But as a private non-profit organization, AWLA also raised $1,031,897 in charitable contributions. Along with depreciation of $91,162, those contributions resulted in positive cash flow of $500,000 in fiscal 2009. If AWLA were a for-profit organization, its EBITDA would be an enviable 20% of revenue.

What is AWLA doing with the $500,000 it generated in fiscal 2009 (or the $632,000 it generated in fiscal 2008?) Is the money being used to save more homeless animals?

Based on the number of cats and dogs that AWLA found homes for or transferred to rescue during the last four fiscal years…

2009 — 1,098
2008 — 1,029
2007 — 1,049
2006 — 1,073

…it’s hard to see a correlation between positive cash flow and improvement in animal outcomes.

Could that be because fundraising is AWLA’s top priority, and saving homeless animals comes second?

I think this is an endemic problem when a private SPCA, humane society, or animal-welfare league handles animal control and manages an open-admission shelter under contract with a municipal government. The league (or SPCA, or HS) views every action it takes through the lens of how it might affect fundraising efforts.

Animals successfully placed in adoptive homes help the league generate contributions by providing happy-ending anecdotes and adding potential donors (the adopters) to the mailing list. But animals the league can’t find homes for — and ultimately kills instead — represent failure. If publicized, these killings diminish the league’s reputation and undermine charitable contributions. So it’s no surprise that happy endings are trumpeted on the league’s website and in newsletters sent to donors, while euthanasia statistics are buried in obscure tables, if they’re provided at all.

Domino is off-view at AWLA. What happens next?

Why doesn’t the league encourage rescue groups to take animals that it can’t or won’t adopt out? As municipally-run shelters have learned, the best way to get the attention of resource-constrained local rescue groups is to broadcast an e-mail with a picture of Rosie the coonhound saying “Rosie’s time is up tomorrow! Can anyone PLEASE give her another chance?”

If the league did that, its fundraising appeals would trigger cognitive dissonance. They would be heard in the context of stories about death-row dogs being pulled from the league-managed shelter, rehabilitated by a rescue group, and adopted into a loving home… anecdotes demonstrating that due to their willingness to invest time and money, the rescue groups were succeeding where the league had failed. Why wouldn’t the charitable contribtutions then start swinging toward the rescue groups instead of the league?

Taken to an extreme, if rescue groups were given access to all stray and surrendered cats and dogs received by the league’s open-admission shelter, maybe a network of these groups would eventually pull all the healthy and treatable animals, leaving the league essentially responsible for animal control and euthanasia of the least adoptable animals. That’s a hard story to sell to potential donors.

So at some level, non-profits that handle animal control and manage an open-admission shelter have an incentive to hold rescue organizations at arm’s length, and to simultaneously hide statistics on the number of animals they end up killing.

By contrast, an open-admission shelter funded entirely by the municipal government doesn’t pursue charitable contributions, so it doesn’t have the same motivation to hide euthanasia statistics. It can blast out Rosie’s picture with the caption “only three days left!” to spur a response from rescue groups that already have their hands full.

Knowing that it has limited ability to find homes for the animals in its care, a municipal shelter has every incentive to offer animals to any rescue group willing to take them; each cat or dog pulled is one fewer animal the shelter has to care for, or eventually kill. The municipal shelter doesn’t have to worry that transferring an animal might also mean transferring a possible happy ending — and a possible stream of charitable contributions — along with it.

This perceived conflict between the goals of maximizing charitable contributions and saving as many homeless animals as possible is, in my view, a core reason that non-profits like the AWLAs of Arlington and Alexandria and the Montgomery County Humane Society save a much lower percentage of their homeless animals than organizations that collaborate closely with the municipal pound but don’t manage it — like Richmond SPCA and the Nevada Humane Society.

RSPCA and NHS don’t have to worry about killing unwanted surrenders or strays. Instead they focus on pulling as many animals as they can from the pound, then use proven programs like foster care and adoption events to find homes for them, on the assumption that if they save enough animals, the fundraising will take care of itself.

That seems like the best approach. Let the local government manage animal control and maintain the municipal shelter. And give a full spectrum of animal welfare organizations — from SPCAs and humane societies managing limited-admission shelters to foster-care networks to breed-specific rescue groups — access to all the stray and surrendered cats and dogs, so they can pull, nurture, and promote any animal.

Killing animals without giving anyone a chance to save them is inhumane. Every homeless cat or dog consigned to a shelter that kills unwanted animals at least deserves the chance to be seen by everyone who might be willing to help.

The first event, which occurred about a year and a half ago, was the League fabricating information to the State of Virginia’s Health Department regarding a rabies test. At the time rabies vaccinations were in short supply and the League had hired a new employee that needed, due to League rules, pre-exposure vaccinations. Apparently the League was told that there was not an adequate amount of vaccinations in the state and the supply was to be kept for individuals that needed to receive post exposure shots. In order to get the employee vaccinated the League fabricated a bite report. The health department was told that the employee was “exposed” to a positive raccoon and she needed to receive the post exposure shots. Not only is this false, but she received six doses instead of the usual three. For some reason twice as much was used as is necessary and certainly contributed to the short supply of vaccine. Also, In order to get the vaccination the employee was forced to lie to the Health Department as well.

I was called into the Chief’s office [ed note: AWLA's Chief Animal Control Officer] days after finding out this had happened and was asked what I was saying regarding the “raccoon case”. I told her that we should not be fabricating information because if the league ever gets caught it would hurt its ability to prosecute cases and ruin our credibility. I was told to “keep my opinions” to myself and “there are reasons why we do things around here.” I wrote an email to the Executive Director informing her of the conversation I had and she said she would discuss it with me. After telling her about the conversation in person, the Executive Director informed me that she had authorized it herself. I was shocked and felt I could not pursue the matter further as I needed my job and was concerned the League would retaliate if I spoke out again.

Then I noticed other things happening such as case information disappearing from computer files. I brought [this] to the attention of the Communications Manager as did another employee and asked if there was a way to prevent access or the ability to delete information on activity’s we entered in the system. So far nothing has changed and reports were being changed after we finish filing them. We were told someone would look into it but it seems to have been dropped…

Lastly, I feel the whole Operation of the League needs to be investigated. They “pre-mix” Ketamine and Xylamine which I believe this is against State Regulations. I do not have faith in the current operational processes and am uncomfortable about the potential lawsuit exposure as well as worried that I may be put in a position where I am told to lie to the State or lose my job. Since these are the things I have seen am very concerned as to what else might be going on or what other regulations might be ignored.

I would like to emphasis that the current Chief of Animal Control seems to have an unusual amount of control over the whole League and that any complaints against her or regulations she ignores are not pursued or even looked into by the Director or Board…

Things have gotten so bad that I understand that the Arlington County Board has taken more of an active interest and might be investigating funds misappropriation as well as what appears to be over-aggressive euthanasia practices. The Leagues new contract is coming up and the residents of Arlington County Virginia deserve to be represented by individuals who can administer the League with Honor and Integrity and won’t cost the taxpayers’ money with easily avoidable lawsuits and fines.

That a scofflaw attitude should have emerged within AWLA’s management — and that this attitude could manifest itself in falsified reports, data manipulation, and drug-maintenance violations — is reprehensible but not surprising. Year after year, AWLA benefits from an Arlington County contract which is single-sourced and accompanied by zero or minimal oversight from the County.

And AWLA’s Executive Director reports to a Board of Directors that she helps select, the members of which have no independent experience with animal-shelter management. So the Board is incapable of challenging AWLA management or holding it accountable for its shortcomings.

And as is typical in mismanaged shelters around the country, it’s the homeless animals who suffer.

However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.

This language would prevent animal shelters from killing dogs based on breed stereotypes alone.

AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra traveled to Richmond to testify against VA House Bill 429 — a surprising effort given AWLA’s widely-acclaimed announcement in 2009 that it would no longer ban pitbull adoptions. Since only one other witness opposed VA 429, Speerstra’s testimony presumably helped defeat it in the House Agricultural Subcommittee.

So as AWLA continues to kill healthy young dogs based on the cursory “behavior evaluations” it conducts in the stressful environment of the shelter, it won’t have to worry about defending those evaluations. It can always fall back on the argument that the decision was based on breed characteristics.

Arguments against HB 429 ignore important truths:

– Dogs that exhibit aggression are often reacting to stress, discomfort, or perceived threats. When transferred to foster homes and provided with structure and training, the vast majority of these dogs become well-behaved family members.

– Aggressive behavior toward humans is not a breed trait. Individual dogs become aggressive or vicious when they are mistreated by cruel or irresponsible human guardians.

– Many dogs cannot be accurately characterized, or even identified, by breed. As a result, catchall terms like “pitbull” are used to describe stocky dogs with large heads or square jaws or pink noses.

How many dogs in this compilation would AWLA characterize as pitbull mixes?

Here’s a puppy that AWLA describes as a chocolate lab-pitbull mix:

Looks like AWLA casts a pretty wide net when identifying pitbulls.

And here’s
another dog that AWLA would almost certainly have characterized as an aggressive breed had it been turned over to them. Disoriented and scared after arriving at the shelter, how would Sharky have performed on AWLA’s behavior evaluation?

If you live in Arlington, you help underwrite AWLA’s stewardship of stray and surrendered animals. Feel free to ask Arlington County Board Members [via e-mail at countyboard@arlingtonva.us ] why your tax dollars are being used by AWLA to undermine legislation that is broadly supported by Arlington’s animal-rescue organizations and animal-welfare advocates.

Just for context, here are numbers from the FY2009 Financial Results published in AWLA’s Pawpourri newsletter:

Arlington County Contract for Sheltering/Animal Control

Revenue: $1,229,326
County expenses: $1,403,748
Surplus (deficit): ($174,422)

So AWLA receives $1.23 million from the County to perform animal control and manage the shelter, but spends $1.4 million handling those responsibilities.

But Kids Camp isn’t the only program that uses County Contract funds to generate income that AWLA categorizes as “League Revenue and Support.”

What about adoptions? When dogs, cats, or small companion animals get adopted, the adopters pay AWLA a fee. For dogs, the normal fee is $120. For cats $100. Parrots $150. Ferrets $80. Canaries $60. Rabbits $50. Etc.

And how about lost-and-found pets, aka stray pets that are “Returned to Owner”? AWLA charges $25 per calendar day as a boarding fee for these returned pets.

Since adopted pets come from the animal shelter and RTOs are picked up by animal control, and the County Contract pays for both of these services, you might think the revenue from adoptions and returned pets would also be associated with the County Contract. Nope – it’s listed as “program revenues”.

How much revenue are we talking about? Assuming that four out of five RTOs are charged for one day at the shelter (and the fifth is charged for two days), that one out of five adopted dogs and cats gets the senior-discount rate, and that the average small companion is a canary, here’s how it looks:

Fiscal Year 2009
	Dogs	Cats	Small	Total
Returned to Owner
Number	272	62	9	343
Average fee	$30	$30	$30	$30
Revenue	$8,160	$1,860	$270	$10,290
Adoptions
Number	315	765	139	1,219
Average fee	$111	$90	$60	$92
Revenue	$34,965	$68,850	$8,340	$112,155
Revenue, RTO + Adoptions	$43,125	$70,710	$8,610	$122,445

Adding $122K to the County Contract revenue kind of chops that “deficit” down to size, doesn’t it?

County Officials in Dialogue With Animal Welfare League Over Concerns

But Oreo started to show signs of aggression as she recovered, so the ASPCA decided to euthanize her. When an article in the New York Times described Oreo’s impending fate, an animal sanctuary with experience rehabilitating aggressive dogs offered to care for Oreo and provide her with a guaranteed home for life, with plenty of socialization and outdoor walks until she was ultimately adopted. The ASPCA denied the request and euthanized Oreo instead.

Partly in response to the outrage among animal lovers triggered by Oreo’s story, a bill that has been dubbed Oreo’s Law was introduced last month for consideration by the New York state legislature. It states that:

“Notwithstanding any provision of law, rule, or regulation to the contrary, no animal in the care or custody of a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, a duly incorporated humane society, or a pound or shelter maintained by or under contract or agreement with the state or any county, city, town or village, or authorized agents thereof, shall be destroyed if, prior to the killing of that animal for any reason other than irremediable physical suffering of the animal, a nonprofit, as defined in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, animal rescue or adoption organization requests possession of the animal.”

It’s hard for me to understand how anyone in the animal-welfare community can make a coherent argument against this provision. If a reputable rescue organization (and only approved organizations will be allowed to participate), wants to adopt and rehabilitate an animal that a shelter has decided to euthanize, the shelter should be thrilled to offer the animal a second chance.

Arlington is a small, affluent county without a dog-fighting culture, so it’s highly unlikely that the homeless dogs entrusted to AWLA are as physically abused and emotionally scarred as the pit bulls rescued from Michael Vick’s compound. When the Vick dogs were seized, the Humane Society of the US recommended to federal prosecutors that all of them be euthanized, sight unseen.

Instead the government was persuaded to have the dogs individually evaluated over the course of a week by a committee of experts from several rescue organizations.

Of the 51 dogs, the rescue volunteers concluded that only one was too aggressive to be rehabilitated. The rest were turned over to a consortium of rescue groups and distributed to foster homes and sanctuaries. You can follow some of their stories here.

If 50 of the 51 Vick dogs deserved a chance at rehabilitation, AWLA should aim for a similar percentage for its dogs and cats. Abiding by Oreo’s Law would be a great way to start.

1. Notify approved local rescue organizations before euthanizing a healthy or treatable companion animal.
(See the Asilomar Accords for the definition of treatable.)

2. Give the rescue organizations an opportunity to offer the animal a second chance.

AWLA doesn’t have to wait for Oreo’s Law to be passed in Arlington. They can start following it right now.

During July, AWLA runs two 3-day camps for kids aged 6-9, and two 5-day camps for kids aged 10-13. The younger kids learn about pets and wildlife, and “tour the shelter and meet many of our animals available for adoption.” Their camp costs $120 per participant.

The older kids “go behind the scenes” and “help in a hands-on capacity in certain aspects of shelter operations.” That camp costs $200 per participant.

Now as we know from the Financials page, AWLA loses money executing its contract with Arlington County, but generates positive cash-flow from donations, fund-raising events, and programs not related to the County Contract.

What programs are those? Community services programs, including Kids Camp.

On the Form 990 it files with the IRS, AWLA doesn’t indicate which expenses are associated with its County Contract and which are not. That distinction is only provided in its newsletter.

Where do you think the revenue generated by Kids Camp is allocated? It’s not part of the County Contract.

And where do you think the expenses necessary to hold Kids Camp are allocated? That is, the expenses required to care for the animals that the younger campers meet and the older campers get “hands-on” with. I’m guessing those shelter-maintenance expenses are allocated to the County Contract.

A small example, but one that succinctly points out the meaninglessness of AWLA’s bifurcation of its expenses into County expenses and League expenses.

Without the County-funded animal shelter, AWLA could not perform most of the community services that it highlights in its communications with donors. When it files with the IRS, AWLA doesn’t maintain this artificial bifurcation of expenses. It should stop pretending that its contract with Arlington County is a financial burden when it communicates with donors and volunteers as well.