stray animal control in northampton county

7/30/2019 Stray Animal Control in Northampton County

1/71

1

Northampto

nCounty,P

A

Analysis of Community Needs:

Stray Animal Control inNorthampton County, PA

Northampton County, Pennsylvania

John StoffaCounty Executive

August 29, 2013


2/71

2

Northampto

nCounty,P

AAnalysis of Community Needs:

Stray Animal Control inNorthampton County, PA

Contents

Section I: The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County

Prepared by David L. Woglom, Associate Director for Public Service

Lafayette College, Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center for the

Study of State and Local Government

Section II: Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Models and

Options for Northampton CountyPrepared by Karel Minor, Chief Executive Officer, Damon March,

Chief Operating Officer; and John Snyder, Consultant

Humane Society Management Services, LLC

This reported was supported by a grant provided by theNorthampton County Gaming Revenue and Economic

Redevelopment Authority


3/71

PREAMBLE

At its core, government is an agreement amongst us to jointly work together to meet

the needs of our citizens and communities. For several years, our municipalitieshave been crossing boundaries to work together, both formally and informally in

order to bring down costs and cooperatively solve problems. In this vein,

Northampton County has been approached to help find solutions to an issue

challenging many of our communities. We now have an opportunity to become a

leader to address one of these current issues: the increasing problem of stray

animals in Northampton County.

While officials have largely relied upon the volunteer and philanthropic

communities to address this problem, economic and philosophical challenges have

presented significant barriers, and new approaches must be taken. Our officials and

law enforcement have provided feedback anecdotally. Newspaper reports and

editorials recently published in the Express Times reinforce that this is a county-

wide issue that affects the 38 municipalities in Northampton County.

Current systems for controlling and caring for stray animals are stressed and

disconnected. Further complicating this matter, state laws only apply to stray dogs;

nothing deals with the significant issue posed to communities with as stray cats or

other animals. Statewide resources can provide some assistance with animal cruelty

cases, but no resources are available to relieve the growing financial and logistical

burdens placed on our municipalities in transporting and caring for a growing

number of stray animals.

The report you are about to read is an impressive analysis of the increasing problem

of stray animals, in particular, stray dogs and an analysis of options for addressing

this issue.


4/71

What can we do?

1. We can do nothing.2. We can let the county's 38 municipalities struggle on their own.3. Northampton County can take a leadership role by facilitating a solution to

the problem with its municipalities.

We are proposing the third option on what we can do about the stray animal issue in

Northampton County.

One option is to mimic what occurred in regard to the open space initiative. A

referendum was placed before the voters and they voted overwhelmingly for a $37

million bond to address open space. A suggestion is that a referendum be placed on

the ballot asking County voters if they would vote for the equivalent of a mil of

tax to solve this problem. This mil would be a $12.50 cost per year to a

homeowner with a property value assessed at $50,000. This would result in

approximately $1.3 million per year which could be used for a state of the art

centralized shelter/ facility which could solve this issue.

Alternative funding could be through the county's General Fund, or through a 2014Bond that could include the construction of an animal control center as well as other

potential Northampton County priorities such as bridges and a Regional Forensics

Center. There may be other viable funding solutions from the 38 municipalities for

the construction and operation of this facility. We are requesting input from County

Council, other stakeholders, and the public at large over the weeks ahead. We

anticipate continuing to work with County Council and our municipalities to address

and eventually successfully solve this problem.

John Stoffa

This report was pa id ent i re ly throug h a grant provided by the Northampton CountyGaming Revenue a nd Economic R edevelopme nt Authori ty


5/71

Section I: "The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County."


6/71

The Handling

Of Stray Dogs in Northampton County

June 2013

Lafayette CollegeRobert B. & Helen S. Meyner Center

For the Study of State & Local Government002 Kirby Hall of Civil Rights

Easton, PA 18042


7/71

The Robert B. and H elen S. Meyner Center

For the Study of State and Local Government

The Robert B. and Helen S. Meyner Center for the Study of State and Local Government,

which began operations in August 1994, is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, unit of Lafayette College.Robert B. Meyner was a graduate of Lafayette College (1930) and Governor of New Jersey from1954 to 1962. Helen S. Meyner served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1975 to 1979.The Meyner Center is supported by an endowment contributed by the estate of Robert B. andHelen S. Meyner, contributions from Richard and Priscilla Hunt of Cambridge, Massachusetts,and other Meyner family and friends, and external grants and contracts from specific projects byprivate foundations, nonprofit entities, and government agencies.

The Center educates students about the vital importance of state and local governmentsand encourages young people to participate in state and local affairs as volunteers, interns, andfuture leaders. The Center also works with state and local government officials and civic groups

in its Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York region to enhance public awareness, effectivegovernance, regional cooperation, and public policy. For local governments in the region, theCenter provides such specific services as administrative and financial reviews, comparativesalary studies, executive-search assistance, strategic planning/visioning programs, andeducational workshops and forums. The Meyner Center works, as well, with nationalassociations of state and local officials, such as the Council of State Governments, NationalConference of State Legislatures, National Governors Association, National League of Cities,Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, and Multistate Tax Commission.

Internationally, the Center engages in educational and training programs on regional andlocal governance, federalism and decentralization, and intergovernmental relations at the requestof foreign governments and universities, the World Bank, and U.S. agencies. The Center hasworked on issues of federalism, democracy, and local governance in, for example, Brazil,Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria,Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, and Ukraine. The Center also has hosted USIA/Fulbrightand National Endowment for the Humanities summer institutes as well as visiting scholars,public officials, and delegations from abroad. The Center is a focal point for a long-term projectentitled A Global Dialogue on Federalism in the 21stCentury, which is sponsored jointly bythe Forum of Federations and the International Association of Centers for Federal Studies.

Staff

John Kincaid, Director and ProfessorDavid L. Woglom, Associate Director for Public ServiceTerry A. Cooper, Administrative AssistantStewart E. Morel, Student Assistant


8/71

Preface

This report is a review and analysis of the municipal handling of stray dogs in NorthamptonCounty, Pennsylvania. The report was prepared by David L. Woglom, Associate Director for

Public Service of the Meyner Center, pursuant to a November 1, 2012 contract betweenLafayette Colleges Meyner Center and Northampton County. The Center thanks all of thepeople who participated in interviews and meetings needed to complete the research for thisreport, and also thanks Chip Morel for his research assistance. Any views expressed in thisreport are not necessarily those of Lafayette College.

John KincaidDirector & Professor


9/71


10/71

The Handling

Of Stray Dogs in Northampton County

June 2013

Lafayette CollegeRobert B. & Helen S. Meyner Center

For the Study of State & Local Government002 Kirby Hall of Civil Rights

Easton, PA 18042


11/71


12/71

Table of Contents

Executive Summary1

Interviews Conducted and Meetings Held..3

Definition of Terms.....5

Background and History in Northampton County..7

The Operation of Animal Shelters13

Analysis19


13/71


14/71

1

Executive Summary

Northampton County officials commissioned this study because it is their understanding frommeetings and conversations with the police chiefs in Northampton County that police

departments in the county have been having increasing difficulty locating a final disposition forthe stray dogs they pick up in accordance with Pennsylvania law. State law regulates thecollection of stray dogs but not stray cats, athough most animal shelters accept both stray dogsand stray cats. There is no law in Pennsylvania that regulates in any way the collection of straycats.

There is no simple or all-inclusive solution to the challenges of collecting stray dogs and findingsuitable shelters in Northampton County or anywhere else. The source of the difficulty inPennsylvania is that while state law requires municipal and state police officers and state dogwardens to seize and detain any dog which is found running at large, either upon the publicstreets or highways of the Commonwealth, or upon the property of a person other than the owner

of the dog, and unaccompanied by the owner or keeper, no state law requires any animal shelterto accept stray dogs. Until 2-3 years ago, most police departments could take stray dogs tonearby private animal shelters at little or no cost, even though the shelters were under no legalrequirement to accept them. The problem that has developed during the past several years is thatthe animal shelters fees to municipalities have increased significantly due to the escalating costto feed, medically treat, spay/neuter, and house these animals. Although the problem has notbecome as acute in rural sections of the county, in some urban areas in Northampton County andelsewhere in suburban Philadelphia, police departments have had to shoulder the administrativeburden and financial responsibility of finding either a home for stray dogs or paying much largerfees than they paid before.

In this report, we provide a significant review of animal-shelter operation and municipal animal-control programs in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia. The following is anabbreviated list of our conclusions:

1. We discussed with officials of the Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW) howthey might become an open facility and again accept stray dogs from municipalities.According to its website, the CAHW accepts municipal strays in a similar manner to aprivate relinquishment with a drop-off fee of $150 per animal, but only when theCAHW has capacity. Currently, Northampton County contributes $5,000 per year to theCAHW, although the shelter is generally closed to municipal strays. We inquired iflarger contributions from each municipality or the county would enable the CAHW toaccept more animals. CAHW officials informed us that their main issue is not cost, butspace for more animals. When questioned about a possible expansion of their facility, theofficials indicated that expansion would be only a temporary answer because within ashort time, additional space would fill up with animals. In contrast to when the CAHWoperated as a kill shelter, it appears that CAHW officials believe that, as a no-kill facility,they will never again become an open facility, able to accept stray dogs and cats frommunicipal police departments at any fee.


15/71

2

2. Even though municipal officials do not want to assume the operational and financialresponsibility for finding homes and/or final disposition locations for stray dogs, it istheir legal responsibility to do so. Animal shelters are available to take their stray dogs,but the cost is often $100-$250 per dog.

3. Fees charged by the animal shelters are increasing. The principal reason for the increaseis that animal shelters operational costs are increasing at an even greater rate, accordingto all shelter managers we interviewed. They also indicate that the fees charged for straydogs do not cover the cost to spay, neuter, immunize, and house the animals. Municipalofficials have expressed frustration with area animal shelters because of these increases,but it is important to understand the cause for the increased fees.

4. The science of shelter management is evolving, with some shelters now advocating a no-kill policy. This is a sensitive issue among shelter managers, professionals, shelterorganizations, and the general public. Everyone we interviewed indicated that to befinancially sustainable in the short and long term, no-kill management requires significantskill and hard work, especially in securing adoptions. Otherwise, shelters fill up, asevidenced by the current situation in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia where

two of the three existing no-kill shelters are closed shelters that no longer accept strayanimals.5. Some municipalities could save money and operational difficulties by cooperating jointly

to operate smaller kennels to act as temporary holding facilities. For instance, themunicipalities in suburban Easton could perhaps work with the City of Easton to increasethe size of its kennel to include the strays picked up by the other municipalities. Bysharing in the construction and operational costs, a joint municipal kennel might savemoney for all the municipal participants.

6. As many municipal police departments have done already, municipalities can be moreaggressive in searching for the owners of lost dogs picked up by police officers andanimal control officers by, for example, thoroughly canvassing the neighborhood wherethe dog was found and utilizing its city website to show the dogs for recovery or adoptionas does the City of Easton.

7. Stray cats are a community problem across the United States, including easternPennsylvania. Currently Pennsylvania and its municipalities do not legislatively regulatecats, meaning that police officers, animal control officers, and dog wardens are notpicking up stray cats despite their large population.

8. Municipalities in Northampton County do have some other alternatives, but usually withgreater cost. The Sanctuary at Haafsville in Breinigsville will contract with amunicipality at a cost of $110 per stray dog and $30 per stray cat. Municipalities canrequest a contract with the Berks Animal Rescue League. With either of these options,municipalities would have to transport the stray dogs, which would require an employeeto drive the animals to the shelter, thus adding to the cost depending on time and distance.


16/71

3

Interviews and Meetings Conducted

During the preparation of this report, the following individuals were interviewed either in person,via email, or on the telephone:

1. Andrew Flegler, CAHW Shelter Manager2. Dan Roman, CAHW Director3. Bruce Fritch, Lehigh County Humane Board of Directors President4. Liz Jones, Sanctuary at Haafsville Owner5. Nicky Thompson, Bucks County Director of Education and Outreach6. Dayna Villa, Delaware County SPCA Operations Director7. Michael Dempsey, Chester County SPCA Acting Manager8. Karel Minor, Berks County Humane Society Executive Director9. Carmen Ronio, Montgomery SPCA Director10.Harry Brown, Berks Animal Rescue League Executive Director11.

Thomas Judge, Delaware County Animal Protection Board12.Carl Scalzo, City of Easton Police Chief

13.Roy Seiple, Colonial Regional Police Department Police Chief14.Steve Parkansky, Wilson Borough Police Chief15.Larry Palmer, Palmer Township Police Chief16.John Christman, South Whitehall Police Lieutenant17.Jack Meyers, Whitehall Township Deputy Mayor18.Ann Saurman, Allentown Recycling Bureau Manager19.Scott McElree, Quakertown Borough Police Chief20.Mark Toomey, Hatfield Township Police Chief21.Dan Pancoast, Bethlehem Township Police Chief22.Kristen Wenrich, City of Bethlehem Acting Health Director23.Thomas Beil, Upper Saucon Township Manager24.Jon Hammer, South Whitehall Township Manager25.Joyce Lambert, Plainfield Township Manager26.Thomas Ryan, West Bradford Township Manager27.Mary Flagg, East Vincent Township Manager28.Bernard Rodgers, East Coventry Township Manager29.Rose Nonnemacher, Macungie Clerk/Assistant Treasurer30.Robert Schurr, North Coventry Township Police Chief31.Gabriel Khalife, Kutztown Borough Manager32.Ernie McNeely, West Chester Borough Manager33.Casey LaLonde, West Goshen Township Manager34.Joseph Gleason, West Goshen Police Chief35.William Martin, Tredyffrin Township Manager36.Jess Landon, Tewksbury (NJ) Township Manager37.Anthony Cancro, Springfield (NJ) Township Manager38.Kathy Andrews, Northampton County Dog Warden39.Mike Peckart, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Executive Deputy Secretary40.Angela Messer, Pennsylvania SPCA Operations Director


17/71

4

41.Dr. Stephanie Janeczko, Sr. Director of Community Outreach and ShelterMedicine/President of the (US) Association of Shelter Veterinarians

42.Inga Fricke, humane Society of the United States Director of Sheltering and Rescue43.Erin Mattes, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Membership

Correspondent

44.Nathan Winograd, No Kill Advocacy Center Director45.Rich Avanzino, Maddies Fund President

46.Josh Cromer, Humane Society of Henderson County, Kentucky Shelter Director47.Cheryl Schneider, Williamson County Animal Shelter, Texas Animal Service Director

During the preparation of this report, we met with officials from the Center for Animal Healthand Welfare, police chiefs through a meeting of the Northampton County Chiefs of PoliceAssociation, and Liz Jones of the Sanctuary at Haafsville. The majority of our investigative timewas spent interviewing on the phone all of the individuals listed above.

The Meyner Center thanks all of those who communicated with us during this study.


18/71

5

Definition of Terms

Understanding the collection of stray dogs and cats and the administration philosophy of animalshelters involves knowledge of the terms used in the industry.

Like most states, Pennsylvanias laws do not regulate the collection of stray cats; they onlyregulate the collection of stray dogs. However, it is common across Pennsylvania and the rest ofthe United States that most animal shelters accept stray cats, dogs, birds, and other domesticanimals. While stray dogs come to the shelters from municipal police officers, animal controlofficers, state police officers, state dog wardens, and residents, stray cats and other animalstypically come from residents.

Animal control officer is a term used in slightly different ways in different municipalities andstates. Generally, it refers to a person whose job it is to collect stray dogs and find either theowner of the dog or an animal shelter to take the dog. In Pennsylvania, some municipalities have

appointed an animal control officer to collect stray dogs; other municipalities simply leave theresponsibility to their police officers. For this report, it is not important to distinguish the title ofthe municipal official who picks up stray animals.

Animal shelters are frequently referred to as either SPCAs or Humane Societies. The distinctionis not important; it is merely an historical fact of how the agency was created. This study willgenerally and generically refer to all of these facilities as animal shelters.

Animal shelters are also commonly categorized as either open or closed. An open facilitywill accept stray dogs and/or cats from almost anyone who brings the animal to the shelter,including police officers, animal control officers, dog wardens, and residents. Typically, theonly restriction of an open shelter is that it will accept animals only within a specified geographicregionmost commonly within the county of its location. A closed facility does not accept straydogs or cats from police officers, animal control officers, or dog wardens: they usually onlyaccept stray dogs and cats from residents, and sometimes only when they have room (capacity)in their facility.

There are two main management philosophies in animal shelters, and some shelter-managementprofessionals are very sensitive about how the terms are used. All animal shelters euthanizestray animals for such reasons as sickness, disease, age, and dangerous behavior. Untilapproximately 15-20 years ago, most shelters in the United States also euthanized animals whenthe shelter needed space to receive new animals. Therefore, all shelters used to be what is nowreferred to as kill shelters. However, approximately 10-15 years ago, a no-kill philosophy ofanimal shelter administration started to develop across the United States. These no-killshelters do not euthanize animals in order to create more space in their facility for new animals.In order to operate effectively, they focus on finding homes for stray animals through suchefforts as aggressive adoption programs and partnerships with other animal-rescue shelters. Theno-kill movement has also spawned several national educational and financial support groups,including the No-Kill Advocacy Center and Maddies Fund. The main goal of the no-kill


19/71

6

philosophy is to administer animal shelters so as to achieve a 90 percent save rate for the animalsentering the facility.


20/71

7

Background and History in Northampton County

Northampton County officials commissioned this study because it is their understanding frommeetings and conversations with the police chiefs in Northampton County that policedepartments in the county have been having increasing difficulty finding a final disposition

location for the stray dogs they pick up in accordance with Pennsylvania law. State lawregulates the collection of stray dogs but not stray cats, even though most animal shelters acceptboth stray dogs and stray cats. There is no law in Pennsylvania that regulates in any way thecollection of stray cats.

Section 459-302 of the Pennsylvania Dog Law states:

(a) General rule.--It shall be the duty of every police officer, State dog warden, employee of thedepartment or animal control officer to seize and detain any dog which is found running at large,either upon the public streets or highways of the Commonwealth, or upon the property of aperson other than the owner of the dog, and unaccompanied by the owner or keeper. Every police

officer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer may humanelykill any dog which is found running at large and is deemed after due consideration by the policeofficer, State dog warden, employee of the department or animal control officer to constitute athreat to the public health and welfare.

(b) Licensed dogs.--The State dog warden or employee of the department, the animal controlofficer, or the chief of police or his agents of any city, borough, town or township, the constableof any borough and the constable of any incorporated town or township shall cause any dogbearing a proper license tag or permanent identification and so seized and detained to be properlykept and fed at any licensed kennel approved by the secretary for those purposes and shall causeimmediate notice, by personal service or registered or certified mail with return receiptrequested, to the last known address, which shall be set forth in the license application record, ofthe person in whose name the license was procured, or his agent, to claim the dog within fivedays after receipt thereof. The owner or claimant of a dog so detained shall pay a penalty of $50to the political subdivision whose police officers make the seizures and detention and allreasonable expenses incurred by reason of its detention to the detaining parties before the dog isreturned. If five days after obtaining the postal return receipt, the dog has not been claimed, suchchief of police, or his agent, or a constable, or State dog warden or employee of the departmentshall dispense the dog by sale or by giving it to a humane society or association for theprevention of cruelty to animals. No dog so caught and detained shall be sold for the purpose ofvivisection, or research, or be conveyed in any manner for these purposes. All moneys derivedfrom the sale of the dog, after deducting the expenses of its detention, shall be paid through theDepartment of Agriculture to the State Treasurer for credit to the Dog Law Restricted Account.

(c) Unlicensed dogs.--Except as otherwise provided by section 305, any police officer, State dogwarden, employee of the department or animal control officer shall cause any unlicensed dog tobe seized, detained, kept and fed for a period of 48 hours at any licensed kennel approved by thesecretary for those purposes, except any dog seriously ill or injured or forfeited with the owner'spermission. The 48-hour period shall not include days the approved kennel is not open to thegeneral public. Any person may view the detained dogs during normal business hours. Any


21/71

8

unlicensed dog remaining unclaimed after 48 hours may be humanely killed or given to ahumane society or association for the prevention of cruelty to animals. No dog so caught anddetained shall be sold for the purpose of vivisection, or research, or be conveyed in any mannerfor these purposes.

Therefore, the Pennsylvania Dog Law holds municipal police officers, state police officers, andstate dog wardens responsible for picking up stray dogs. In response to this law, theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania created a division of dog wardens under the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Agriculture. This division utilizes 53 dog wardens across Pennsylvania whoseresponsibility it is to enforce the dog laws, which include collecting stray dogs, licensing andinspecting animal kennels, and investigating rabies bites and dangerous dogs. NorthamptonCounty has 38 municipalities, with 27 municipal police departments in 29 municipalities (theColonial Regional Police Department encompasses three municipalities). Therefore, thecollection of stray dogs is solely the responsibility of the Northampton Dog Warden in nine ofthe countys 38 municipalities.

Until approximately two years ago, the Northampton County police departments and theNorthampton County Dog Warden had no difficulty with their legal responsibility for handlingstray animals; whenever they had a stray dog or cat for which they could find no owner relativelyquickly, they took the dog or cat to the Northampton Center for Animal Health and Welfare(CAHW), which accepted the dog for little, if any fee. Located in Williams Township, theCAHW, which was called the Northampton County SPCA from its inception in 1913 until 2007when it became a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency, was an open facility.

In 2003, the CAHW changed its basic shelter management philosophy from that ofa killshelter to a no-kill shelter while still remaining an open facility. In 2011, the CAHWinstituted a fee structure for animals brought to its facility and required municipalities to sign a

contract guaranteeing that they would pay the fees. According to CAHW officials, this changewas caused by overall financial difficulties, including the rising cost of treating stray animals anda shortage of space in the facility. Believing that the fees were too high, many municipalitiesrefused to enter into a contract. In 2012, the CAHW became a closed facility when its officialsdetermined they no longer had the capacity to accept stray animals. The result of this change inthe CAHWs policy is that municipal and state police departments and the Northampton CountyDog Warden are no longer guaranteed the ability to bring a stray dog to the CAHW, and even ifspace exists on a given day, the municipality must either pay $150 per stray dog at the time itdelivers the dog to the CAHW or deposit money into a pre-paid account with the CAHW. Sincethe CAHW shelter became a closed facility, it has, from time to time, accepted only a few dogsfrom municipalities, including Easton.

Northampton County is a very diverse mix of urban, suburban, and rural municipalities. Fromthe statistics provided by municipalities, it appears that there is a correlation between the numberof stray dogs handled by municipal departments and the population and density of themunicipality. For 2012, the total number of stray dogs handled by municipal police departmentswas more than 808 jurisdictionally divided as follows:


22/71

9

Bethlehem Township 150City of Bethlehem 100Bushkill 82Lehigh 72Colonial Regional 59 (3 municipalities)

Wilson 56Easton 51Palmer 45Bangor 33Forks 30Hellertown 21Moore 21Plainfield 21Northampton 19Washington 11Lower Saucon 9

Upper Nazareth 7Pen Argyl 6Freemansburg 6Nazareth 4East Bangor 3Roseto 2

[Note: Despite repeated requests, the police departments in Portland, Stockertown, Tatamy, andWind Gap did not supply us with statistics for 2012.]

According to the Northampton County Dog Warden, there are currently 14 licensed animalholding pens operated by municipalities in Northampton County, and according to the recordsbeing kept by these municipalities, there were 197 dogs held in these facilities from January2012 to approximately April 2013:

Facility Number of dogs heldBushkill 28Easton 51Colonial Regional 0Hanover 3Hellertown 21Lehigh 21Moore 17Northampton 18Pen Argyl 6Plainfield 2Washington 11Walnutport 3Wind Gap 16


23/71

10

Only six of the 26 police departments in Northampton County handle an average of more thanone dog per week. Police chiefs in all of these municipalities expressed frustration with theamount of time it takes their department to process a stray dog. As a result of their municipality

not having a contract with a licensed kennel, most of these departments (and several of theothers) have constructed small facilities to hold their stray dogs temporarily, and Eastons facilityof six cages is licensed by the state. Police chiefs indicate that the time it takes to find a homefor each dog varies greatly from several hours to several days. No information is available onhow many dogs are returned to their owners or sent to shelters or rescue groups. The reality ofthe current situation is that while state law requires municipal police departments to handle straydogs, it does not require private animal shelters to accept stray dogs picked up by municipalities.The mission of the CAHW (and most animal shelters whose directors we interviewed) isgenerally to find homes for homeless animals as determined by their organization; state law doesnot require them in any way to assist municipalities with a facility to house stray dogs.

The Northampton County Dog Warden is also experiencing great difficulty in finding shelters tobring stray dogs. The Northampton Dog Warden says that while she used to rely on the CAHW,she has not been able to take stray dogs to that facility since last year because even if there iscapacity on a given day, the state will not pay a fee to an animal control facility. With no openanimal shelter in Northampton County, she has to travel hours to take stray dogs either to privaterescue groups or to animal shelters outside of the county. Michael Peckart, the AssistantSecretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Agricultures Dog Law Enforcement Office, saysthat the problems experienced in Northampton County are not unusual across the state. He saysthat many of the states 53 dog wardens frequently travel hours across county lines to find ashelter for a dog they picked up. Additionally, he indicates that the dog-warden program in thestate is experiencing financial difficulties, which has resulted in an elimination of overtime forwardens. Annual dog licenses cost pet owners $6.45 per year ($5.00 of this fee goes to the stateand $1.45 is kept by each county). Following estimates developed by the Humane Society of theUnited States, Mr. Peckart estimates that there are 2-3 million dogs in Pennsylvania despite thefact that the state (and its 67 county treasurers) issue only 1 million dog licenses each year.

The City of Easton has constructed its own licensed kennel to handle stray dogs picked up bytheir police officers. The four-cage facility was built at a cost of approximately $35,000 and ismonitored 24 hours per day by employees at the citys wastewater treatment facility. They havebeen successful in finding the owners of many of the stray dogs, and have partnered with somerescue groups to locate adoptions for others. From time-to-time, the CAHW has agreed to acceptsome of their stray dogs at a cost of $150 per dog. The City Administrator believes that within1-2 years, the citys overall cost of animal control will be less than it was 3-4 years ago.

The Palmer, Plainfield, and Colonial Regional police departments are constructing kennels andapplying for licenses from the state. Their police chiefs have expressed concern over their abilityto find owners, adoption homes, or rescue groups to handle all the stray dogs they pick up duringthe year. Other police chiefs say that because of the low number of stray dogs they handle eachyear, they are able to find homes for all of the stray dogs they pick up. No information is


24/71

11

available on the number of dogs that the police departments either found homes for or sent toshelters or rescue groups.


25/71

12


26/71

13

The Operation of Animal Shelters

Rich Avanzino, president of Maddies Fund in Alameda, Californiaa family foundationhelping to achieve and sustain a no-kill nation by providing solutions to the most challenging

issues facing the animal welfare community through the synergistic work of grant giving, hands-on animal care, and research and educationestimates that there are 180 million pets in UnitedStates homes today, with the percentage of home pets that were adopted from animal shelters orrescue groups being perhaps as high as 30 percent. He expects the number of pets in homes togrow to more than 200 million by 2015.

Our interviews with animal shelter managers and national organization leaders revealed that it isimpossible to gather accurate national statistics on animal shelters because no one agencymonitors animal shelters in the United States. Although animal shelters in some regions or statesoperate differently (such as in portions of Texas), it is quite common for animal shelters to beprivately owned and operated by non-profit organizations. Ordinarily, municipal and county

governments are not directly involved in the ownership and operation of shelters. Only 15 statesrequire that shelters submit data to a state agency. Pennsylvania does not require this reporting;consequently, no accurate information is available on shelter characteristics statewide.Additionally, there is no clear definition as to what constitutes an animal shelter because of theexistence of various animal rescue leagues, adoption centers, and other organizations. Most statelaws do not regulate the control of stray cats, but most animal shelters accept cats and dogs, andaccording to the shelter managers we interviewed, many shelters also accept birds and someother wild animals.

According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), millionsof dogs enter animal shelters each year. The ASPCA estimates that 60 percent of these dogs areeuthanized, 15-20 percent are returned to caregivers, and the remaining animals are adopted intonew homes. At best, therefore, only 20-25 percent of stray dogs go to adoptive homes. The bestestimate by all professionals we spoke to is that there are about 3,500 animal shelters in thecountry and that approximately 90 percent of them are kill shelters. Most are non-profit agenciesthat receive some funding from local or county government. The typical geographic boundarylines of their services follow county or multi-county borders.

All of the shelter managers we interviewed told us that it is significantly more challenging tofollow a no-kill philosophy and remain financially sustainable, and that most shelters that followthe no-kill philosophy are also closed shelters because of space limitations. The issue ofeuthanizing animals for reasons other than illness and disease is a very sensitive one for manypeople. Even shelter managers who follow the kill management philosophy are animal loverswho say that euthanasia is utilized because the quality of life for animals in overcrowded sheltersis inhumane. Several shelter managers who operate kill shelters told us that they refer tothemselves as humane or life-saving shelters. They believe that no-kill shelters areeuthanizing more animals than they are reporting so as to solicit greater public support. Killshelter managers told us that the only reason they euthanize for more than health and dangerousbehavior is that a no-kill shelter is not sustainable in the long term as an open facility that willaccept stray animals.


27/71

14

While it is estimated that only 10 percent of current shelters across the United States follow theno-kill philosophy, the number of facilities that are converting to this philosophy is growingbecause education on how to operate a no-kill shelter is spreading. The No-Kill AdvocacyCenter says only 25 people attended its first conference in 2005; in 2012, the attendance was

860. President Nathan Winograd started one of the first no-kill management shelters inTompkins County, New York, in 2005. According to Mr. Winograd, the only way to manage asuccessful and sustainable no-kill shelter is strict adherence to all of the following strategies:

1. A comprehensive and low-cost, trap-and-neuter program for feral cats that results in adecrease in cat population in animal shelters;

2. A very close relationship with animal rescue groups in the region that help to find homesfor dogs and cats;

3. A large foster-care community that helps to care for sick animals, reducing the cost toshelters;

4. A comprehensive adoption program that finds homes for animals;5.

An innovative and educational program that encourages pet owners to keep their animalsand reduces the number of dogs and cats surrendered to shelters;

6. Effective medical programs in the shelters that prevent animals that enter the shelter frombecoming ill and treat animals that enter the shelter sick in a thorough and cost effectivemanner, along with a behavior modification program that treats animals to help thembecome more adoptable;

7. A dedicated army of compassion driven volunteers to save the shelter from otherwisehaving to pay employees;

8. Aggressive programs to find the original owners of animals housed in shelters; and9. A compassionate director of the shelter who works with his or her staff to implement the

eight strategies listed above in order to avoid unnecessary euthanization.

Mr. Winograd cites more than 90 shelters in the United States representing more than 300municipalities that have been successful in following the no-kill management philosophy,achieving a 90 percent save rate among the animals in its shelters. Maddies Fund PresidentRich Avanzino agrees with Mr. Winograd that the no-kill management philosophy can and willgrow among shelter managers, but that it is a movement in its infancy that needs to increase theskill and knowledge of its shelter managers in order to be sustainable. He also believes thatmanagement of no-kill shelters should involve municipal and county governments as financialpartners. Mr. Avanzino echoed what several other shelter managers told us: government leadersneed to accept the fact that controlling stray dogs and cats is the financial and operationalresponsibility of government, not private animal shelters, and that in the future animal shelterswill not be financially stable without the financial assistance of government.

Josh Kramer is the shelter director of the Humane Society of Henderson County, Kentucky. Thesociety operates an open shelter that accepts stray animals for a county of 46,250 people. Mr.Kramer indicates that shelters are regulated in Kentucky, and that his facility is one of only fourout of a total of 236 shelters in the state that follow a no-kill management philosophy. Hisshelters average daily census is approximately 100 animals (50 percent dogs and 50 percentcats). The annual budget is $125,000, and Henderson County funds approximately 25 percent of


28/71

15

the revenue needed to operate. In order to achieve its 90 percent save rate, the shelter follows thesteps advocated by Mr. Winograd and also believes that an active social media program helps itto find adoptees for its animals.

Cheryl Schneider is the Animal Services Director of the Williamson County, Texas Shelter. Her

open shelter accepts stray animals from municipalities and residents in a county with apopulation of 442,782 and has an average daily census of approximately 120 dogs and 100 cats.The shelter is owned by the four cities in the county and has been open for five and a half years,with the last two years being operated through a no-kill management philosophy during whichtime the shelter has achieved a 90 percent save rate. She indicates that animal control is the legalresponsibility of municipalities in Texas; thus it is very common that animal shelters are ownedby municipal and/or county governments. She says that most shelters are also funded almostsolely by municipal and county governments. Her shelters annual budget of $1.2 millionincludes direct funding from the four municipalities totaling $850,000 per year.

We interviewed animal shelter managers in Lehigh, Bucks, Montgomery, Chester, Delaware,

Philadelphia, and Berks Counties. All managers were very knowledgeable and passionate abouttheir job and organization. The approximate daily census of animals in these facilities is:

Facility Daily Census County Population StatusNorthampton CAHW 330 297,735 no-kill, closedLehigh (LC Humane) 200 349,497 kill, openLehigh (Sanctuary) 35 no-kill, openBucks (both facilities) 275 625,249 kill, openMontgomery (all three facilities) 280 799,874 kill, openChester 300* 498,886 kill, openBerks (Humane Society) 170 411,442 kill, closedBerks (Animal Rescue) 175 kill, openDelaware (SPCA) 135* 558,979 no-kill, closed

*The Chester statistics include animals taken from the Delaware County municipalities. TheDelaware SPCA statistics are only from its closed facility.

Of all the nine shelter organizations listed above, only three (i.e., Delaware SPCA, the CAHW,and the Sanctuary) are no-kill shelters; the Delaware SPCA and CAHW shelters are closedfacilities that do not accept stray animals. It also is noteworthy that despite Northampton havingthe smallest population of any of the seven counties, the average daily census of NorthamptonCountys CAHW is higher than any other countys combined daily census. Given that nolicensing occurs in Pennsylvania, there is no standard for measuring any animal shelterscapacity, nor are there data for determining whether shelters are operating under capacity or overcapacity.

Lehigh CountyLehigh County hosts two animal shelters: the Lehigh County Humane Society (established in1906) and the Sanctuary at Haafsville (established in 2012). The Humane Society accepts straydogs and cats from residents and from municipal agencies in approximately nine municipalities


29/71

16

through contracts; the Sanctuary accepts stray dogs and cats from residents and municipalagencies through contract in approximately 13 municipalities (some of which do not have apolice department). The Humane Society operates as a kill facility; the Sanctuary is a no-killfacility. The Humane Society charges a flat fee to each municipality based on the size of themunicipality and its history of how many dogs and cats have been brought to it from municipal

agencies and residents. Based on the number of stray animals brought by either municipalofficials or residents in 2012, Upper Saucon, Whitehall, and Fountain Hill each paidapproximately $100-150 for each animal. The Sanctuary charges $110 per stray dog and $30 perstray cat. The Humane Society will not accept stray dogs from any municipality not undercontract or from any municipality outside of Lehigh County. The Humane Societys presidentindicates that the shelter is currently close to capacity (with a daily census of approximately 200cats and dogs). The Sanctuary is willing to enter into contracts with municipalities outside ofLehigh County at a fee of $110 per dog and $30 per cat.

With a population of 118,000 people, Allentown is by far the largest municipality in any of theseven counties in suburban Philadelphia and the Lehigh Valley. The city employs one full-time

Animal Control Officer whose duty is primarily focused on picking up stray dogs and cats andbringing them to the Lehigh County Humane Society. According to City Recycling BureauManager Ann Saurman, each year the citys Animal Control Officer and residents bring morethan 2,400 animals to the Humane Society for which the city pays the Humane Society $115 peranimal. She estimates that the residents on their own bring one-half of the strays to the shelter,which is located in the middle of the city and is convenient and close for many residents. Ms.Saurman told us that she had conducted a survey of many counties and individual shelters withinAllentowns geographical region recently to compare the rates charged by the Lehigh CountyHumane Society. Her conclusion was that their cost of $115/animal being paid to the HumaneSociety was fair and typical of other shelters charges.

The City of Bethlehem (which is located partially in Northampton and Lehigh Counties) hasrequired its health department to assume responsibility for stray dogs in the city. Unable to takedogs to the CAHW, the city now initially takes its stray dogs to the Christmas City AnimalHospital for a period of 2-7 days while the owner is sought. After seven days, health departmentofficials transport the dogs to the Berks County Humane Society at a cost of $200 per animal.City officials estimate that approximately 20 percent of the stray dogs that they pick up aretransported to the Berks Humane Society facility.

Suburban Philadelphia CountiesIn Bucks and Montgomery Counties, municipalities and residents pay no fee to bring stray dogsor cats to the Bucks County and Montgomery County SPCAs. Shelter directors in these twofacilities indicate that donations and other revenues provide sufficient funds to operate theirshelters on a no-fee basis.

In Berks County, there are two animal shelter organizations: the Berks Humane Society (a closedfacility that does not accept stray animals) and the Berks Rescue League, which accepts straydogs from all 67 municipalities in the county through contract at flat fees that are between$1,500 to $2,000 per year. The league also accepts stray animals through contract from severalmunicipalities in other counties.


30/71

17

In Chester County, the Chester County SPCA accepts stray dogs and cats and chargesmunicipalities a flat fee per year plus a $35 per animal boarding fee. The costs vary according tothe municipality. West Chester, which has the third largest population among the 73municipalities in the county, paid approximately $73 per stray animal (including boarding fees)

brought to the SPCA in 2012; West Bradford Township paid $155 per animal; East Coventrypaid $166 per animal; and West Goshen paid $800 per animal.

Delaware Countys situation is somewhat similar to that in Northampton County, but the currentresolution is quite different. For many years through 2009, the Delaware SPCA operated as akill facility that was open to municipalities and residents; the SPCA charged $25 per stray dogthat was brought to the facility. In 2010, its fee increased to $116 per dog. In 2012, the SPCAbecame a no-kill shelter and a closed facility, not accepting any stray animals frommunicipalities. That year, the Delaware County Board of Commissioners appointed the CountyAnimal Protection Board, which ultimately contracted on behalf of all the municipalities in thecounty who have police departments with the neighboring Chester County SPCA. Through this

contract, for more than a year now, the Chester County SPCA has accepted all stray dogs fromthe municipal police departments in Delaware County at a fee of $250 per dog.

Philadelphia, New York City, and New JerseyPhiladelphia has two major animal shelters: the Pennsylvania SPCA (the second oldest animalshelter in the United States created in 1867) and a shelter owned by the city. The citys killshelter is responsible for the more than 30,000 stray animals picked up each year. ThePennsylvania SPCA also owns a closed, no-kill facility that accepted approximately 7,500animals in 2012.

New York City has many animal shelters. The largest shelters in the city are operated by theAmerican SPCA (ASPCA) and the Animal Care and Control Facility (NYCACC). TheNYCACC operates five kill shelters in the city (one in each borough) and is under contract withNew York City to handle the more than 30,000 stray dogs and cats brought to their facilities eachyear. The ASPCA provides a number of services in the city and operates one closed kill facility.

New Jersey does not have a law that requires municipal police departments to pick up strayanimals. Additionally, no statewide information is available on how many stray dogs or cats arebrought to private animal shelters in the Garden State.

Stray CatsEven thought cat control is not regulated or required of municipalities, it is a problem across thecountry, including the Lehigh Valley. Although there are no statistics that track stray cats,municipal officials and shelter managers all agree that there are more stray cats in the public thanstray dogs. In the animal shelters that we surveyed, the ratio of cats to dogs is at least 1:1, and inmany shelters the ratio is as high as 4:1. In the CAHW shelter, the ratio is almost 5:1. InAllentown where the City Animal Control Officer picks up all stray cats and dogs, 60% of theanimals they pick up are cats.


31/71

18

Stray cats also include feral cats, which according to Wikipedia are defined to be an animal thatdoes not appear friendly when approached by humans, but the term can apply to anydomesticated animal without human contact that was born in the wild. Feral cats are typicallyonly caught through the use of traps and/or cages, and can be carriers of disease, such as rabies.Because property owners are fearful of being bitten and object to the defecation they leave,

complaints about feral cats are very common.

All animal shelters that we surveyed have cats in their facilities, but many do not accept feralcats. More commonly, feral cats are trapped, neutered, and returned to the wild throughprograms referred to as TNR. Some shelters have acquired grants to cover the cost of TNRprograms. Recently the City of Easton and the CAHW received a grant from Pet Smart toconduct this type of program.


32/71

19

Analysis

There is no simple or all-inclusive solution to the challenges of collecting of stray dogs or cats inNorthampton County. The source of the difficulty in Pennsylvania is that while state law

requires municipal and state police officers and state dog wardens to seize and detain any dogwhich is found running at large, either upon the public streets or highways of theCommonwealth, or upon the property of a person other than the owner of the dog, andunaccompanied by the owner or keeper, there is no state law requiring any animal shelter toaccept stray dogs or stray cats. While the law states that every police officer, State dog warden,employee of the department or animal control officer may humanely kill any dog which is foundrunning at large and is deemed after due consideration by the police officer, State dog warden,employee of the department or animal control officer to constitute a threat to the public healthand welfare, until 2-3 years ago, most police departments took stray dogs to private animalshelters at little or no cost even though the shelters were under no legal obligation to acceptthem. The problem that has developed overthe past several years is that the animal shelters fees

to municipalities have increased significantly due to the escalating cost to feed, medically treat,spay and neuter, and house these animals. Although the problem has not become as acute inrural areas, in some urban areas in Northampton County and elsewhere in suburban Philadelphia,police departments have had to shoulder the administrative responsibility and assume thefinancial responsibility of finding homes for stray dogs or paying much higher fees than theypaid in the past. Even though state law appears to give municipalities latitude to euthanize straydogs, municipalities are reluctant to do this for financial and humane reasons.

In this report, we have provided a significant review of animal shelter operation and municipalanimal control programs in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia. We have spoken tosome of the national associations involved in animal shelter organization, seeking their opinionas to the best practices of animal sheltering, focusing on potential options that are financiallysustainable in both the short and long term. The following is a list of our conclusions:

1. We discussed with officials of the Center for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW) howtheir shelter might become an open facility and again accept stray dogs regularly frommunicipalities. According to its website, the CAHW accepts municipal strays in asimilar manner to a private relinquishment with a drop-off fee of $150 per animal, butonly when the CAHW has open capacity. Currently, Northampton County contributes$5,000 per year to the CAHW even though the shelter is generally closed to municipalstrays. We inquired if larger contributions from each municipality or the county wouldenable the CAHW to accept more animals. CAHW officials informed us that their mainissue is not cost, but space for more animals. When questioned about a possibleexpansion of their facility, the officials indicated that expansion would be only atemporary answer because within a short time, additional space would fill up withanimals. In contrast to when they operated as a kill shelter, it appears that CAHWofficials believe that, as a no-kill facility, they will never again become an open facilityregularly able to accept stray dogs and cats at any fee.

2. Even though municipal officials may not want to assume the operational and financialresponsibility for finding homes and/or final dispositions of stray dogs, it is their legal


33/71

20

responsibility to do so, and they do have options of animal shelters to which they can taketheir stray dogs, even if it is at a cost of $100-$250 per dog. While their frustration withthe existing animal shelters in Northampton and Lehigh Counties is understandable, theymust recognize that these shelters are non-profit or private organizations whose missionis assist whatever animals they choose to help. They are under no legal obligation to

accept stray animals from municipalities.3. Animal shelters fees are increasing. The reason for the increase is that animal sheltersoperational costs are increasing at an even greater rate, according to all shelter managerswe interviewed. Animal shelter directors indicate that the fees charged for stray dogs donot cover the full costs to spay, neuter, immunize, and house the animals. Municipalofficials have expressed anger at area animal shelters for these fee increases but they needto understand the cause for the increase in fees.

4. The science of shelter management is evolving to include the no-kill philosophy. The killversus no-kill policy is a very sensitive issue among shelter managers, professionals,shelter organizations, and the general public. However, everyone we interviewedindicated that to be financially sustainable in the short and long term, no-kill management

requires significant skill and hard work so as to ensure a high rate of adoptions.Otherwise, the facility has to close its doors to receiving new stray animals, as evidencedby the current situation in the Lehigh Valley and suburban Philadelphia where two of thethree existing no-kill shelters are not open to stray animals. The third sheltertheSanctuary at Haafsvilleis an open facility that is fairly new.

5. Some municipalities could save money and operational difficulties by cooperating jointlyto operate smaller kennels to act as temporary holding facilities. For instance, themunicipalities in suburban Easton could work with the City of Easton to increase the sizeof its kennel to include the strays picked up by the other municipalities. By sharing in theconstruction and operational costs, this joint municipal kennel might save money for allmunicipal participants. Additionally, municipalities could charge a fee to pet ownerswho claim the stray dog held by the municipality. This would enable the municipality torecoup some of its expenses.

6. As many municipal police departments have done already, others can be more aggressivein searching for the owners of lost dogs that are picked up by municipal police officersand animal control officers. Police officers and/or animal control officers can canvass aneighborhood by knocking on doors to find an owner. The City of Easton has a LostDog page on its website.

7. Stray cats are a community problem across the United States, including easternPennsylvania. Currently Pennsylvania and its municipalities do not legislatively regulatecats, meaning that police officers, animal control officers, and dog wardens are notpicking up stray cats despite their large population.

8. Municipalities in Northampton County do have some other alternatives, but with greatercost. The Sanctuary at Haafsville in Breinigsville will offer a contract with amunicipality at a cost of $110 per stray dog and $30 per stray cat. Municipalities couldtake their stray dogs to Berks Animal Rescue League; Executive Director Harry Brownsays that the league will consider signing a contract with out-of-Berks Countymunicipalities for a per-animal fee.

9. Northampton County could become more proactively involved in partnerships withmunicipal police departments through any or all of the following actions:


34/71

21

a. Conduct stronger enforcement of dog licenses to require more pet owners to complywith state law and license their dogs, which would also provide a small stream ofrevenue for the county;

b. Work with the CAHW on an education program to increase awareness of responsiblepet ownership to reduce the number of stray animals;

c.

Dedicate a section of the countys website to highlight the stray animals picked up bymunicipal police departments so as to increase both the return of dogs to pet ownersand adoption of unclaimed dogs;

d. Meet with police chiefs in the southern portion of the county (where the number ofstray dogs is largest) to discuss the feasibility of creating and operating a small,regional kennel to temporarily hold stray dogs; and

e. Conduct a feasibility study of the construction of a new animal shelter dedicated tostray dogs picked up by municipal police departments, and to stray cats brought to theshelter by county residents.


35/71

22


36/71

Section II: "Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Models

and Options for Northampton County."


37/71

Stray Animal Facilities and Management

ModelsandOptionsforNorthamptonCountyJune28,2013

Humane Society Management Services, LLC.1801 North 11

thStreet

Reading, PA 19604


38/71

1 copyright, 2013, HSMS, llc.

Humane Society Management Services, llc.

Humane Society Management Services, llc. (HSMS) was formed in 2012 to provide animalwelfare consulting and management services to public, private and governmental organizationsthroughout the United States. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Humane Society of BerksCounty, a national leader in animal welfare founded in 1900.

HSMS brings together skilled and extensively experienced animal welfare and non-profitprofessionals to provide high quality, affordable services in an effort to improve upon andelevate the level of animal welfare nationwide. By offering access to a wide array of talentedprofessionals which might not otherwise be available organizations in an often underserved non-profit sector, HSMS allows for swift and efficient implementation of improved systems and

models in animal welfare, animal control, and organizational management. HSMS staff andconsultants include nationally recognized leaders in shelter and facilities management, animalcontrol, Euthanasia by Injection (EBI), non-profit organizational development.

HSMS staff and consultants are regular trainers and presenters at national and regional animalwelfare conferences and trainings and serve on a numerous state, regional and national animalwelfare organizational and advisory boards. The goal of HSMS is to improve the lives of animalsby improving the quality of the programs, services, and organizations serving them.

Senior Staff

Karel Minor, Chief Executive OfficerDamon March, Chief Operating OfficerKristen Freeman, Chief Financial OfficerLorraine Storms, Administrative Programs DirectorDr. Alicia Elwell, Chief Veterinary Officer


39/71


Preface

Stray Animal Facilities and Management: Options and Models for Northampton County hasbeen prepared under contract with Humane Society Management Services, llc, at the request ofNorthampton County officials. It serves as a supporting document for a recently completed

review and analysis of municipal handling of stray dogs in Northampton County prepared by theMeyner Center of Lafayette College. The purpose of this document is to provide a range ofoptions available to the County of Northampton and its municipalities regarding animal controlefforts, as well as resource estimates for each approach. This document relies in part on the datapreviously collected as part of the Meyner Centers prior report. HSMS extends thanks to DavidWoglom, Associate Director for Public Policy of the Meyner Center. Where cost estimates areprovided, they are based on published and reported costs attributed to similar programs, services,and facilities. The document had been prepared by Karel Minor, HSMS Chief ExecutiveOfficer; Damon March, HSMS Chief Operating Officer; and John Snyder, HSMS Consultant.

Because the various models and form of animal shelters and animal control facilities are not

generally familiar to those outside of the animal welfare community, this document also servesas a shelter primer. Pricing and costs are based on similar past examples elsewhere and, due tovariation in region and markets, are only intended to be general estimates. HSMS offers noguarantee of current or future costs or expenses associated with any estimate included in thisreport. The views expressed within this document are entirely those of HSMS and the authors ofthe report. This report provides an overview of what couldbe done and for the most part doesnot attempt to define what shouldbe done. However, in a handful of places a value judgment ona specific topic is noted based on the authors professional experience and beliefs and these arenoted in italics.

Karel MinorChief Executive OfficerHumane Society Management Services, llc.


40/71


Stray Animal Facilities and Management:

Options and Models for Northampton County

June, 2013

Humane Society Management Services, LLC.1801 North 11th Street

Reading, PA 19604


41/71


Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 5Background ..................................................................................................................................... 7Considerations for Selecting an Animal Control Facility Model ................................................... 9Types of Facilities/Service Models ............................................................................................... 13Operational Management Options ................................................................................................ 26Facilities and Capital Investment .................................................................................................. 29Operational Cost and Service Comparisons ................................................................................. 32Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 34


42/71


ExecutiveSummary

Northampton Countys animals, citizens and municipalities face a service crisis relating to thecollection, housing and disposition of stray animals as a result of a withdrawal of service by thelocal private animal shelter providing stray animal intake. The recent Meyner Center report,

The Handling of Stray Dogs in Northampton County, provided a thorough overview of thehistory and background of the recent service withdrawal, as well as state of the animal welfareand control market and industry. It also identified the need to identify options and possibilitiesavailable to the community.

John Stoffa, Northampton County Executive, commissioned this report to outline the optionsavailable to the County and municipal governments and to provide a sense of what outcomesthese options would provide, what the associated capital and operational costs would be for thepossible options, and what the benefits and drawbacks of each approach may be. This reportidentifies several approaches to the stray animal issue- as well as addressing the ways in which aresponse to the stray dog issue is different than the issue of strays or homeless animals generally-

by focusing on service models, types of services, management models, and facilities. Each ofthese models is reviewed in the light of the estimated number of stray dogs reported to behandled by municipalities in 2012, 808, and reasonable estimates for the numbers of animalshandled if stray cats or publicly sourced or surrendered pets were housed.

In summary, the following types of service model are identified as possible to address the needsof stray animals in Northampton County:

Outside service/stray export service Stray dog (exclusive) intake facility Stray dog (exclusive) intake facility with animal control pick up capability Stray animal (dog and cat or all species) intake facility Stray animal (dog and cat or all species) intake facility with animal control pick up

capability

Open Access Facility (acceptance of strays and owner relinquished pets) Enhanced service facility (additional services offered to animals, public, or municipality) Comprehensive service facility (broadest possible array of services available)

The costs of these service models are estimated and ranged from a low of about $240,000 for themost basic of stray export models to basic enhanced services starting at only $400,000 to acomprehensive service model of as much as $1million or more, based on comparable servicesmodels within Pennsylvania.

The following facilities management models are identified: Outside non-profit/for-profit management contract (stray export model) Outside non-profit/for-profit management contract (in-county facility) County managed facility

The minimum sizing for each model and population is identified as ranging from 3,000 4,000square feet based on minimum caging footprints to the average sizes of comparable stray intakeshelters in Pennsylvania of 7,000 to 9,000 square feet. The average per square foot capital


43/71


investment is estimated to range from $144 to $250 per square foot, with great variation based onservice model, size, and capacity. Average facilities construction or renovations costs, based oncomparable recent capital facilities projects in Pennsylvania, are estimated at between $875,000to well over $1 million, with wide variation possible.

Based on the low end costs of stray interventions which serve only to assist the smallest numberof stray dogs to be shipped to an out of county facility and face extremely high euthanasia ratesand the highest end costs of providing the most comprehensive services to all animals are onlymultiples of two to three times the lowest costs. With service fees or potential donor support, thegap between the worst and the best service models closes further. National averages ofinvestment in animal control programs are $4 per person. Funding based on NorthamptonCountys population at that rate could not only address the stray animal issues it faces but coulddo so in an extremely effective and comprehensive manner and serve as a model within theregion and throughout Pennsylvania.

A wide variety of solutions are available to Northampton County, its municipalities, and its

residents which are viable, effective, and affordable.


44/71


BackgroundNorthampton County finds itself in the midst of a sea change in the way in which animal controlservices and stray animal sheltering and disposition are handled within Pennsylvania. For manydecades animal control services have been provided to municipalities either entirely by non-

governmental, non-profit animal welfare organizations or through some substantialpartnership/service support relationship between governmental animal control authorities andnon-profit animal welfare organizations. Non-profit animal welfare groups offered theseservices as an extension of their mission. State and municipal government made use of theseservices because of their artificially low, far below market rate costs as a result of subsidiesprovided by charitable donors.

In the past several years, however, animal charities throughout Pennsylvania have been optingout of animal control or stray sheltering contracts, either for financial reasons or because ofmission shifts. Because animal control service contracts through charities have traditionallybeen paid at a rate of 10 to 50 cents on the dollar compared to free market rates established in the

absence of charitably subsidized service contracts1

, economic forces have resulted in someshelters altering, limiting, or entirely cancelling service contracts. Recent changes to the limitedsubsidies offered by the PA Department of Agriculture to shelters accepting stray dogs resultedin further declines in the number of shelters willing to accept strays under contract. Someorganizations made the decision to opt out simply for philosophical reasons as the no killagenda gains wider acceptance in the broader sheltering community.

Northampton County municipalities have recently faced the same issues. In early 2013, theCenter for Animal Health and Welfare (CAHW), the private animal shelter which had previouslyaccepted unlimited strays under municipal contract made the decision to become no kill. Theydropped all animal control contracts and refuse to accept any stray animal without prior approval

based on space and other factors, and required either advance payment or established paymentarrangements with a municipality. The effective result was to cut off access to stray animalholding services at the sole animal shelter in Northampton County. Although severalmunicipalities adjusted to a limited extent in order to handle strays, the level of capability andservice varied by municipality and has resulted in a fractured, variable system of animal controlresponse in Northampton. Additionally, these efforts were limited to stray dogs since they arethe sole species which benefits from a legal animal control response mandate under Pennsylvanialaw.

Recognizing the problems facing stray animals in the absence of a uniform, Countywide animalcontrol response, Northampton County Officials undertook the process of evaluating the current

state of animal control services. The Meyner Center report provided an overview and history ofthe current status of animal control efforts, programs and services in Northampton, as well as ageneral discussion of the issue in other portions of Pennsylvania and other states. The MeynerCenter report established a lack of a comprehensive service alternatives, both within and without

1Two notable examples are Delaware County SPCA, Humane League of Lancaster County, and Berks County SPCA. DCSPCA reportedlysought to increase its stray intake fee from $25 to $116 but was rebuffed by municipal officials . After dropping their service contractsmunicipalities accepted a stray holding contract with Chester County SPCA for $250 per animal. Humane League of Lancaster County sought anincrease of about 35% to an effective rate of $135 per animal . After cancelling its remaining contracts, county municipalities announced aservice contract with the newly formed Lancaster County SPCA for a reported $300 per animal.


45/71


the County. It identified the disparity between services required or offered for cats and dogs(and other stray species) and the increasing philosophical divide between those responsible foraddressing state and municipal animal and stray control responsibilities and those charitableanimal welfare organizations which exist to benefit animals generally, as well as an extensive listof associated issues and hurdles. Finally the report suggested a a feasibility study of the

construction of a new animal shelter dedicated to stray dogs picked up by municipal policedepartments, and to stray cats brought to the shelter by county residents.

Despite the general fatalism expressed by many dealing with the reality of stray and animalcontrol in Pennsylvania, there are many successful models to look to. While the prior servicemodel in Pennsylvania is in a state of collapse, nationally there are many successful municipalshelters, as well as successful municipal/charitable partnerships which deliver both high qualityof service to residents and a high chance of positive outcomes for the animals entering them.There are also new approaches which could be undertaken to best suit the unique needs ofPennsylvania state, county, and municipal which may serve as new models to others. Thesesolutions simply require a combination of proper planning, a will to successfully implement that

plan, and suitable and sustainable resources to realize implementation and ongoing operations.

The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of the various options available toNorthampton County should it seek to establish a County/municipal stray intake and animalcontrol facility. It offers a general assessment of the needs and resources required based on avariety of service offerings and an analysis of the benefits and shortcomings of each approach.


46/71


ConsiderationsforSelectinganAnimalControlFacilityModel

Fundamentally, the decisions which must be made when making choices regarding animalcontrol services and facilities boil down to a few: What is the purpose of the facility, what will itcost to build it, and what will it cost to run it? Answering these three questions is not as easy as

it might seem since each requires careful consideration, leading to more critical questions.

The selection of a model on which to create and operate an animal control facility involvesanswering a longer list of questions which will define the operations and cost of any facility.Any animal control facility can be as limited or expansive in scope as is desired or affordable,but the extent of services and desired outcomes should be made in advance and with clear eyes.An extremely limited animal control facility may have the lowest possible operating costs. Itwill almost certainly also have the highest euthanasia (death rate) compared to a facility whichoffers additional services. Nationally, animal control facilities range from the traditionalpound to shelters which are of the highest operational caliber and which boast serviceprograms and save rates comparable to the best no kill charitable animal shelters.

What form a potential Northampton County animal control facility takes will be driven by thefollowing service option decisions:

Will the facility accept dogs only or also accept cats and other species of domestic strays? Will the facility only accept stray animals from police or municipal officials or will it

also accept strays from the general public?

Will the facility accept owner surrendered animals (animals which are not strays)? Will euthanasia services be provided in-house or outside of the facility and will it be

performed by facility staff or a contracted outside service provider?

Will legally required veterinary care be provided in-house or out of the facility and willit be performed by facility veterinary staff or a contracted outside service provider?

Will the facility engage in adoption services for unclaimed animals and, if so, howaggressively will those services be pursued?

Will the facility be operated by County employees or under contract with an outsidecompany or organization?

Will the facility provide stray pick up services, either from municipal sources or from thegeneral public?

What level of effort to minimize animal stress and illness through enrichment or facilitiesdesign is desired?

Is there a desire to engage the public in the operations of the facility throughvolunteerism or donations?

Some of these decisions are Yes/No, but most offer a continuum of possibilities, as well as acontinuum of projected facilities and operations expense. This report provides general estimatesfor costs associated with the most basic of animal control operations, a mid-level operationfacility, and a full animal welfare model, along with means of estimating the costs and savingsof adding and subtracting various services and facilities options. Pros and cons of the variousapproaches will also be offered for consideration.


47/71


Initial and ongoing costs are almost exclusively determined by three overlapping areas; holdingcapacity, services provided, and staffing. Any decision made in one arena will directly impactboth of the others. The simplest calculation is: More Holding/Service/Staff = MoreMoney/Fewer Animal Deaths. However, many factors play a role in determining the success ofany animal sheltering or control facility. While the cost financial difference between doing

nothing and providing exceptional animal control services to the community and its animals ispotentially great, the gap is much smaller between providing exceptional service and simplyproviding the bare minimum of services.

Exactly what those costs will be are driven by choices on holding capacity, services, staffing,euthanasia, type of facility/service model, type of operational management, and the approach tobuilding or renovating a facility.

HoldingCapacityHolding capacity, or the number of animals a facility is capable of housing at any given time, is

based on the highest projected number of animals which can be expected to be in a shelter on anygiven day. This is determined by purpose of the facility and it is always possible to have more.The Meyner Center report noted the daily holding rates of many shelters in the region but thisnumber is unrelated to animal intake overall and is a factor of operational management andpolicy decisions. A facility with 300 cages may take in 300 animals a day or ten animals a day.Both are capable of holding 300 animals but one will face a space issue on the second day ofoperation, the other on the 31st day of operation.

Holding capacity decisions are driven by how many animals enter a shelter over a given periodof time; how long an animal must be held by law or how long an animal is chosen to be kept bypolicy; and how many animals are exiting the shelter through adoption, owner claim, or

euthanasia. If a shelter is viewed as a bucket, it can only hold so much before overflowing. Theonly way to avoid that is to empty the bucket faster than it is filled (adoption, owner claim, oreuthanasia) or keep the bucket from being filled (admission prevention programs or closingaccess to the shelter). How big the bucket is going to be is a policy and financial choice, withsome legal constraints for stray dogs in Pennsylvania.

If a facility is a strict animal control depository and holding facility which is explicitly intendedto address the governments legal obligation to address dog control law and ordinancerequirements, with no effort at adoption efforts and a pre-determined willingness to control thesheltered animal population through time and space based euthanasia as needed, it will requirethe smallest number of cages/kennels. In Pennsylvania this would be determined by themaximum number of stray dogs which are projected to enter a shelter of over a given period oftime which allows for incoming and outgoing processing and the state mandated stray holdingperiod. During peak intake periods all cages would be filled and during slower intake periodsthere would be additional kennel space and holding time available to animals being housed.

Providing animals during non-peak intake periods additional time, such as for adoption efforts,would result in higher daily holding numbers of animals, and increased staff and operationsexpense. There will always be animals to fill any cage or kennel installed in a facility. How


48/71


many, what type, and for what purpose an animal is kept is a facility function, policy, andmission decision.

Services

The scope of services which may be offered in a sheltering setting are essentially unlimited. Astrict animal control facility may only offer those services which are legally required: minimumcare and housing requirements, minimum holding periods, assure minimum health and veterinaryaccess as required by law, euthanasia programming as required by law, essential reporting andowner claim staffing, etc. The most basic of facilities and services allows for the smallestpossible physical, financial and staffing footprint. It also ensures the lowest possible positiveoutcomes- i.e. how many leave the facility alive- for animals in the facilitys care. Conversely,the more services offered to assist animals and people, the higher the costs, but with the potentialof substantially higher success rates.

Generally, the minimum services required are those driven by law or municipal need in an

animal control facility. These services do not address the needs or positive outcomes of theanimals entering the facility. As animal health and welfare begin to be addressed, additionalservices become necessary. These may include adoption services, more aggressive owneridentification efforts, increased veterinary care, in house veterinary care, sterilization foroutgoing animals, behavioral enrichment programs, and a host of other services and programs.

Most animal control facilities which function with any effort beyond being a place for strayanimals to enter, sit for the legally mandated stray period, and be euthanized and disposed of,incorporate some additional services, especially in the area of adoption or animal transfer efforts.Many of the services which are viewed as extras in Pennsylvania are required by law in stateswith more extensive legal requirements aimed at saving animals lives. These services add to

long term personnel costs, as well as to facilities construction and service related operationscosts, and must be accounted for in any budgeting process.

Staffing Post facility construction and startup, the single biggest operational expense at any animalcontrol or sheltering facility is staffing. Staffing needs are driven by a combination of theholding capacity of the facility, the holding policy of the facility, and what services andprograms are required of and offered by the facility.

For basic animal care, there are industry best practices which are widely accepted. Notably, theAssociation of Shelter Veterinarians has published guid

stray animal control in northampton county

Documents