Can't Argue With The Facts

In today's Tribune is an editorial decrying that the Tribune and Animal Foundation are "dirty". Evidently the writer thinks that the Animal Foundation has "undue influence on the Tribune as well as on the City". I don't know if this is true, but I do believe the writer is all for the Humane Society of Cascade County (HSCC) taking back control of the shelter.

About two weeks after the city took control of the animal shelter, they hired Kim Staton, an animal welfare consultant to review the shelter. She spent five days observing and talking with staff and issued a 32 page report on her findings, which she indicated was only an abbreviated report, outlining the more obvious problems.

Animal activists have been insistent that the HSCC be given back control of the shelter. According to this document that Susan Overfield scanned, the HSCC claimed in September 2007 that "because HSCC has been running the shelter for the past fifteen years, it has the experience to continue doing so and to do so effectively and efficiently".

* If they were doing such an effective and efficient job, why did they tell the commissioners on July 3, 2007 that it was a good idea for the city to take temporary control?

* If they were doing such an effective and efficient job, why did this independent animal welfare consultant find at least 120 deficiencies?

It seems many of the problems Ms. Staton observed had much to do with lack of training. I know of no business or organization that can be effective and efficient if it does not have trained staff. It's essential.

Let's take a look at some of the issues:

Lack of training - page 18:

"Current staff have had very limited training for the jobs they are required to perform. This results in costly mistakes, safety issues, frustration on the part of staff and the public, and a less professional organization. It also places staff in an unfair situation by expecting them to perform well in a job they have not been trained for. Further, it is difficult to hold staff accountable for errors that are made."

"I asked a number of staff what training they had received for their respective jobs and all of them indicated they learned from someone at the shelter. None had any formal training for the jobs they were doing".

This lack of training also led to other problems:

Animal care - page 16 - "While staff made a concerted effort to assess animals upon intake and record this information using an "Animal Health Check" form, no real training had been provided on how to properly evaluate an animal. For the most part, staff training consisted of "on the job" learning from previous employees whose training was also limited. Consequently, the legitimacy of any findings is questionable".

"Animal Care Standards" - page 17 - It was pointed out that the shelter was giving out "Animal Care Standards" to the public, but was not following the guidelines themselves.

Animal Vaccinations - page 9 - follow up vaccines were not being administered and different brands and types were being used.

Shelter Sanitation - page 19 - many "longstanding oversights" were referenced with lack of training and resources being given as the main reason for staff not following proper procedure.

The shelter also did not have any written guidelines.

Standard Operating Procedures - page 21 - "There is a glaring absence of written guidelines at the shelter. I was provided with some information on sanitation protocols, certain forms used at the shelter, and animal care guidelines provided to pet owners. Beyond that, I was not able to locate anything".

Is asking that the HSCC be back in control really a wise request?