- 5 of the 9 Board Members
![5 of the 9 Board Members]()
![4 of the ACC Board Members]()
- 4 of 9 ACC Board Members
While the recent AC&C Board Meeting bore a predictable similarity to all previous Board meetings — with Management claiming that things are great and getting better every day — there was one difference.
Some things have actually gotten better:
A Full Board of Directors. No empty seats. Chairman Patrick Nolan expects all board members to show up or (in the case of the 3 government directors) to send representatives. No texting allowed.
The Largest Staff Numbers, ever: After a “huge” increase in staffing, AC&C Executive Director Risa Weinstock reports that the AC&C will “stabilize” its numbers, focusing on improving skills and finalizing the AC&C’s “mission and strategy.”
AC&C Executive Director Risa Weinstock
At last, a Medical Director: The AC&C has filled this empty long-vacant yet crucial position. The new Medical Director is Dr. Lisa Hara Levin.
Dr. Lisa Hara Levin
No more “Cruelty” Seizures Lingering at the AC&C: As of January 1, 2014 NYPD assumed sole responsibility for Humane Law Enforcement. The ASPCA will provide forensic expertise and care for the animals seized by NYPD as well as animals the AC&C suspects of being (and ASPCA confirms are) cruelty victims. The AC&C no longer will hold cruelty victims. As Weinstock observed, the AC&C held cruelty seizures “for too long which was not a good outcome.”
Changing the AC&C’s Image: Weinstock said “communications has been huge” in 2013. With the pro bono help of outside professionals, the AC&C launched its “New York’s Kindest” campaign to engage the public to “Adopt. Donate. Volunteer.” The AC&C is rebranding itself as the place “where you should be if you want to adopt” rather than the place to surrender animals.
Increased Fundraising Activities: In addition to new on-line and direct mail campaigns, the AC&C holds frequent fundraising events as well as being the beneficiary of events hosted by third-parties.
Statistics: Placements (i.e., direct adoptions and transfers to rescue groups) are up. Euthanasia was reported to be at an all time low (16.75% of Intake). At face value, the numbers look very good.
All that all sounds great …. but …. and there’s always a “but” when it comes to the AC&C… there were far too many key issues that Weinstock either ignored or finessed during her hour-long PowerPoint presentation. (The AC&C has not yet posted the slides from that presentation. When they do, we’ll provide a link.)
ACCOUNTING FOR EVERY AC&C ANIMAL: Weinstock reported that 28,917 dogs and cats entered the shelter last year. Of that number, 21,017 were “placed” (meaning, adopted or went to rescue). Another slide showed that 4,843 dogs and cats were euthanized. Weinstock didn’t mention what happened to the balance of the dogs and cats.
A public attendee (DANA MONSKY) calculated that number to be 3,057. What happened to them?
Public Commentator Dana Monsky
Weinstock answered that they were either returned to their owners, still in the shelter, or were “exotics” (animals other than dogs and cats). Weinstock obviously misspoke because the slides in question dealt exclusively with dogs and cats.
But Weinstock’s confusing answer underscores how AC&C statistics must be clear, accurate, understandable and complete. The public expects the AC&C to account for every animal entering the shelter. It can’t cherry pick what it wants to report..
Unfortunately, the AC&C has a history of cherry picking.
CONFIDENCE IN AC&C STATISTICS: The AC&C claims it is “committed to transparency and honesty.” But as Shelter Reform Action Committee recently learned, for years the AC&C erased the deaths of thousands of dogs and cats from their published statistics. These are the so-called DOH-HOLD animals whose numbers are kept secret to this day. (See Koslow Statement 1.30.14 to ACC Board.)
Under a Freedom of Information Act request, Shelter Reform Action Committee asked for records showing exactly how many DOH-HOLD dogs and cats died (and lived) from 2006 to date.
The AC&C and the DOH responded that no responsive documents exist. They haven’t a clue what those numbers are. Sorry.
That response is incredible.
THE LOOMING “NO KILL” DEADLINE: Even though Weinstock didn’t mention it, there’s a clock ticking. The Mayor’s Alliance has promised that the AC&C will be “no kill” by next year. No one should underestimate the pressure on the AC&C to claim “Mission Accomplished” in 2015.
Actually, the AC&C will have a lot of wiggle room, because a “no kill” shelter can continue to kill animals as long as the animals killed are labeled “untreatable” (for either medical or behavior conditions). The AC&C can claim that animals it kills are too sick or too dangerous to leave the shelter alive. Or they can kill DOH-HOLD animals like JAKE, sweep their deaths under the rug, and if challenged, claim “The DOH made me do it”. Nor has there been any indication that the AC&C will abandon its policy of killing feral cats simply because they’re feral.
MEDICAL CARE/DISEASE REDUCTION: In her first month on the job, Dr. Lisa Hara Levin made frequent visits to AC&C shelters and receiving centers to meet the staff and observe operations. At the board meeting she spoke passionately of her primary goal: to reduce disease at the AC&C.
Dr. Levin may not have realized yet what a bear she’s got on her hands. Even her predecessor – a recognized shelter disease expert (Dr. Stephanie Janeczko) – couldn’t make a dent in the AC&C disease rate.
We have no doubt that Dr. Levin will try. She explained that reducing disease requires more than cleaning protocols. The AC&C has to reduce stress because stress reduces an animal’s immune system.
Weinstock said that the AC&C pipes in soothing music to calm the animals, and dogs and cats have toys in their cages.
Very good. But neither Weinstock nor Levin spoke of the major factor that causes stress: Lack of Space.
The AC&C’s doesn’t have enough space to properly house all its animals, to exercise its dogs and cats, and to create effective isolation wards.
If she hasn’t already, Dr. Levin will learn that it’s fruitless to ask the DOH for help with the space problem. That’s because the DOH’s position is that there is no problem. After all, if the AC&C has a space problem, then why the hell doesn’t the AC&C have shelters in the Bronx and Queens?
Take the example of the Manhattan shelter which has a large, empty garage that’s been left to deteriorate. For almost 4 years people have suggested that the garage be renovated to provide crucially needed extra space. The DOH isn’t interested in spending the money. Presumably if the AC&C wants to use the garage, then it’s up to the AC&C to secure private funding to renovate the space. (NOTE: Every building and vehicle the AC&C uses is owned by the DOH.)
We wish Dr. Levin lots of luck dealing with the DOH. She’ll need it.
FOSTERS: Weinstock described how fosters allow animals “to recuperate or stay in a healthy environment” until they can be put up for adoption. That’s an implicit admission that the AC&C is an unhealthy place for animals. No one at the AC&C has challenged the ASPCA’s assessment that the infection rate at the AC&C is “almost 100%.”
The AC&C continues to increase the number of fosters, which is very good, because fosters are invaluable to any shelter. But normally, shelters turn to fosters to help with animals that arrive with health or behavior issues or (in the case of kittens) are too young to be adopted. These animals need a temporary safe haven until they can enter the Shelter. In contrast, the AC&C looks to its fosters to serve as an ancillary “shelter” system: nursing animals the AC&C has already made sick or keeping highly adoptable animals away from the shelter so that they can remain healthy enough to go to adoption events.
Even with more fosters, too many AC&C animals will still be out of luck. Weinstock described a recent survey of AC&C fosters that offered this finding: “Fosters prefer cats over dogs, and small dogs over large dogs.”
The greatest number of dogs at the AC&C are large dogs … specifically, pits and pit mixes. So, between the AC&C being unable to provide a healthy shelter environment, and fosters not interested in taking on large dogs, pits will continue to suffer.
PLACEMENTS
DIRECT ADOPTIONS FROM THE AC&C: Weinstock offered a slide showing an increase in dog and cat adoptions. Chairman Nolan interrupted, asking Weinstock to confirm that the numbers show a 30% increase. Yes, they do, she responded. Of course, when one starts with a relatively small number (4,805 adoptions in 2012), any increase (e.g., an additional 1,341 in 2013) will look statistically impressive. But it is an increase nonetheless and we applaud the AC&C. Weinstock aims for at least 7,500 direct adoptions in 2014.
TRANSFERS TO RESCUE GROUPS: Chairman Nolan didn’t ask Weinstock to compute what percentage of “placements” rescue groups accounted for in 2013. So, we did. Rescue groups accounted for 71% of all Placements.
(NOTE: Now here’s a good question (which Weinstock couldn’t answer when asked by the Council Health Committee chairperson in April 2013): What happens to animals AFTER they’re placed with rescue groups? Weinstock told the Committee that the AC&C doesn’t track that information. It’s time that the AC&C investigate … really investigate. How many AC&C dogs and cats end up in cages and kennels for weeks, months, or even years? How many are euthanized while with the rescue groups? How many died? No one should assume there’s a happy ending for AC&C animals just because they’re shifted to overburdened rescue groups.)
REBRANDING: Weinstock described how the AC&C is changing its image as the go-to place to find a new pet, not to surrender unwanted pets.
Great!
Unfortunately that message won’t resonate easily with Bronx and Queens residents who have only Receiving (i.e., Dumping) Centers. If Queens and Bronx residents want to adopt an animal, they’ve got to schlepp to Brooklyn, Manhattan or Staten Island.
(NOTE: A few days after the board meeting, the AC&C announced a gift from the ASPCA and the real estate company Fenwick Keats: AC&C’s first ever Mobile Adoptions Van. The AC&C says the van will visit all 5 boroughs. Bronx and Queens residents might demand a lot of visits because they don’t have shelters. Yet, even as regards the 3 boroughs that have shelters, those buildings are “not conveniently located” — an admission made by Ms. Weinstock.
In addition, the AC&C needs “inventory” to fill a Mobile Adoptions Van and that won’t be easy. Animals must be healthy and spayed/neutered to go to adoption events. We assume the AC&C will rely on fosters to keep the adoption event animals healthy. As for spay/neuter, the AC&C continues to rely heavily on the ASPCA for those surgeries, something we first reported in March 2013, Weinstock boasted about the size of the AC&C’s Medical Department. Yet, it’s troubling that the AC&C Medical staff needs so much help from the ASPCA to perform the one type of surgery the AC&C medical is expected to do.)
INTAKE NUMBERS
In 2013 the AC&C has dramatically extended the days and hours of its Bronx and Queens Receiving Centers. Weinstock offered a graph showing a significant increase in intakes at those Receiving Centers and a decline of Bronx and Queens animals being surrendered directly to the AC&C’s shelters in the Manhattan and Brooklyn shelters.
DOH Deputy Director Kass (who has a reserved seat on the AC&C Board) couldn’t resist adding:
“So this seems to demonstrate that the additional field [PAUSE] I’m sorry [PAUSE] the additional receiving hours provide a service benefit but they’re basically a substitution, where some animals go directly to the shelters some now go to receiving centers.”
Yes, indeed, Receiving Centers provide a “service benefit” to the Bronx and Queens. And according to the DOH, they’re perfectly fine substitutes for full service shelters. It was none other than Mr. Kass who was the DOH’s spokesperson advocating to relieve the DOH of having to create shelters in the Bronx and Queens.
Chairman Patrick Nolan, referring to a graph entitled “Intakes” (see copy below), asked Ms. Weinstock about the dramatic decline during the period 2010-2011.
AC&C Intake 2009-2013
Weinstock explained that the Receiving Center operations were “truncated” during that period and therefore took in very few animals. (NOTE: The reason that Receiving Center operations were “truncated” is because the AC&C was reeling from savage DOH budget cuts. Weinstock didn’t mention an even more important reason for the rapid decline in Intake numbers during that period. The AC&C also “truncated” its Field Operations (the van drivers who respond to calls to pick up stray dogs and cats). Thus, by shutting its doors to thousands of dogs and cats from 2010-2011 in order to save money, the AC&C reduced its Intake numbers.)
But even from late 2011 forward, when the DOH began putting money back into the shelter system, AC&C Intake Numbers continued to decline. Even when in 2013 the Receiving Centers and Field Ops were in full swing, there was just a modest increase in Intakes.
(NOTE: Actually, Field Ops are still not in full swing. The AC&C is still waiting for a fleet of 12 new vans originally promised by the DOH for delivery 6 months ago. Only one van has arrived to date. As Weinstock reported 6 months ago, in the interim Field Ops staff have had to double up due to a lack of drivable vans.)
We look forward to seeing AC&C Intake numbers after all 12 new Field Op vans are in operation, the Receiving Centers are open 7 days a week, and the Manhattan Shelter is open 24/7 for intakes.
(QUERY: If Intake numbers continue their decline, will be it because NYC reached a “tipping point” where the number of “spayed/neutered” dogs and cats has left a relatively small population of unfixed animals able to reproduce? Or, as previously suggested by the DOH, are rescue groups stepping in to take animals BEFORE they end up at the AC&C? Or has the AC&C invented new ways to keep dogs and cats from entering the shelters? Anyway, Intake Numbers for 2014 will be very interesting.)
VOLUNTEERS: Volunteers are the backbone of a well-run shelter and should outnumber staff by several multiples. Weinstock offered a slide showing that overall volunteer hours had increased as well as average hours spent with dogs and cats.
But once again Weinstock didn’t explain how many volunteers and volunteers hours were spent helping those AC&C animals who have the greatest needs: the dogs and cats that are not in the Adoption Wards. It’s these animals who make up the vast majority of shelter animals.
DOGWALKING: Weinstock correctly identified Dogwalking Staff as an important improvement.
(NOTE: Ironically, AC&C dogwalkers were the first employees that Weinstock dismissed in late 2009 when the DOH appointed her as “Interim” Executive Director with instructions to cut expenses.)
AC&C Dogwalkers are responsible for walking dogs that are NOT adoptions. Non-adoptions dogs make up the vast majority of the shelter dog population. Unfortunately, we’ve been advised that far too many of these dogs still aren’t walked, or at best, are walked only once a day.
We challenge the AC&C: commit to ensuring that every dog receives at least two walks a day.
FUNDRAISING: Weinstock said the AC&C raised over $1 million last year. Sounds good. But was she (as in prior board meetings) including monies from the ASPCA, the Mayor’s Alliance, and Maddie’s Fund in that figure? If so, that’s misleading because those monies aren’t strictly speaking “fundraising.”
She also listed the “gross” proceeds from 2013 fundraising events and campaigns. She didn’t mention the “net” proceeds (after deducting for expenses). (NOTE: The AC&C recently shed one sizeable expense: the salary and benefits paid to their former Director of Development and Communications who left unexpectedly in late 2013.)
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Four speakers (all of whom cross-post the “To Be Destroyed” lisst published by Urgent Part2) complained of the constant drumbeat of animals appearing on the AC&C’s nightly “At Risk” List. They asked for more time for people to pull animals from the list. One person asked that the AC&C stop listing so many dogs every night. Some complained that the “At Risk” list on the AC&C’s website is difficult to navigate.
Tom Scopac, a Wall Street Accountant, analyzed the data provided by Urgent Part2. He calculated that the odds increase substantially if a dog appears more than once on the “At Risk” list. (NOTE: Actually, it’s an improvement that the AC&C allows some animals to appear more than once on the “At Risk” list.) He urged the AC&C to be more inventive in how it advertises its animals: use multiple photos and videos, provide more engaging narratives for every animal, etc.
Scopac discovered that Brooklyn dogs fare worse than those in Manhattan. For example, in 2013 the Brooklyn shelter euthanized 53 “helper” dogs. Helper dogs are those whose behavior is considered so commendable that they’re used to test other dogs. Yet, the Brooklyn shelter could not or would not spare those highly rated dogs.
As discussed previously, Ms. Monsky and Ms. Koslow had questions about AC&C statistics.
John Sibley questioned the AC&C’s choice of Medical Director and the absence of detailed information about Dr. Levin’s background. (NOTE: A few days later, the AC&C posted a narrative of Dr. Levin’s work history.)
Katy Hansen noted that the DOH provides links on its website regarding childhood obesity and resources to help stop smoking. Hansen asked if the DOH could do something similar for pet owners threatened with having to surrender their pets. DOH Deputy Commissioner Kass said that was an “excellent” idea. Yes, he’d look into it right away.
(NOTE: The DOH is always so helpful. Perhaps the DOH will come up with an effective campaign to encourage and enforce dog licensing.)
SUMMARY
The AC&C is in better shape than 2 years ago. No doubt about it.
But the AC&C has a long way to go. The DOH is still very much in charge … and that is the root of the AC&C’s problems.
AC&C animals continue to face an “almost 100%” infection rate. Thousands of sick animals are then thrust onto rescue groups and now even the public.
The AC&C still kills thousands of animals a year. The AC&C struggles to attract private funding because it is viewed (correctly) as an extension of the DOH. The funding that the DOH provides doesn’t come close to what’s really needed.
The DOH requires the AC&C to issue claims and publish statistics engineered to shield the DOH from embarrassment. Truth is not the point. (Did you know that the DOH must approve any public statement the AC&C makes?)
As much as DOH bureaucrats like Daniel Kass claim otherwise, the DOH has little interest in animal welfare. The DOH’s goal has always been to spend as little as it can get away with on the AC&C. The DOH is responsible for protecting people’s health, not the health of animals. Why should it waste its “people” monies on animals? The fact that the AC&C is supervised by a DOH Division called “Pest Control” speaks volumes.
The answer is to free the AC&C from DOH control. Only then can the AC&C start to earn the public’s trust and support. It’s really that simple.