pet connection

When King County, WA, announced last week that it was embarking on a nearly-one-million dollar upgrade of its animal shelter system, it was clear that such an effort was long overdue. It was particularly hard to understand just why these changes were so long in coming, given the history of troubling reports from volunteers, veterinary staff, and the county’s own citizen advisory committee.

The county brought in two organizations to evaluate the shelter system and its operations. One was shelter consultant Nathan Winograd, who issued a report consistent with problems identified by the advisory committee but that caused some volunteers and staffers to protest.

Another was the team from the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program, which visited the facilities in January.

Their report, released today by the county, is 151 pages of observations, some extremely troubling and some hopeful, as well as recommendations to turn around what they call “a breakdown in care leading to animal suffering, illness, and likely un-necessarily high levels of euthanasia and death, as well as creation of significant public health and safety risks for staff and shelter visitors.” The report continues:

Issues overall fell into four categories: A. Programs, B. Facilities, C. Staffing, and D. Animal Care. The programmatic issues addressed in Part A describe a weak foundation that underlies the breakdowns in animal care and other areas. The lack of necessary programmatic underpinnings has led to an apparent inability to identify needs, such as required staffing hours, minimum housing units, and necessary facility improvements, or describe challenges the shelter and community face or may expect to face while trying to meet community expectations. Without the ability to clearly identify and plan for these needs and challenges, effective problem solving is impossible.

The UC Davis team found that although “most staff members were clearly dedicated and caring, and in some cases were exerting heroic efforts to provide for the animals in the shelter, it was evident that the capacity of both staff and facility was exceeded in almost every area of animal housing and care.”

They further reported that the problems were widespread and systemic, with few systems in place to address overcrowding. In addition, although some critics have contended that these problems were the result of legislative mandates to end the use of killing for shelter space, they found differently:

According to data provided by the shelter, there is a trend of worsening crowding and increased illness and death over the past year compared to 2006. This can not be attributed to the recent legislation, which went into effect only two weeks before our visit.

Although some volunteers and staff objected to specific problems of caring for sick animals and reported incidences of animals going without food or water, UC Davis inspectors made a number of similar observations:

In many cases, there were no clearly documented policies or procedures for critical animal care activities; in cases where written procedures did exist, there was often incomplete, contradictory or incorrect information provided; line staff frequently appeared unaware of written policies and consistently reported little or no formal training in key areas of animal care such as cleaning and disease recognition; and observed practices often differed from written procedures where these were available. In some cases, informal systems had been developed by staff members; some of these systems were acceptable, but because they were undocumented they were inconsistently followed. The most common answer received when staff were asked about any animal care process was “it depends on who you ask”.

While the King County Shelter system claimed not to euthanize animals unless they were untreatably ill or had severe behavior problems that made them unadoptable, the veterinary team observed that many animals became “unadoptable” only after entering the shelter system:

There were no documented policies or procedures for identification of animals in need of evaluation/movement out of stray/owner release holding areas. As a consequence, some animals lingered in unsuitable housing for prolonged periods without any chance at adoption. Many of these animals became sick without ever having a chance to be adopted. Informal systems developed by some staff members were functional but not consistently followed or enforced.

[....]

In 2007, it was reported that zero healthy, adoptable animals were euthanized. All euthanasia was attributed to barriers to adoption such as behavioral or medical conditions. It is unknown how many of the animals (or what percent of intake) who were euthanised represented animals with a significant barrier to adoption such as a terminal medical condition or dangerous behavioral condition versus those arrived healthy and behaviorally sound but deteriorated in the shelter for lack of adopters or those that could have been treated/rehabilitated if resources and facilities existed to do so. Clearly the challenges in meeting the current legislative depend in large part upon the answer to these questions.

The increase in shelter disease didn’t only result in euthanasia; animals suffered and died in their cages as well:

In-shelter deaths also increased dramatically for cats in 2007 compared to 2006. The number of cats reportedly found dead in their kennels increased by 139%, more than doubling, from August to December 2007 compared to the same time period in 2006. (2006 data for the first half of the year was not available.)

99 cats (34 adults and 109 kittens) were reported to have died in their kennels in 2007. (Figure 16) In contrast, 9 dogs and puppies reportedly died in their kennels for all of 2007. Similar issues appear to exist for cats in foster care. In 2007, an additional 44 cats, mostly kittens, reportedly died in foster care bringing the total to 143 cats who died while in shelter or foster care.

[....]

Many animals fall into a kind of “limbo” where they will not be made available for adoption but no other options for outcome are identified. KCACC staff also report frequently being unable to meet the treatment needs of individual animals either during their stray holding period or during this poorly defined waiting period.

Instead of implementing what the UC Davis team described as “concurrent programs to reduce intake (e.g. through spay/neuter and other preventive programs) or increase adoptions (e.g. through off site events, rescue partnerships, trap/neuter/release programs etc.)” to reduce shelter killing, management appeared to be letting neglect and crowding thin their numbers:

This shift from euthanasia of healthy animals “for space” to euthanasia of animals who have become severely ill or who are dying in shelter care does not represent progress for animal welfare or the life saving capacity of the community. It represents a “loophole” that encourages poor welfare rather than a progressive plan to meet the goal of reducing euthanasia.

KCACC staff report that there is no defined system to decide when the prognosis for sick animals has become too grave or the animal is suffering too greatly to continue treatment. Staff reported that sick cats especially are not euthanised for “medical” reasons unless death is clearly and obviously imminent. Feline treatment staff reported to UC Davis consultants that cats are “only euthanised once they have become non-responsive”. Additional staff reiterated this statement. Staff and management further stated that their understanding of the current legislative requirement was that animals could no longer be euthanized when their condition could be considered “treatable” but could only be euthanized when they had deteriorated to a point that they were beyond treatment.

Although the report contains a number of stories of individual animals suffering in the shelter system, two stand out. One was that of a small white dog (click on photo to view full size image):

While touring the Eastside facility, UC Davis team members found the dog unattended in the kennel, minimally responsive and unable to rise with blood that appeared to be coming from the rectum covering the hind end and paws. When asked about the dog, KCACC staff at the facility reported that the dog had been to see a veterinarian and showed paperwork attached to the cage front. The animal description on the veterinary paperwork described a tan and brindle terrier. The dog appeared to be a white poodle.

The paperwork was unclear and impossible to decipher even by the three veterinarians present. It was reported that the dog had been taken to see a veterinarian by the field officer who had picked the dog up. The veterinarian had reportedly said the dog could be appropriately housed in the kennels. When asked if the dog had been responsive or if blood had been present at that time of the vet visit, the staff person reported that those signs had been a more recent development and that the dog had not seen a veterinarian since the blood had appeared.

Staff reported that the dog would be transferred over to the Kent facility the next day to see a veterinarian. There was no signage or other indication that the dog may be injured, ill or potentially infectious on the kennel. The Acting Manager was present and instructed the staff member to contact a field officer to have the dog transported to the Kent facility that afternoon.

The next story involves a senior cat — click on photo to view full size image:

(This picture was) taken by a UC Davis team veterinarian while touring the Kent facility with the Acting Manager and supervisory staff on September 26th, 2007. Even in a curled position this large cat nearly touched both sides of the kennel. The cage card shows an intake date of September 15th, 2007 indicating that this 12 year old cat had been made to maintain this cramped body posture, in housing that was far to small to accommodate him, for 11 days even though his release date was the same as his intake date. Nobody could say why he had been there for so long or identify any plan for him.

It goes on:

(In this photo), a cat is curled in the dog food dish provided as a litter pan in a very small cage. The cat’s widely dilated pupil indicated severe stress. On the right, (Figure 37) one adult cat straddles another cat in a cage too small to permit both cats to sit or lie down at the same time.

In addition to not meeting minimum space recommendations, most cages in the shelter are not large enough to allow cats housed in them to engage normally in nearly any routine behavior, such as stretching, hiding, using a litter box, playing, or even walking or resting comfortably.

Some cages were too small to accommodate even a small litter box – cats in these cages were provided with 10” diameter round dog food bowls instead of litter boxes. These bowls do not allow for normal elimination behaviors (digging in litter), and are almost certainly too small for moderate to large sized cats to comfortably use… Cats housed in this shelter routinely spend weeks in cages so small they can not take more than a single step or lie down with legs fully extended.

I’m also wondering, given the stories I quoted here and several others in the rest of the report, if it’s really impossible to believe there might have been cats who didn’t get their water bowls refilled in a timely manner, as Nathan Winograd reported:

Staff at all levels were observed to work hard and reportedly routinely put in long hours. Animals were adequately cleaned and fed on a daily basis during the time of our visit aside from dog feeding issues reported elsewhere. However, even with the relatively low animal population in the shelter, the staffing was insufficient to keep up with basic cleaning and still accomplish essential activities such as promptly evaluating animals, moving adoptable and recovered animals into the appropriate areas, and checking the population daily to evaluate sick, injured and suffering animals.

[....]

Staff performing intake at KCACC at the time of the visit appeared concerned about the animals’ health and interested in feedback from the consultants regarding improvements, Efforts appeared to have been made to develop a consistent and effective intake process. However, these efforts were undermined by inconsistency between written and posted protocols; a lack of staff awareness of written protocols; absence of important information in written or generally understood protocols; issues with manner of implementation (e.g. scanning of most animals, but not using a universal scanner); failure to include some important components of a model intake protocol (e.g. animals not treated for internal parasites at intake as is widely recommended); and insufficient staff and/or lack of training or compliance resulting in protocols not always being fully followed even as written.

Although it’s clear that King County has committed to rectifying this situation, this report raises questions about the ability of current shelter management to oversee those necessary changes. And I’d still like to understand better how it is that the shelter system had around half a million dollars available to it when the shelter was in this condition, and didn’t spend it.

The full report, which is 151 pages long and is a 6 MB PDF file, is here; it includes both the results of its inspection and a lengthy section of recommendations for improvement. Given the facts outlined in the report, and its consistency with numerous earlier reports, it’s hard to understand why the King County Executive released it with a statement that Winograd’s inspection report contained “very serious unfounded statements, inaccuracies, and accusations regarding King County Animal Care and Control (KCACC)’s organization as a whole; the care and treatment of animals; and our staffing and resources.”

The County Executive’s rebuttal also contends that “King County does not and will not intentionally let animals die in their cages without treatment,” but the word “intentionally” is not the point when there are no systems in place to prevent that from happening, as noted by the UC Davis report.

While the future looks much brighter for the animals of King County, that is not due to a defense of the status quo, but the spotlight created by the citizen’s advisory committee, Winograd, and UC Davis reports. It’s understandable that the County Executive wants to provide a rebuttal of the details and to defend his staff and management team, but the issue today isn’t really the past, but the future.

What happens next in King County? That’s the important question. Let’s focus on that.

Update 4/16/08: This post is already so long, I hate to make it longer, but the Seattle Times printed its coverage of the UC Davis report this morning:

A team of top veterinarians hired by King County Executive Ron Sims says the county’s animal shelter is “dangerously over capacity,” uses “inhumane” practices and suffers “gross inadequacy” in housing animals.

Sims, who sought the opinion from the University of California, Davis, the nation’s pre-eminent veterinary-medicine program, in March dismissed some claims by a County Council consultant that animals had been neglected at the county’s shelters in Kent and Bellevue.

The shelter lacks both an animal-care system, the UC Davis team said, and the staff to carry it out.

“The result was a breakdown in care leading to animal suffering, illness and likely unnecessarily high levels of euthanasia and death,” according to a report by the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program that Sims’ office provided on Tuesday.

The article also suggests that the $965,000 being proposed to turn the shelter system around may be insufficient. Full story here.

Update 2, also on 4/16/08: Nathan Winograd responds to the UC Davis report as well as County Executive Ron Sims’ rebuttal of Winograd’s report here.