| Last weekend AWLA transferred five of its dogs to Loudoun County Animal Control. Four of them — Buddy, Buttercup, Hannah, and Sophera — are currently listed as adoptable on the LCAC website. All four had been “on view” at AWLA for about six weeks without attracting adopters. | ||||
    | ||||
|
To its credit, AWLA first offered these dogs to two local rescue organizations, but both were at full capacity. While each group had recently accepted a difficult dog from AWLA, they both work primarily with rural high-kill shelters. That’s partially out of necessity, because until recently AWLA had no interest in transferring its dogs to rescue groups. If AWLA now wants to work with non-breed-specific rescue organizations, it needs to cast a wider net. As we’ve noted before, AWLA has other options it could pursue for its long-tenured dogs. It could promote them by staging adoption events and taking them out into the community, by posting flyers in neighborhood venues, and by advertising them online. And it could circulate them through its own network of foster homes — if AWLA made the effort to develop a network of dog fosterers, the way the rescue organizations do. Both of these approaches are used by the country’s most successful open-admission shelters. Instead, AWLA transferred five dogs to the Loudoun County shelter. According to ShelterWatch, here’s how LCAC’s kill rate for homeless dogs in 2009 compared to that of three similarly-sized open-admission shelters. | ||||
| Homeless dogs, 2009 | State | Outcomes | Killed | |
| Tompkins County SPCA | NY | 376 | 8.2% | |
| City of Montrose Animal Control | CO | 412 | 11.2% | |
| Culpeper County Animal Control | VA | 376 | 13.5% | |
| Loudoun County Animal Control | VA | 457 | 54.3% | |
|
Out of 39 shelters listed on ShelterWatch, LCAC ranked 36th; only three shelters killed a higher percentage of their dogs. Let’s hope Buddy, Buttercup, Hannah, and Sophera make it out of the Loudoun shelter alive. If they don’t, AWLA should be considered complicit in their deaths. | ||||
After holding management positions at progressive animal-rescue organizations Best Friends Animal Society and Alley Cat Allies, Bonney Brown joined the Nevada Humane Society as Executive Director in 2006. She and the NHS Board were determined to convert NHS from an open-admission shelter that killed most of the homeless animals it received into an open-admission shelter with one of the country’s highest live-release rates.
This brochure summarizes how they did it.
AWLA could use the ten steps listed as a blueprint for how to improve its own results. While all of the steps are important, these two seem especially relevant to AWLA:
3. Invest time and assets in lifesaving. Review every program in terms of its lifesaving impact. If a given program did not significantly and immediately contribute to saving lives, then we gave a hard look at letting it go. Though a program may be a nice thing to do, until we are saving all the animals that can be saved, we have a responsibility to ensure that we focus our resources and attention on creating a true safety net for homeless animals of the community — not next year, but right now.
We… eliminated several humane education projects in order to focus on getting the community immediately involved in saving lives.
For AWLA this could mean scrapping non-lifesaving programs like dog-manners classes and Kids Camp, and choosing instead to host adoption events in concert with rescue organizations or to expand its foster program to include adult dogs and cats.
4. Inspire and Involve the Community. Make a public declaration. While the idea of making a public declaration to become a no-kill community may be intimidating, the declaration itself actually has a powerful effect. Not only does it focus your internal efforts on the no-kill community goal, but it helps inspire and energize the community to support what you do.
To inspire animal lovers to get involved, you need to invite them to be part of something big, exciting, and worth the effort. So declaring an all-out effort to create a no-kill community is an important step in getting the support you need to make it happen.
This is the leap of faith that AWLA’s next Executive Director must already understand or be willing to make. Asking more of the community — asking it to help AWLA make Arlington a national leader in its treatment of homeless animals — will unleash a flood of untapped effort and resources. If AWLA challenges Arlington residents to help it save every homeless animal it receives, and then focuses its efforts on productively managing an army of volunteers, it won’t need to spend its time on fundraising events like Walk for the Animals and Catsino Night.
People like to associate with and contribute to winning organizations. If AWLA becomes one, the fundraising will take care of itself.
Posted in Principles, Yardsticks | 1 Comment »
Comments we’ve received from an AWLA volunteer on our last two posts suggest that maybe we’ve been too optimistic about the rate at which AWLA is improving its efforts on behalf of homeless animals. A culture of stonewalling and inertia is hard to change, especially when most of the management team responsible for it remains in place.
How will we know when AWLA shifts its raison d’etre to saving as many homeless animals as it can from whatever its top priority is now (fundraising?)
1. AWLA will actively recruit foster homes for its long-tenured cats and dogs, not just its kittens and puppies.
2. AWLA will use its ample resources to pull more dogs from high-kill shelters, and then involve its dogs in community events on a regular basis.
3. Dogs like Leo won’t be stashed in off-view kennels for weeks on end, where adopters can’t meet them and volunteers are prohibited from walking them.
4. AWLA will implement Oreo’s Law.
5. And AWLA will commit itself to outcomes transparency for its homeless animals.
Here’s what transparency looks like at the Humane Society of Berks County in Reading, PA.
HSBC has fewer resources than AWLA, but it handles more cats and dogs and works much harder on behalf of those animals. And it encourages feedback and suggestions from its volunteers and constituents. If you spend 15 or 20 minutes comparing the AWLA and HSBC websites, you’ll realize that the motivations of the two organizations are fundamentally different.
AWLA could learn a lot from peers like this. Let’s hope its next Executive Director agrees.
Posted in AWLA Policies, Principles, Yardsticks | 12 Comments »
Earlier this week, AWLA invited its volunteers to offer feedback and suggestions at an evening meeting hosted by the President of its Board of Directors. To anyone but an experienced AWLA volunteer, this gesture might sound unremarkable, but it actually represents a profound break with AWLA’s culture of the past several years.
As recently as a few months ago, volunteers (kitten fosterers for example) were told not to seek help or suggestions from each other when problems arose, but to interact exclusively with the volunteer coordinator — despite the fact that the volunteer coordinator was often unable or unwilling to respond in a timely fashion.
Suggestions or critiques about volunteer programs were discouraged, and the most experienced and knowledgable volunteers were periodically marginalized or dismissed — presumably because they might point out shortcomings in AWLA’s modus operandi.
It would be nice to think that the arrival of a new Executive Director will allow AWLA to reboot its culture, and that the new ED will replace any staffers too invested in AWLA’s traditional circle-the-wagons mentality. We’ll see. This week’s meeting with volunteers provides a glimmer of hope.
Other AWLA critics are hopeful too. Here’s an excerpt from the letter that Arlington-based animal-welfare advocate Debbie Marson sent to AWLA’s Board President last week:
…I wanted to let you know that AWLA released a dog, Justice, to me last week. He is a gorgeous German Shorthaired Pointer mix. He had been in the shelter for about two months and [redacted] contacted A Forever Home (ed: a local rescue organization) to see if we could take him. I was really pleased that she contacted us. It looked like AWLA stopped working with AFH about a year and a half ago. I’m glad that we are working together again.
FYI, Justice is doing great. My pack of dogs are teaching him the life skills he needs. I don’t want to jinx anything, but I do have a pending application on him and will let you know if it goes through.
Also, I want to applaud you and the shelter for some significant events recently. First, I learned that AWLA treated a heartworm-positive dog and she is now better and is available for adoption. She was offered to a rescue group (not AFH) several months ago but they could not afford her treatment. We asked if AWLA would even split the cost of treatment with us and Kay said “no”. The rescue group tried to find a way to take her and I had a friend who was willing to foster her, but it never happened. I just learned that AWLA kept that dog and gave her the treatment she needed. I was VERY glad to see that AWLA saved this girl’s life.
Second, it looks like the kennels have had a lot more dogs than last year. I watch the site regularly and last year it was common to see an average of 5-7 dogs a day there. Now it looks like about 12-15. It appears that AWLA is giving the dogs more of a chance.
I’m truly grateful for these steps.
Debbie
Whether AWLA’s recent willingness to listen to its volunteers and begin collaborating with rescue groups is due to the online criticism the organization has received, to the ongoing change in leadership, or to something else, it’s cause for optimism.
The potential for AWLA to emulate the country’s most successful animal shelters remains, and we hope AWLA’s Board hires an Executive Director who is committed to meeting the standard set by shelter directors in Tompkins County, Charlottesville-Albemarle, Richmond, Reno, Boulder and elsewhere.
Posted in AWLA Policies, AWLA Stories, DC Area Rescue Orgs | 5 Comments »
Here’s an excerpt from the most recent posting on AWLA’s blog, which is dated April 27, 2010:
Shadow came to the League in March 2009 because his owner could no longer care for him. He was five years old, thin, and had a chronic skin condition that caused patches of fur to fall out. After we shaved down his fur, began treating the skin condition, and neutered him, he became available for adoption. But few potential adopters took interest in him.
Finally, at the end of June 2009, an experienced chow chow owner saw Shadow on our Web site. She came in to meet him and fell in love with his mellow personality. Since July 2009 Shadow has enjoyed a stable and loving home.
So after treating Shadow for malnourishment and a skin condition, AWLA neutered him and put him on view for adoption. An experienced chow owner discovered him on the AWLA website, loved his mellow personality, and took him home. Sounds like a real success story, right? Then what’s wrong with this picture?
To me, the telling phrase in the blog entry is “few potential adopters took interest in him.” Why didn’t Shadow attract more interest? He’s a good-looking boy with a mellow personality and a backstory that would trigger sympathy from many adopters.
In my view, the key reason Shadow attracted few potential adopters is that AWLA makes essentially no effort to attract adopters for its dogs.
While DC-area rescue groups continually stage adoption events, promote their dogs on Craigs List, recruit foster parents (who then promote their foster dogs to their friends), and post flyers on neighborhood bulletin boards, AWLA settles for passively listing its adoptable dogs on its website — via the PetHarbor shelter-management software that does that automatically.
In a region with dozens of rescue organizations and shelters showcasing adoptable dogs, AWLA’s dogs are practically invisible. Day after day they sit in their cinder-block and chain-link kennels, awaiting a trickle of visitors. Luckily, a few dedicated volunteers work hard to exercise and socialize the dogs, but one or two brisk walks per day is no substitute for the attention and support AWLA’s dogs would get in foster homes.
Where is AWLA’s foster program for dogs that have spent too many days on view at the shelter, waiting for a home? It doesn’t exist. No wonder dogs like Shadow become depressed and less adoptable over time.
From the AWLA blog entry, we can infer that Shadow spent about 90 days on view at the shelter, which the entry implied was a long time. But look at three of the 14 dogs currently awaiting adoption at AWLA.
Braxton has been on view at AWLA for the last 58 days.
Cassie has been on view at AWLA for the last 84 days.
And Yali has been on view at AWLA for the last 108 days.
Don’t Yali, Cassie, and Braxton deserve the relief a foster home could provide, or the improved odds they’d gain if AWLA tried as hard to find adopters for them as other organizations with far fewer resources do for their homeless dogs?
Shadow was adopted after three months at the shelter, but that was attributable to luck. Maybe a little effort would be more effective.
Posted in AWLA Policies, AWLA Stories, DC Area Rescue Orgs | 4 Comments »
As AWLA searches for a new Executive Director — who we hope will focus on improving the organization’s animal outcomes — we’ll start to observe other local animal shelters. To reflect this broader perspective, we’re creating a parallel blog called ShelterHawk.
Today’s entry on ShelterHawk relates to the Montgomery County Humane Society.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »
| Last week I joined volunteers from seven local animal-rescue groups who attended an evening meeting hosted by the Fairfax County Animal Shelter. The meeting was arranged by FCAS managers who wanted to know how they could work more closely with the rescue groups to facilitate cat adoptions.
What, our hosts asked us, could they do to make it easier for the rescue groups to receive cats from FCAS during periods when the shelter was taking in more cats than it could handle? How could they help the participating groups stage adoption events? Would any of them be interested in using the FCAS classroom on weekends to showcase their cats? (Absolutely.) What DC-area clinics were currently providing the most competent and cost-effective spay/neuter services? How many cats did the different rescue groups receive per year, and where did they get them from? Who (in addition to FCAS) was participating in local TNR (trap-neuter-return) programs? And much more. The meeting lasted for two hours and could easily have run longer, since it provided a forum for the rescue groups to parameterize FCAS, for FCAS to learn from the groups, and for the groups to learn from each other. It’s the kind of event that should happen at least twice a year. When was the last time a comparable exchange of information was sponsored by the AWLs of Arlington or Alexandria? How about “never.” I’m actually not sure it’s never happened, but when I asked veteran volunteers at Homeward Trails and A Forever Home, no one could remember a comparable outreach to local rescue groups. A few rescue groups have been prodding AWL of Arlington for years to collaborate, but most have dismissed the organization as insular and intransigent, and gone on to work closely with rural high-kill shelters that are overflowing with animals and greatly appreciate the opportunity to transfer some of them to DC-area organizations. So why do the two AWLAs have no meaningful collaboration with local rescue groups that on a combined basis adopt out several times as many cats and dogs per year as they do? I think the root of the problem is that the AWLAs have evolved over decades (both were founded in the 1940s) into organizations with well-developed donor networks and significant endowments. Despite their mission statements, it’s hard not to conclude that the true mission of these organizations is to nurture and develop their endowments. Anecdotes about successful adoptions are used to pursue that goal. At best, rescue organizations are a distraction, at worst they’re potential competitors for charitable contributions. On the AWL of Arlington website the spotlight is currently on the upcoming Walk for the Animals 2010, the organization’s biggest fundraising event of the year. AWLA staffers spend months preparing for the Walk — when it’s done, the focus turns to Catsino Night, the second-biggest fundraising event of the year. The current issue of AWLA’s quarterly Pawpourri newsletter is all about the Walk, donations, bequests, and (you guessed it) Catsino Night. How many articles in Pawpourri or on the website about upcoming adoption events or promotions? Zero. How many about working with rescue groups? Zero. On recruiting new foster families for dogs and cats that spend week after week growing depressed (and less adoptable) at the shelter? Zero. Trap-neuter-return efforts? Zero. None of the programs that progressive shelters have implemented to achieve better animal outcomes get any attention in AWLA’s communications efforts. The results speak for themselves. | ||||
| % of Homeless Animals Transferred to Rescue Organizations in 2009 | ||||
| Dogs | Cats | Total | ||
| Fairfax Cty Animal Shelter | 14.6% | 11.4% | 12.8% | |
| AWL of Arlington | 1.8% | 1.2% | 1.4% | |
| AWL of Alexandria | 1.8% | 0.4% | 0.9% | |
|
Unlike the shelters run by the AWLs of Arlington and Alexandria, the Fairfax shelter is a municipal facility that doesn’t benefit from substantial private donations and a significant endowment. It has only one focus — juggling the thousands of animals it receives every year and trying to save as many as it can. Who deserves your contributions more? | ||||
Posted in AWLA Policies, DC Area Rescue Orgs, Principles, Yardsticks | Leave a Comment »
The Virginia General Assembly passed HB 281 yesterday without the language that was added as an amendment by Gov. McDonnell…
However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.
…but excised by the Speaker on the grounds that it was not germane to the bill itself, which stiffened penalties for animal-cruelty violators.
As when this language was offered in HB 429 in January, it triggered strong opposition from managers of traditional shelters. Sharon Adams, Executive Director of the Virginia Beach SPCA, sent a long letter to legislators on Tuesday urging them to reject the HB 281 amendment. A reader passed a copy of her letter along to us — here’s how it starts:
As you are aware, the Virginia Beach SPCA and many of the largest progressive animal organizations throughout Virginia are very opposed to the Governor’s amendment to HB281, similar to the original bill, HB429. Some of those in opposition include the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria, Animal Welfare League of Arlington, Danville Humane Society, Loudon Animal Care and Control, Rockingham- Harrisonburg Humane Society, Bristol Humane Society and the Virginia Beach SPCA.
Ah, the two AWLAs again. Despite the effort of animal-welfare activists and the departure of Kay Speerstra, our local shelters don’t appear to have changed their views. Speerstra’s testimony in January against HB 429 focused on the importance of “local decision-making”. Interestingly, Adams’ letter doesn’t mention that argument at all.
Instead her letter makes a number of points about the difficulty shelters have finding homes for pitbulls, given the general public prejudice against them and the restrictions imposed by landlords and homeowners insurance policies.
Valid points, but I don’t see their relevance to the debate. The amendment wouldn’t have prohibited euthanization decisions based on kennel space or a dog’s tenure at the pound. It would only have guaranteed that every dog has a chance, however small, at finding a home.
Here’s another excerpt:
All adoption policies that related to breeds would be prohibited by this bill. For example, the VA Beach SPCA has an adoption policy to not adopt Huskies to families with cats, not because we don’t like Huskies but because we do like cats. Huskies have such a high prey drive… that it puts the cats in the household in danger…
I’m not sure how Adams concludes that the amendment language would force a shelter to offer a husky to a family with a cat. The language doesn’t guarantee an adopter the right to adopt the animal of its choice. Under current law, shelters have to screen adopters — they can’t offer animals to convicted animal abusers. If aspiring adopters have cats, or bunnies, or ferrets, or small children, shelters can steer them away from certain dogs and breeds. This happens every day, and the amendment wouldn’t have affected it.
Adams goes on to ask:
How does a municipal pound defend itself against future allegations and lawsuits when often there is no agreement over what breed a dog is? How do they “prove” that their decisions are based on public safety, not breed?
This, I suspect, is the real reason behind the resistance to the amendment.
(Ironically, Adams makes the exact point that the law’s proponents have been trying to make: it is often difficult or even impossible to ascertain a dog’s breed or combination of breeds. So breed-based policies — like killing certain breeds or prohibiting their adoption — don’t make sense when you can’t be sure what you’re killing or refusing to adopt out.)
Under the HB 281 amendment, shelters wouldn’t have to worry about allegations or lawsuits unless they killed dogs based solely on breed. Since Adams argues that breed assignments are debatable, breed-based policies effectively become appearance-based policies. And as the find the pitbull test reminds us, that’s a slippery slope.
So shelters would only be at risk if they condemned a dog like Sharky to death based entirely on his appearance, the minute his five days were up and he remained unclaimed. To stay within the law, all the shelter would have to do is assess Sharky’s behavior.
But Adams’ letter claims:
…most pounds do not have the resources to perform behavior assessments which would be necessary to defend against allegations that their decisions were based on breed “solely”.
That sounds questionable, given the other responsibilities shelters bear… but then fine, let someone else do it.
Before killing any dog, a shelter could notify local rescue groups and give them a chance to take it. Let a qualified and motivated rescue organization determine the dog’s prospects for adoption or rehabilitation. It worked for the Vick dogs. In other words, implement Oreo’s Law.
In Adams’ opinion:
Pit bulls are not being adopted from municipal shelters for reasons having nothing to do with adoption and euthanasia policies real or imagined. This bill does absolutely nothing to change any of that.
Defeating the bill also does absolutely nothing to change any of that. What would change it is implementing policies like Oreo’s Law, along with the demonstrably successful programs undertaken by the open-admission shelters that supported the bill, like Charlottesville and Richmond.
The numbers don’t lie; the shelters supporting the HB 281 amendment have far better animal outcomes than those opposing it. And if Adams thinks it’s a matter of scale (her letter states that Virginia Beach SPCA takes in thousands more animals than Richmond SPCA), she should talk to Bonney Brown at the Nevada Humane Society, which takes in thousands more cats and dogs than Richmond or Virginia Beach.
Of course, with the right leadership at Virginia’s animal shelters, the HB 281 language wouldn’t even be necessary.
Shelters like those in Richmond, Charlottesville, and Reno are charting the path forward, and those impeding progress should follow or get out of the way.
Posted in Principles | 1 Comment »
In January, we posted an entry describing AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra’s efforts to help defeat Virginia House Bill 429, which would have added the following sentence to section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:
However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.
Speerstra and others opposed to the ban on breed-based killing were able to celebrate the defeat of HB 429 — until yesterday, when Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell added the language as an amendment to just-passed HB 281, which increases the penalties for violating Virginia’s animal-cruelty laws.
As Virginia’s Attorney General in 2006, McDonnell had previously issued an opinion that breed-based killing by public animal shelters was illegal under Virginia law. As Governor he has thrown down the gauntlet to members of the General Assembly; delegates voting to protect breed-based killing will now also be voting to shield repeat animal-cruelty offenders.
That’s one vote that’s going to be hard to explain away.
Posted in Principles | 14 Comments »
Last year over 2,000 dogs and cats found homes through the Arlington-based Lost Dog and Cat Rescue Foundation.
That compares with 1,080 dogs and cats adopted from AWLA in its fiscal 2009 and 1,081 from the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria in calendar 2009. (The resemblance between the two AWLAs is eerie, no?)
Lost Dog has less than half the revenue and a tenth of the assets that the two AWLAs each possess, but it does have one critical advantage over its municipally-funded counterparts — a volunteer army of dog and cat fosterers.
Here’s a view.
While the two AWLAs confine their fostering operations to kittens, puppies, and an occasional sick or recovering adult, Lost Dog and other local rescue non-profits (like Homeward Trails and A Forever Home) use fostering as a strategy both to find homes for cats and dogs and to sustain and strengthen the organization. Dogs and cats placed in nurturing foster homes become healthy, confident, and affectionate over time, and that makes them good candidates for adoption.
When one of these animals finds a loving home, its grateful adoptive family often helps promote Lost Dog, and may end up volunteering for or contributing to the organization directly. Success breeds success, and Lost Dog can focus more of its effort on saving dogs and cats and less on soliciting donors.
By contrast, dogs and cats in a shelter environment often become depressed, anxious, less healthy, and emotionally unpredictable. This happens at AWLA despite the best efforts of volunteers to befriend, socialize, and exercise the animals on view for adoption. It’s just difficult for a dog or cat to show its full potential when it’s confined to a small kennel for weeks on end.
And shelter dogs and cats that don’t show well generally don’t get adopted. Ultimately most of these unclaimed animals are killed, much as Nico would have been killed without the intervention of rescuers. And that means the shelter doesn’t gain the advocacy and support that a successful adoption would have generated.
For the AWLAs (Arlington and Alexandria) a full-fledged fostering program for adult dogs and cats is a critical missing ingredient. As the rescue organizations will confirm, building and managing a fostering program is hard work, but it’s work that greatly strengthens the organization and improves the prospects for the animals in its care.
Most importantly, it’s what our homeless and friendless dogs and cats deserve.
Posted in AWLA Policies, DC Area Rescue Orgs, Principles | 1 Comment »
