PICKENS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
AND COUNTY COUNCIL
FY2005-06
PROPOSAL
TARGETED LOW INCOME
AND
REDUCED COST
SPAY AND NEUTER
PROGRAMS
PREPARED BY:
PICKENS COUNTY ANIMAL COALITION TASKFORCE
INDEX
I.
SUMMARY
II.
BACKGROUND
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
GENERAL
HUMANE ALLIANCE, ASHEVILLE NC
THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SPAY/NEUTER PROGRAM
SAN FRANCISCO SPCA
PALO ALTO SPAY&NEUTER CLINIC
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
DENVER COLORADO AREA
NEW JERSEY DEPT OF HEALTH AND SENIOR SERVICES
ANIMAL ALLIES AND SPARTANBURG HUMANE SOCIETY
III.
COST ANALYSIS
IV.
STATICAL DATA
V.
RECOMMENDATIONS
a. TARGETED LOW INCOME SPAY/NEUTER
b. REDUCED COST SPAY/NEUTER
VI.
CONCLUSION
I. SUMMARY:
Implementing Targeted Low Income and Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter programs is a
proven, humane and cost effective method to reduce the increasing request for animal
control services and the escalating cost burden on the taxpayers of Pickens County.
Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County
Animal Control, Pickens County Veterinarians, Pickens County Volunteers, and
Spartanburg Animal Allies. Individual roles and responsibilities are in the detailed
implementation plan.
The number of targeted low income spays and neuters are 5 per 1000 population or 564
in 2005-2006 (112,859/1000*5=564). The subsidy cost to the county is an average of
$40.00 per animal or $22,500. There will also be minimal administrative and personnel
cost. These should not require additional staffing or funding.
Domestic animal population is increasing exponentially in Pickens County and many
other counties nationwide. Pickens County Animal Control is experiencing an
overwhelming increase in request to provide services. In 2001 and again in 2004 a
consulting firm was contracted by Pickens County to review the operation of Pickens
County Animal Control. Many of the recommendations are in various stages of
implementation. These recommendations are necessary to facilitate the increasing request
for services but do little to reduce the number of incoming request. In the first quarter of
2004, a Pickens County citizens group was formed to provide humane and cost effective
solutions to animal issues and concerns. Preliminary recommendations were made to the
Public Health and Safety Committee. PCACT was requested to develop final
recommendations to be considered in the FY 2005-06 budget cycle.
Research performed by many organizations and agencies including International City
County Management Association, Humane Society of the US, Animal Allies of
Spartanburg and the Pickens County Animal Coalition Taskforce conclude spay and
neuter programs are the most efficient and humane method in reducing the number of
nuisance and unwanted animals, thus reducing request for animal control services.
Programs developed to assist low-income animal owners in spaying and neutering their
pets has yielded the best results. Studies suggest that successfully implementing an
aggressive reduced cost spay and neuter program will begin to stabilize, and then reduce
the number of euthanasia. Implementing a Targeted Low Income Spay and Neuter
program actually reversed the trend and resulted in significant decreases in animal control
services and cost.
The Pickens County Animal Coalition Taskforce unanimously recommends adoption and
implementation of the Targeted Low Income and Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter
programs as outlined in this proposal.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A. General:
The context of the background information includes information gathered from 6
different successful spay/neuter programs. Several key elements surface over and over
again. One, the programs success depends on targeting those animals which would
otherwise not be spay or neutered. Statically these animals are owned and cared for by
low income families. Many programs were able to stabilize the rate of increase intake to
animal control by implementing aggressive spay/neuter or reduced cost spay/neuter
programs. It was after a targeted low-income spay/neuter program is implemented that d
significant reduction in animal shelter intake is realized. Another key element is
establishing an aggressive yet reasonable target. Understandably, the sooner you get
spay/neutered animals into the general population the sooner you reverse the uncontrolled
reproduction cycle. A tested, proven, reasonable target is 5 targeted spay/neuters per
1000 population. The target for Pickens County will be 562 for FY2006. The third key
element is an aggressive general spay/neuter program. Performing only 562 spay/neuters
a year will not be enough to eliminate the animal over population problems. These
targeted spay/neuters must be in conjunction with an aggressive campaign to spay/neuter
animals that owners do not wish to reproduce. Our plan is to increase awareness through
education and advertising and to provide a reduced cost spay/neuter program. Many of
our Pickens County Veterinarians have agreed to partner with our citizens to provide
reduced cost services to those who need assistance but do not qualify for the low-income
program.
Please remember as you review this information, no one program fits all. Each has its
own unique set of problems and challenges. Each has chosen to finance the programs in
various ways. Many were pioneers in animal control and care. They have through trial
and error, proven valuable lessons, compiled volumes of data and statistics, and share
those lessons learned with us who face similar issues.
We are extremely fortunate that Animal Allies of Spartanburg is partnering with us. They
have arranged a reduced cost per procedure, partnering with the Spartanburg Humane
Society (SHS). When ask, the PC veterinarians stated they could not perform the
procedures at this reduced price. On an average, a veterinarian clinic can perform 3-4
spay/neuter procedures a day and provide normal clinic services. The spay/neuter clinic
at SHS can perform 40-60 procedures a day. Animal Allies will provide an electronic
database to facilitate all the records required. They will provide training to our volunteers
on the entire process, from the initial call to returning the animal to its owner. Animal
Allies will receive each transport and facilitate the process once the animals are
delivered. We are very fortunate that they will mentor us through this process.
B. Humane Alliance, Asheville NC
The Humane Alliance Spay/Neuter Clinic in Asheville, NC has been making a
tremendous impact on the animal overpopulation problem in region since the spring of
1994. William H. McKelvy founded the organization with the mission to provide lowcost spay/neuter services; the non-lethal, responsible solution to pet overpopulation. What
began as a local effort escalated into a regional endeavor. More than 106,000 companion
animals have been spayed and neutered at the facility since the organization opened its
doors. The cost of each surgery is subsidized with grants obtained and donations raised
through the efforts and commitments of every member of our staff, our Board of
Directors, and the partner organizations (30 organizations in 22 counties) who participate
with us.
Daily operation of the clinic encompasses a wide variety of tasks all addressed by a staff
of fifteen (4 veterinarians, 1 veterinary technician, 7 veterinary assistants, 1 kennel
manager, 1 transport driver, 1 office manager, and a director). The clinic is further
privileged by three reliable volunteers. An average of 75 sterilizations are performed each
day, with a maximum of 140 surgeries per day. Morning release and intake begins each
day at 7:00 A.M. Surgeries begin at 8:30 A.M. Typically surgeries are completed by 4:00
P.M. Pets are then monitored until fully recovered, snacks are provided, and incision sites
are inspected before the surgical staff leaves.
The staff is the heartbeat of the clinic, the engine that drives the mission. They have
collectively identified boundary-busting solutions for establishing a protocol that is
essential to all accomplishments of the Humane Alliance's program journey. The staff is
rare and profound. They are the problem solvers. Their efforts are great and a clear
reflection of achievements executed when a staff becomes a team. The staff is the
indispensable element to the successful operation of a spay/neuter facility.
We, as a community of citizens concerned about animal welfare, are faced with the
challenge of finding a home for every pet. It takes a cooperative partnership of the entire
community to solve pet overpopulation. Competent prevention and intervention programs
are the key to driving euthanasia rates in our shelters down. Fundamental to all
preventive work is sterilization. Neutering is recognized as our best defense against all
the sources of shelter overpopulation. Humane Alliance of WNC has addressed this
cooperative/ community effort to create a region of "No More Homeless Pets" by
working hand-in-hand with all the animal welfare organizations throughout region.
We provide a free transport service in addition to our local public services. It is an
effective and innovative service that has been implemented through the coordinated
efforts of many talented people. The transport system accommodates delivery of
homeless pets for rescue organizations, for pets belonging to low-income residents of
WNC, and for county shelter pets to our facility for sterilization. This service is provided
for 30 non-profit animal welfare organizations in 22 counties, and five county shelter
facilities. These groups have a five year demonstrated history of cooperative participation
with the clinic. The clinic belongs to the region. The organizations have, and do, provide
comprehensive programs that support adoption guarantee, comprehensive medical
treatment, transfer of animals from animal control agencies, foster home networks, and
an aggressive spay/neuter component. By 1996 mandatory pre-adopt sterilization was one
common goal of animal welfare organizations within western North Carolina (WNC).
The participating organizations have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to assist in
the cost of spay/neuter since 1995. The endeavors of these organizations last year, 2001,
resulted in 13,005 sterilizations and more than 8,400 adoptions. This collaborative effort
is well on the way to 20,000 sterilizations this year.
The partnership of these organizations in WNC has been integral to the success of this
program. All of the partners agree that spay/neuter is the responsible solution to pet
overpopulation and the choice that saves lives. Their purposes are proactive and have
served to change the public's perception of their rights and responsibilities regarding their
pets. The people in our communities have to embrace the mission of ending euthanasia.
They have to support and endorse adoption of shelter animals. Furthermore, the public
has to know that sterilization of companion animals is a responsible solution to pet
overpopulation. It is a choice that saves lives. It is imperative that we educate and
motivate individuals to choose to be a part of the solution to the homeless pet population.
The Humane Alliance is privileged to work with supportive local veterinarians who
recognize the value of the service which the clinic provides. These veterinarians and their
participation in a "free post-operative exam" program is invaluable to the clinic and the
cause of animal welfare. Actually, the cooperative effort between the local veterinarians
goes a step further. The NCVMA (North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association) has
endorsed the efforts of the Humane Alliance and encourages its ongoing endeavors.
Cooperation between the private veterinarians and animal welfare organizations is
absolutely pivotal to the well-being of companion pets.
In summary, high volume sterilization is compulsory to a community response to pet
overpopulation. It is the best defense against all the sources of shelter overpopulation. A
regional spay/neuter facility is the most efficient, effective means of accomplishing an
aggressive, targeted sterilization campaign. It is a catalyst in uniting organizations with
separate missions to a common purpose. It is no longer satisfactory to concede to less
than a nation of "No More Homeless Pets". Community coalitions are critical to the
success of our pro-active programs. Through coalitions, humane organizations become
the core of the community. The level of diligence we see in the collective, cooperative
effort in our region is unparalleled. As suggested by Peter Marsh, "Only two things drive
down the number of cats and dogs killed in shelters. Cutting down the number who enter
shelters in the first place and increasing the number who are placed in quality homes."
These issues are most productively addressed by creating alliances amongst animal
welfare organizations, shelters, local government, and private veterinarians.
What Our Surveys, Statistics, and Experience Tell Us
(987 clients surveyed, 2002)
* The Humane Alliance Spay/Neuter Clinic sterilized 13,872 companion animals this
year, 2002.
* The ratio of cats and dogs sterilized is approximately 54% cats, 46% dogs.
20% male cats
34% female cats
30% female dogs
16% male dogs
70% of our patients are sexually mature
30% are pregnant
50% are in heat
* Our decease rate this year totaled 14. (2 were idiopathic anesthetic reaction, 12 were as
a result of some type of pre-existing unknown condition such as FELV+, FIV+, or some
undiagnosed cardiac or other organ system disease or abnormality.)
* 88% of our clients have not taken their pets to a veterinarian in the past year.
* 87% of our clients do not have a veterinarian.
* 85% of our clients have never taken their pets to a veterinarian.
* 11% of our clients visit a veterinarian once a year.
* 2% of our clients visit a veterinarian twice a year.
* 85% of our clients have not had their pets vaccinated against rabies.
* 78% of our clients are female who schedule appointments to have their pets sterilized.
* 30% of our sexually mature female patients are pregnant.
* The Humane Alliance advocates sterilization of companion pets before sexual maturity,
and certainly before they give birth to litters.
* We practice and promote early-age spay/neuter.
* 10% of our clients are referred by their private veterinarian.
* 94% of pets neutered at our facility are owned.
* 92% of our clients indicate that money/cost is a factor in the decision to neuter their
pets.
* 70% of the pets sterilized at our facility are delivered through our transport system.
* 82% of the pets sterilized are direct referrals from the 30 non-profit partner
organizations. The great majority of these organizations activities are executed
exclusively by volunteers.
* 100% of our clients indicate that they believe a wellness program is important for their
pets. 92% of our clients indicate that it is cost prohibitive for them to participate in a
wellness program.
* 95% of the veterinarians we have spoken with in our region indicate they will support a
low-cost spay/neuter facility that specifically targets and screens for low-income pet
owners; likewise, they would support a wellness program specifically targeted.
* About 11% of our low-cost neutering patrons appear to be in the middle to upper
income bracket. This seriously annoys the private veterinarians.
* Do not expect that every veterinarian will greet your plan for a low-cost spay/neuter
program with great enthusiasm.
* The euthanasia rate at our local shelter is down by 48% since our clinic opened.
* To succeed, you need to put more of your resources into preventing animals from
becoming homeless in the first place.
* Spay and neuter programs effectively reduce euthanasia rates and taxpayers' expense.
* The pet overpopulation crisis is a direct result of animals left unaltered in our
communities.
* People expect their government to be fiscally responsible, and to pro-actively address
the issue of unwanted dogs and cats in their community.
* Spaying and neutering cats and dogs is not just an animal welfare issue; it's a public
safety issue.
* Less than 5% of shelter budgets are spent on pro-active programs that PREVENT
tomorrow’s animals from becoming causalities.
* We will never stop the euthanasia if we continue to allocate 95% of our resources to
treating symptoms instead of devoting more resources to the factors that cause the
problem.
C. The New Hampshire Spay/Neuter Program: Lessons From The First 10 Years:
In New England, we sometimes speak of people who didn't know each other growing up
but went through the same changes as having gone to different schools together. All of us
working to bring about a world where every companion animal has a loving home are
going to different schools together. We go through many of the same things, with the
same dream, just in a different place. The more we are able to learn from each other, the
faster our dream will come true.
The New Hampshire spay/neuter program is a good example. In the early 1990s, a group
of us worked to put together programs that would end the killing of healthy or
rehabilitatable cats and dogs in our shelters. After speaking with advocates from one end
of the country to the other, we found a New Jersey program that had been among the
most successful in reducing shelter overpopulation. So we contacted the people who had
worked to put this program together and designed our program to take into account all
they told us about what had worked well for them and what had not. This article itself is
an example of building on the work done by colleagues because it adopts the same "What
Worked, What Didn't" format. It is written to share with others what we've learned from
operating our program for the past ten years.
What Worked
1. Targeting a Program for Low-Income Pet Caretakers.
The best decision we made was to target our
program to a population that had not been
served in the past: cats and dogs living in very
low-income households. In part we did that
because this approach had succeeded in New
Jersey. Even more important to us, in the 1980s
we had operated statewide open access
programs through which anyone could get
his/her cat or dog sterilized for about half of the
usual cost. While these low-cost programs
seemed to keep the problem from getting worse,
they weren't able to make it a whole lot better, which is what we were determined to do.
Year in and year out, we continued to put about 12,000 cats and dogs to death in our
shelters.
Now we know why a low-income program is so important. It turns out that if you don't
provide a way for people living in poverty to be able to sterilize their pets, a much higher
percentage of their cats and dogs remain sexually intact, which ultimately leads them to
be admitted to shelters or migrate to freeroaming colonies. Even if you have good low
cost programs, the copayment remains beyond the reach of the very poor and, at some
point, you "hit the wall" and can't make any more progress. That's what happened to us.
As soon as we provided poor caretakers with a program they could afford in 1994, the
drop in shelter admissions and deaths was dramatic (see graph 1).
Targeting helped us in two other ways that proved critical to the program's success. First,
it made the program cost effective, which in turn has made it possible for us to secure and
maintain public funding. And it allowed us to gain the broad support of local
veterinarians, who had told us for some time that they would work with us on any
program that helped people who genuinely needed it.
2. Using Dog License Fees as a Source of Revenue
You learn a lot when you have to generate enough revenue to keep a program operating
month in and month out. Not only does the revenue source have to provide enough
funding for the program, it has to provide it in a steady stream. Any time that a program
has to be cut back or shut down due to a lack of funds -- which has happened to us for
several months over the years -- it suffers a setback.
Almost all of the funding for our program comes from a small surcharge on dog licenses
issued throughout the state. Dog licenses have to be renewed every year in New
Hampshire, so the license surcharge gives us a steady and predictable source of income.
The main disadvantage is that the program's income becomes dependent on how many
caretakers comply with the licensing laws. At first, the $2 surcharge didn't bring in
enough revenue to operate our program throughout the year. Instead of trying to get the
surcharge increased, the Pet Overpopulation Committee that oversees the program took
steps to have veterinarians send copies of all the rabies certificates they issued to local
licensing officials. This simple procedure has increased the number of licenses issued by
more than fifty percent. The $2 surcharge generates about 25 cents for each resident of
the state every year, enough revenue for us to operate our program year-round. The other
revenue source we considered, a specialty license plate, typically generates about 5 cents
per resident each year.
A dog license surcharge, then has provided us with an adequate and annualized source of
revenue. But our situation is not ideal. Applying the surcharge across the board, to both
sterilized and unsterilized dogs, allows us to keep the amount of the surcharge small (an
important consideration in New England) but it is not very progressive. A more sensible
design would be to increase the amount of the surcharge substantially -- say to $10 -- and
apply it only to unsterilized dogs. This procedure would not only provide enough revenue
for the program, it would also give people an incentive to have their dog sterilized.
3. Establishing An Oversight Committee
A legislative committee was set up to oversee the program. I had real doubts at first that
the committee would accomplish a great deal. There was concern that the diverse makeup
of the committee -- which by law included groups that had opposed setting up the
program in the first place -- would create a legislative gridlock. I was dead wrong.
Over the years, the Pet Overpopulation Committee has become the program's champion
and advocate. A good example is the work of municipal officials and veterinarians on the
committee to increase the rate of compliance with dog licensing laws, mentioned above.
More than that, the committee has become a place to address problems that arise and help
the program adapt to changing times. Every program may need such a benefactor, if it is
to thrive.
4. Using Public Assistance Programs to Determine Eligibility.
As soon as you begin to operate a neutering assistance program (if not sooner), you
become jealous of the funds spent to administer it. Every dollar spent is not available to
pay for sterilizations. So it's important that the program's eligibility criteria be easy to
understand and apply. It also needs to reliably identify the people who genuinely need
help and not saddle participating veterinarians with a great deal of paperwork.
We've found that the best way to accomplish all of the above is to use people's eligibility
for public assistance programs as the way to decide if they are eligible for our program,
too. Using the New Jersey program as a model, we selected seven public assistance
programs with very low-income limits, which has worked out well for us. It has allowed
us to "piggy-back" on the work that the administrators of human service programs have
already done. Over the years, the state veterinarian has streamlined the administration of
the program to the point that administrative expenses take up less than fifteen percent of
the program's budget. In recent years, targeted low-income programs operated by
Maddie's Fund have simplified the eligibility determination process even more by
selecting eligibility for a single program -- Medicaid -- as the standard, allowing their
programs to be administered even more cost effectively than ours.
5. Establishing A Dedicated Account for Program Revenue.
Looking back, I believe the second most important developmental milestone that our
program passed, after its birth in 1993, was the establishment of an earmarked or
dedicated account for program revenue three years later. Before that, all the revenue from
the dog license surcharge was deposited into the state's General Fund and the program
was dependent on periodic appropriations through the legislative budget process. Any
funds that were not spent by the program at the end of a fiscal year were returned to the
State Treasury. All of this made the program's financial base very shaky.
Getting legislation passed to put the dog license revenue into a dedicated fund changed
everything. The law sheltered the program from changes in the economic and political
climates. It's a two way street, though. The independence of being " off-budget" means
that the program must be shut down if the funds in the account are depleted. So far,
though, having dedicated funds has been a good trade off for us and probably should be
the goal of every publicly funded program.
6. Operating the Program Through a Network of Private Veterinarians.
Veterinary services are delivered in our program
through a statewide network of participating
veterinary hospitals. This has proven to be one of its
greatest strengths. More than 70% of all the
veterinary practices in the state have joined the
program, making it much more accessible to
caretakers than if the services were delivered
through widely-scattered low cost clinics or a
mobile unit. And accessibility is critical to the
success of a low-income program because
transportation
to and from the veterinary hospital is often a great
barrier.
Using a network of existing veterinary hospitals has also proven to be cost effective, in
large part because it takes advantage of the infrastructure that is already in place instead
of paying to duplicate it by creating new clinics. The average subsidy paid by the
program is about $60.00 per surgery, almost exactly the same as that achieved by
Maddies' Fund low-income programs, which are also operated through a network of
private veterinary hospitals.
Taken together with the targeted design, which has steeply driven down the number of
shelter admissions, and the low administration costs, operating our program through
private veterinarians has helped our program be a good investment. Neutering subsidies
have more than paid for themselves. Every dollar spent on the neutering program in its
first seven years has saved $3.15 in reduced impoundment costs (see graph 2).
What Didn't Work
1. Offering Neutering Subsidies to Encourage Shelter Adoptions.
From the beginning our neutering program attempted to reduce the shelter death toll by
attacking it from two directions: neutering subsidies for low-income pet caretakers were
designed to reduce the number of cats and dogs coming into shelters while subsidies for
shelter adopters aimed to increase the number going out. We hoped that our shelter
adoption rate would increase substantially if potential adopters could get shelter animals
sterilized for a $25 (now $30) copayment.
Unfortunately it hasn't worked out that way. While the shelter adopter's program has
proven to be very popular with adopters and veterinarians, the shelter adoption rate has
only increased by about 20% over the past ten years. Subsidies for the low-income
program have proven to be a much better investment. While each program costs about the
same to operate every year, more than eighty percent of the drop in shelter deaths has
come from a steep decline in shelter admissions and less than twenty percent from an
increase in placements.
Not only has the shelter adopter's program proven to be not very cost effective, by now it
is somewhat regressive. It is designed to provide funding only for sterilizations that take
place after an animal has been adopted. When our program was set up ten years ago,
neutering before-adoption programs were quite rare. By now, they have proven to be the
best practice. And they are probably a better investment than a shelter adopters' subsidy
program.
2. Not Subsidizing the Cost of Presurgical Immunizations in our Original Low-Income
Program
In its original design, our low income program subsidized only the cost of the surgery. If
presurgical immunizations were required for any cat or dog that was sterilized through
the program, the caretaker had to pay the full cost. This proved to be a significant barrier.
We discovered that almost a third of those who had applied to the program and been
found eligible failed to follow through and have the animal sterilized. When we followed
up with them to find out why, many said they could afford the $10 co-payment for the
surgery but the extra $25 - $30 for required shots had put the surgery out of reach.
Once we recognized this barrier, we modified the program to include the cost of shots in
the subsidy and increased the co-payment to $15. This has increased the average subsidy
by about fifteen percent but has put the program within the reach of those caretakers that
we need to reach the most.
3. Using a Complex Fee Structure for Payments to Veterinarians
In our program, participating veterinarians are paid eighty percent of their usual and
customary fee for all services they provide through the program, as long as the resulting
charge is below the annual fee caps set by the State Veterinarian. To set the caps, each
participating veterinary hospital submits a fee schedule every year and the statewide
average becomes the cap. The fee structure was designed this way so that we could take
into account the variation in costs that veterinary hospitals in different parts of the state
had to pay for expenses such as labor and rent. Now it seems to be a needless
administrative expense and an extra burden for participating veterinarians. While a wide
variation of veterinary expenses may make a design like this necessary in a large state, a
small state or county would probably be better served by a single fee structure such as the
one used in the Maddies' Fund program.
Conclusion:
I wish I could say that we knew all along how successful our program would be. It didn't
happen that way, perhaps because so many other things we tried had not worked out as
well as we had hoped, perhaps because so many animals had been put to death in our
shelters for so long. I can't say, either, that we decided to try to get funding for a targeted
low-income program because we thought the veterinary community would support us.
We hoped so, but that wasn't the main reason. We were interested only in saving lives
and would have worked to get this program started even if the vets hadn't been behind us.
And I can't say that we wanted to have the program because it would save tax dollars. It
just worked out that way.
A targeted low-income program allowed all of these things to come together for us
and it can for any community. Perhaps it's luck, perhaps Providence, but all the
pieces of a low-income program fit together. A targeted program allows you to get
the support of veterinarians, which makes it possible to get public funding. This
allows you to provide big enough subsidies to make the program affordable for the
people you need to reach the most and to pay vets fairly, which encourages their
broad participation and makes the program accessible. All of which makes the
program effective in reducing the number of animals who entered shelters and saves
tax dollars. But best of all it saves lives.
D. San Francisco SPCA:
The San Francisco SPCA and The San Francisco County Animal Care & Control City &
County of San Francisco
In 1994, The San Francisco SPCA & Animal Care & Control City & County of San
Francisco joined forces to pursue an ambitious aim: eliminate euthanasia as the common fate
of homeless cats and dogs. The program “Partnerships For Life - Saving Homeless Dogs &
Cats in San Francisco,” is now in its 10th year. This unique partnership between SF/SPCA, a
non-profit and SF/ACC, a city agency has become a model for communities worldwide.
San Francisco has fundamentally reversed the pattern that prevails at many animal shelters,
where healthy adoptable dogs and cats are routinely killed to make room for incoming
animals.
San Francisco's success is based on several key elements:

High-volume spay/neuter surgery to reduce pet overpopulation and cut shelter intake.
The SFSPCA spends between $1 million and $2 million a year to subsidize surgery at
its spay/neuter clinic, with free surgery for San Francisco's feral cats and animals
adopted from the SFSPCA, and public fees that are about 60 percent below the city
average. The clinic performs approximately 7,000 surgeries a year and has altered
more than 100,000 dogs and cats (including more than 12,000 feral cats) since it
began keeping records in 1988.

Foster care and treatment to prepare dogs and cats for adoption

Adoption programs to place shelter animals in loving homes

Partnerships between The SF/SFCA and SF/ACC, and with other shelters, rescue
groups, volunteers and the entire community
The result: between 1990 and 2002, the number of dogs and cats entering the San Francisco
shelter system dropped by 41 percent, from 13,189 to 7,836. The chart below illustrates the
drop in euthanasias from 2,163 in 2002 to 1,606 in 2003. At the same time, the adoption rate
has increased from 4,975 in 2002 to 5,218 in 2003.
Source:
Tracy Pore
San Francisco SPCA
Ed Sayres
Former Pres. of SF/SPCA
E. Palo Alto Spay & Neuter Clinic:
Palo Alto Spay & Neuter Clinic:
The City of Palo Alto opened a low-cost spay and neuter clinic in 1972 as part of a new
animal control and care facility. Promotion of spaying and neutering was a relatively new
concept in our area of the time, and the City Council was skeptical that a spay and neuter
clinic would have much of an impact on the numbers of animals handled at the public animal
shelter. However, though an extensive public awareness campaign of pet overpopulation, the
positive effects of the spay clinic were realized within two years of the opening of the clinic.
The number of dogs and cats had increased every single year from 1955 to 1973. In 1974, in
the second year of the clinic's operation, the number of dogs and cat received dropped every
single year from then until 1996 (when there was a large human population spike in Palo
Alto. Communities surrounding Palo Alto, who also use the clinic, have reported similar
reductions in animal population since the opening of the clinic in 1972.
Source:
Greg Betts
City of Palo Alto
F. Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA - San Mateo County, CA
Dog and Cat Shelter Population Summary:
An Historic Review
NOTE: The following numbers are total numbers and do not distinguish between healthy
homeless animals and those animals suffering from serious illness, injury, or behavioral
problems.
* PHS/SPCA's Low-cost spay/neuter clinic opens in 1970; statistics for years prior to 1970
not available. The Peninsula Humane Society Low Cost Spay/Neuter Clinic is located at: 12
Airport Blvd., San Mateo, CA 94401 Tel: 415-340-7022
** PHS/SPCA's education program created 1975
*** Totals are not shown for 1985, 1995 and 2000 because complete, comparable data is not
available; data for 1986, 1993 and 2002 is used instead
**** PHS/SPCA's Pet Overpopulation Ordinance (POP) introduced 1990
Source:
Peninsula Humane Society
G. Denver Colorado Area:
Audrey Boag, author of Feral Friends, A Guide to Living With Feral Cats, gathered data over
a ten-year period from the major shelters in the Denver metropolitan area including nearby
suburbs. The shelters included such large ones as the Aurora Animal Care Center, the Denver
Dumb Friends League, the Denver Municipal Shelter and Table Mountain Animal Shelter.
The area has conventional animal care and control programs, typical of American shelters,
but keep better than average records on cat entries and exits. Since the advent of trap/neuter
and return programs in the early 1990's there has been a dramatic decline in the numbers of
cats in the shelter system as follows:
Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People magazine, concludes: Return to Owner and adoption
are clearly NOT responsible for the 40% drop in cats received since significant
trap/neuter/return projects started in the Denver area in 1991-1992. What is happening in
Denver, plain and simple, is that feral cats are no longer being born in great numbers (owner
surrenders down 40%), hence unwanted litters are no longer turning up in yards, sheds,
basements, etc in great numbers, and hence free roaming adult cats are no longer turning up
as often (24% fewer).
The difference in the drop in “owner surrended” (a very misleading term for animals brought
to shelters by the public) and free-roaming adult cats taken in (only 60% as steep a drop)
probably reflects the dent that predation and disease make in the feral population before
kittens reach reproductive age.
All of this was achieved without the participation of the major agencies in trap/neuter-return
programs. Incidentally, cat intakes in most categories actually rose slightly in 1999, probably
reflecting the warmer-than-usual 1998-9 Winter.
Source:
Merritt Clifton, editor, Animal People
November, 2000
H. New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services:
NEW JERSEY STATE ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL
In May of 1983, Assembly Bill 1917 was signed into law and became P.L. 1983, c. 172. This
law directed the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHHS) to establish a low cost
spay/neuter program to be called the Animal Population Control (APC) Program that would
utilize the private sector (i.e., participating veterinarians) to provide the spay/neuter services.
Client eligibility to participate was based on the client being a recipient of any one of a
number of public assistance programs, specifically: Food Stamp Program, Supplemental
Security Income Program, Medical Assistance Program (Medicaid), Aid to Families with
Dependent Children Program (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), General Public
assistant Program, Pharmaceutical Assistance to the Aged and Disabled Program, Rental
Assistance Program, Lifeline Credit Program, and Tenants Lifeline Assistance Program.
Upon presentation to the veterinarian of proof of eligibility for any of the above-mentioned
programs, the client's pet would receive a $10 copayment fee, all necessary presurgical
immunizations, presurgical examination, surgery, and post surgical care.
On December 17, 1986, the DHSS was charged with implementing P.L. 1986, c. 192. The
law became effective immediately. This law permits any dog or cat adopted from a licensed
non-profit shelter or pound and licensed pursuant to state and municipal law to be eligible to
participate in the Low Cost Spaying and Neutering Program for a $20 copayment fee. The
objective was to encourage shelter adoptions and increase the number of altered pets
reentering the pet ownership cycle.
P.L. 1991, c. 405, was approved January 17, 1992. This law opened the spay/neuter program
up to dogs and cats adopted from nonprofit, incorporated, animal adoption referral agencies,
which do not operate holding facilities. There have been more than 137,000 surgeries
conducted on dogs and cats since the inception of the program in 1984.
Source:
Robert Monyer
State of New Jersey Department of Health & Senior Services
I. Animal Allies and Spartanburg Humane Society:
Animal Allies started their low cost, high quality spay/neuter program in July 1998. The
program was administered through local participating veterinarians. In 2003, the
Spartanburg Humane Society partnered with Animal Allies to open the James S. Smith
Spay/Neuter Clinic for targeted low-income clients. In 2003, SHS's intake decreased 2.2%
but euthanasia increased 6%. In 2004, SHS intake decreased 7% and euthanasia decreased
13%. Animal Allies is cautiously optimistic that through collaboration that the volume of
targeted spay/neuter surgeries has reached a level to decrease the intake of stray and
unwanted pets.
Last year Spartanburg County received 18,160 cats and dogs, 4,333 were adopted or were
returned to their owners, and 13,730 to be destroyed. There are too many animals and not
enough homes. We, the public, are responsible ... and the solution is spay/neuter and
education. Animal Allies is a non-profit organization dedicated to reducing pet
overpopulation in our community. Because our companion animals, primarily cats and dogs,
suffer the most extreme consequences, namely euthanasia, at the hands of mankind, our first
and foremost goal is to eliminate the need to control pet overpopulation by death.
Working in partnership with the Spartanburg Humane Society, Animal Allies facilitates a
low-cost spay/neuter program at the James S. Smith Spay/Neuter Clinic onsite at the humane
society. Our services are available to anyone who wants to spay/neuter their pet, however,
our focus is on targeted surgeries for low-income families. Income qualified clients bring
their pets to the Clinic by appointment several days a week. We also work with local vets to
provide spay/neuter surgeries to clients who do not meet income qualifications.
We offer humane education to the public, and work with animal rescue organizations,
humane societies, and animal control. Prevention is the key. By preventing unwanted litters
from being born, we remove the need to euthanize them.
Working with local vets in Spartanburg, SC and surrounding communities, we facilitate lowcost surgeries.
We offer humane education to the public, and work with animal rescue organizations,
humane societies, and animal control.
III. COST ANALYSIS:

Pickens County currently spends $278,591 FY2004-05. $167,591 to PCAC and
$111,000 to FHS.



Assuming 7-year statistical data from Animal Allies and New Hampshire State wide
program, 40% reduction in animal intakeAssuming current Pickens County data, a
conservative 6% per year increase of animal control intake.
Assuming PC allocates $22,500 a year to subsidize 562 low income spay/neuters
Then PC should realize 7-years cost savings of:
 Gross Savings = $367,195
 Cost of subsidy = $157,500
 NET Savings = $209,695
IV. STATISTICAL DATA:









Pickens County spends $278,591, $2.47/person (FY2004-05), 9% less than the South
Carolina average of $2.71/person.
Pickens County Animal Control and Care budget has increased 48.13% from
$188,064 FY2004 to $278,591 FY2005. $167,591 to PCAC and $111,000 to FHS.
The number of animals picked up by Pickens County Animal Control and Care has
increased 46% in the past 9 years. Data provided by Joel E Wood & Associates report
a 12% increase in the last 2 years which indicates the rate of change is also
increasing.
Animal Allies in Spartanburg reports than 85 to 90 % of the animals who come in
under the Targeted Spay/Neuter program do not have current rabies vaccinations.
Estimated dogs and cats owned in Pickens County are 46,758. Less than half are
rabies vaccinated.
o Formula:
 House Holds = 41,306
 Estimated Dogs owned = .534*41,306 = 24,057
 Estimated Cats owned = .598*41,306 = 24,701
 Rabies vaccinations reported in 2004 = 20,987
 Rabies compliance in Pickens County = 44.88%
SHS estimates that 40% of the unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized each year
are healthy and adoptable.
Animal Allies has facilitated low income spays and neuters since 1998, their program
has increased the number of surgeries performed each year by 30%. SHS and Animal
Allies started a targeted low-income spay/neuter program onsite at the shelter in a
high-volume clinic setting in 2003. The shelter intake decreased by 2.2% in 2003. In
2004, the shelter intake decreased by 7.1% and euthanasia decreased by 13.8%.
During the same period, Spartanburg County has been able to reduce funding for
animal control and care by 7%.
The common model for a spay/neuter program is 5 targeted surgeries per 1000
residents. Expected results should be a 40% reduction in animal intake to animal
control and zero euthanasia of healthy and adoptable animals in 7 years.
FHS adopts out approximately 300 animals each year. The FY2004-05 cost to PC
taxpayers is $370.00 per adopted animal. The majority of these animals were adopted
out of state. Very few were adopted by PC residents.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS:
A. Targeted Low Income Spay/Neuter Program Implementation:
Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County Animal
Control, Pickens County Veterinarians, Pickens County Volunteers, and Spartanburg Animal
Allies. Individual roles and responsibilities will be in a detailed implementation plan.
The program’s success depends on targeting those animals which would otherwise not be
spay or neutered. Statically these animals are owned and cared for by low-income families.
This program shares the financial burden with those who qualify for assistance. PC Animal
Controls support and assistance is crucial to advertise and promote spay and neuter to those
targeted residents.
PCAC will have administrative and financial responsibilities for the Targeted Low Income
Spay and Neuter program. PCAC will provide administrative support, archive records and
allocate all income and expenditures. The estimated time requirement for an office assistant
will be 4 hours each transport to process the applicant’s co-payment and arrange payment to
Animal Allies. Two hours of filing and records will be required each month. An additional 4
hours each quarter will be required to develop reports to county administration management.
The estimated total administrative cost will be 11-12 hours each month or 136 hours per year.
PC administration will provide a spay/neuter call-in phone line with phone mail. Incoming
calls will be serviced by the PCACT spay/neuter program administrator and volunteers.
PCAC will provide transportation and pick-up support and will partner in advertising and
promoting spay and neuter. Animal pick-up, transportation and delivery will require one
PCAC officer, 5-6 hours for each transport or 4 times each month (2 transports each month,
delivery to Spartanburg by 10:00 and pick-up from Spartanburg the next day before noon).
PCACT will have implementation and operational responsibilities. PCACT will obtain and
organize volunteers. They will collect all information, ensure applicants are qualified and
coordinate pickups. PCACT will provide reports and achievable data to PCAC. PCACT
spay/neuter program administrator and volunteers will service incoming calls. They will
determine program eligibility and will facilitate required information and schedule services.
Animal Allies will coordinate animal pickup and deliveries to Spartanburg Humane Society.
They will provide the electronic database, forms, instructions and training to PCACT and
volunteers. Animal Allies will receive deliveries and facilitate the process at the clinic.
Program implementation is briefly described below. Detailed implementation plans,
including detailed roles and responsibilities, electronic database, training guidelines,
transport contracts, applicant qualification forms, reports, release forms and interface
agreements will be completed upon final council approval.
A Spay/Neuter contact number will be advertised in various locations and media. Calls will
be recorded and a trained volunteer will contact the applicant. Information will be gathered to
determine the appropriate spay/neuter program. Those that qualify for the Low Income
Spay/Neuter program will be ask to provide verification of income or financial need. This
will be based on the HUD income guidelines. Arrangements will be made for co-payment,
pickup and delivery. Co-payment will be 15.00 for a cat and 20.00 for a dog. Subsidy cost to
Pickens County will average 40.00 per animal. We will schedule 2 transports each month.
PCAC will provide a driver, vehicle and appropriate caging to transport 25 animals. PCACT
volunteers will provide all field administration support and will assist loading animals. Once
the PCAC officer arrives at the Spartanburg Humane Society, Animal Allies will unload
animals and store cages. Surgeries will be performed as agreed by the Spartanburg Humane
Society Veterinarian and staff. Animals will remain overnight at the Spartanburg HS and will
be picked up the following day by the PCAC officer. PCACT volunteers will organize return
pick up with the animal owners.
B. Reduced Cost Spay and Neuter Program Implementation:
Implementation of these programs will be a joint endeavor between Pickens County Animal
Control, Pickens County Veterinarians and Pickens County Volunteers. Individual roles and
responsibilities will be in a detailed implementation plan.
PCAC will provide administrative support and archive records for the reduced cost spay and
neuter program. The time requirements listed in the low-income program is sufficient to
facilitate the reduced cost program needs.
PCACT will have implementation and operational responsibilities. PCACT will attain and
organize volunteers. They will collect all information, ensure qualifying applicants and
coordinate vouchers. PCACT will provide reports and achievable data to PCAC.
Participating Veterinarians will work directly with the qualifying animal owners to schedule
the reduced cost spay or neuter.
Program implementation is briefly described below. Detailed implementation plans including
detailed roles and responsibilities, voucher forms and administrative guidelines, electronic
database, training guidelines, reports, release forms and interface agreements will be
completed upon final council approval.
A Spay/Neuter contact number will be advertised in various locations and media. Calls will
be recorded and a trained volunteer will contact the applicant. Information will be gathered to
determine the appropriate spay/neuter program. Applicants that may not qualify for the lowincome program may choose to participate in the reduced cost spay and neuter program. The
applicant will purchase a spay/neuter voucher which can be redeemed at any participating
veterinarian. The cost will be based on the procedure performed and will be consistent at all
participating veterinarians. Vouchers will be purchased from PCACT and funds made
payable to PCAC. The applicant will contact any participating veterinarian to schedule the
surgery. Once the voucher is redeemed, PCAC will disperse funds to the veterinarian
providing the services.
VI. CONCLUSION:
Pickens County Council has a rare opportunity to implement a county funded program that
will actually result in a tax savings to the citizens of Pickens County. These programs will
provide a needed service to our citizens who most need community assistance. Our current
strategies for animal control and care are reactive to daily occurrences and do very little to
resolve the real issues. Unless we implement a preventative program, our cost will continue
to rise and increasing numbers of healthy adoptable animals will be euthanized.
The Spay/Neuter programs as described in this proposal have a proven record of success.
Targeting low-income animal caretakers assures those animals least likely to be
spay/neutered will have a reasonable opportunity. These programs have dramatically reduced
the number of calls coming into animal control and care, reduced animal control intake and
drastically reduced the numbers of euthanasia. Data shows a 40% reduction in animal control
and care intake and virtually zero euthanasia of healthy, adoptable animals in only 7 years.
Pickens County Animal Control and Care’s operating cost is 9% below the South Carolina
average. They have done a great job managing and delivering services to our residents. Even
so, our research suggests we are over spending for the animal shelter and adoption services.
Realizing that adoption services are necessary, the current 370.00 per animal adopted cost to
the taxpayers is not. We recommend reallocating animal control and care funds to include the
amount needed for implementation of these prevention programs. This will result in even
greater savings to PC citizens. PCAC should consider other avenues for adoption such as
animal rescue groups or other adoption agencies.