repaving the shelter parking lot and putting a new roof on the building.
It was a lesson the government learned the hard way, and one that Tedford took with him when he became executive director of the Louisiana SPCA. There, the New Orleans City Council tried to cut the organization's budget for animal control and sheltering by $100,000, and the SPCA campaigned vigorously against the reduction, asking board members to meet privately with council members and recruiting SPCA supporters to mail postcards of protest. "At the budget hearing," says Tedford, "we said, 'Here's a map of the city. If you're going to cut our budget by one-seventh, then you pick which one-seventh of the city we stop covering.' " Once again, the strategy worked, and the budget stayed intact.
When an organization stands up for its rights, it should also be ready and willing to lose a contract. Calling the bluff of the government doesn't always result in more funding; sometimes, as in the case of the Benton-Franklin Humane Society, it results in a dropped contract. The Pasco, Washington-based organization was rebuffed after requesting a funding increase for an expansion project to accommodate the growing number of animals being brought to the shelter, says Kirby Morrison, the organization's operations manager. Unwilling to help pay for something they wouldn't own, government officials from the three cities using the shelter decided to put the contract out to bid. In the end, they chose a private boarding facility with no animal control experience and a building half the size of the humane society shelter, says Morrison. "They did it to save the taxpayers money," he says. "They wanted what they called 'bare-bones service,' and they're getting the bare-bones service right now. [With us] they were getting not just the enforcement but the educational end of it, too."
Without government contracts to worry about now, Benton-Franklin Humane Society workers have a lot more time to focus on humane education and other private programs, says Morrison. In the meantime, however, workers also report receiving more complaints and seeing more strays on the street. "And with strays running loose, that means they're going to multiply, and . . . we're going to have to pay the price three to five years from now when we have to start over again."
|
|
