|
|
Today, the Humane Society of Austin & Travis County is stronger than it was before we went no-kill. We are very focused and clear about our mission, and we review it yearly. Our current operating budget is $1.3 million; in 1994 (the first year we were no-kill) it was $772,495. We went from 11 employees the first year of our transition to 32 employees today. In 1994 we were only open 4 days a week, today we are open 7 days a week. Our donor base in 1993 was 3,200 and today we have 14,000 active donors. In 1993 we had 60 volunteers; today we have over 230 very active volunteers. Now, shelter deaths citywide are 12,522. In 1993 they were over 20,000. But when we started down the road to no-kill, the future didn't look so bright.
History
Making The Transition
Hindsight Is 20/20
Lessons Learned
History
In 1993, after 38 years of contracting with the City of Austin for animal services, the Humane Society and City parted ways. The Humane Society Board spent the last seven of those thirty-eight years trying to increase the dollar amount of the contract to cover services being provided. The City paid the Humane Society $677,425 per year to handle 38,000 animals. This was not sufficient to cover the increasing cost of providing quality care and housing for the animals, yet the City wanted to cut the amount instead of increase it. The Humane Society struggled to keep up with maintenance of the shelter and was subsidizing the City impoundment program with $300,000 of donated dollars. The mission of the Humane Society was not to supplement an impoundment program, and the Board decided that if the City wouldn't fund the program to a level that would provide quality care and housing it wasn't worth doing. Negotiations failed, the City insisted they could provide services at less cost, and the contract expired June 30, 1993, with both parties agreeing not to renew.
The Humane Society built the animal shelter in 1957 on city owned land, leased for one dollar per year. The term of the land lease was to expire in thirty years, and the cancellation clause required notice by either party by July 1 should they decide to cancel the lease. On July 1, 1993 the City sent the Humane Society notice they were exercising their option to cancel the lease. The cancellation clause required the City to pay the Humane Society replacement costs for the buildings. The next nine months were spent in negotiations to determine separation of services and settlement on appraisals for replacement cost of the buildings. In March of 1994 a settlement of $1.6 million was reached on the property and equipment. The City agreed to lease back part of the shelter to the Humane Society (at a cost of $11,000 for 6 months) after the settlement to allow for relocation of the Humane Society. Our search for a new site ended when we purchased an existing 15,000 square foot one story building on August 9, 1994 for $782,000. We took it down to the wire with our lease from the City ending on September 30. Working with crews around the clock for the next two months, we completed the building renovation and moved in at the end of September 1994. The City took over the old facility and currently operates the government animal services from there at more than double cost of the previous contract with the Humane Society.
Making The Transition
The transition from government contracting was complicated by the already scheduled retirement of two key staff positions, the executive director and operations director (both had been with the Humane Society for over twenty five years); negative press coverage about the deteriorating condition of the shelter and claims the Humane Society was not doing a good job running the shelter; volunteers trying to take over shelter operations; and confusion among board members. The Board had to conduct a search for a new executive director right at the time negotiations with the City were breaking down. Several board members had been part of the original negotiations, thirty-eight years prior, and had a difficult time accepting the change. Others resigned amid bad press and the hostility of the takeover attempt. Members of the animal activist community were hostile to Humane Society board members and made death threats against them. The remaining board members took a very active role in hiring legal counsel and a new executive director (who turned out to be me) and negotiating the terms of the transition with the City.
The transition was difficult financially for the Humane Society. We only had the money from the settlement and a small savings account to start over as a no-kill animal shelter. We paid $782,000 in cash for the building and spent another $320,000 for renovations and equipment. The Board looked at several options: be a non-sheltered organization doing humane education and foster care, buy land outside the city limits and start from scratch, or find an existing building with a central location that could be renovated as an animal shelter. They decided it was important for the survival of the organization to continue to house animals and be in a central location. This of course was the most expensive option but the one that would keep the Humane Society in the public focus. The long transition process took its toll on the financial resources of the agency. Support from donors dropped 40% from the negative press and confusion about what was going on. It took us two years to rebuild our donor base and regain the support of the community, no easy task with zero funds available for advertising our new location and mission. The staff nearly burnt out trying to do special events and community outreach booths every month. We went from thirty-six employees to eleven during transition and had to be closed three days per week.
When we first opened as a no-kill shelter in 1994, we were inundated with animals and tried to save them all. It almost put us out of business. We had animals that needed months of treatment before being adoptable, and we learned a valuable lesson on being realistic about our capabilities. With a kennel full of treatable and non-rehabilitatable animals, we had no room for the adoptable ones. It was difficult for staff to focus on taking in adoptable animals, but if we didn't get control of the flow of animals we were headed for disaster. Our goal as a no-kill shelter is to save as many lives as possible, and if we had to shut our doors because we couldn't cover expenses we wouldn't be able to save any animals. Being realistic about what your limits are is critical to success.
Hindsight is 20/20
Looking back, the transition would have gone smoother if the Humane Society had kept its programs and budget separate from the impoundment program and budget. Instead, over the 38 years of contracting with the city, lines became blurred and the budgets and programs co-mingled. The Humane Society had forgotten its mission and got lost in the overwhelming job of handling the impoundment contract. I have seen this time and time again during my 25 years working in the humane field. Private non-profits get into government contracting and loose sight of the true mission of their agency. At one agency I worked with in Florida the Board didn't think they had a mission other than running the impoundment program and had to re-discover who they were without the contract. A lot of the time we spent in Austin negotiating with the City had to do with sorting out which services the City should provide and which ones the Humane Society should provide. The City had never operated an animal shelter, and they weren't sure what services they should or could provide. If the private part of the Humane Society programs were tracked separately, this would have been an easier process. Today, when people call me for advice on government contracting I recommend the agency keep a separate budget for programs directly related to the mission of their organization so they are always aware of what their identity is as a humane agency and what is contract work. In some small communities this is a way for the government and private agencies to work together in an effort to begin providing services. However, in my opinion, this type of arrangement should be considered temporary. Each agency should be looking to a time in the future when they can operate their own program.
Lessons Learned
There are three components to making a successful transition from a government-contracting agency to a no-kill shelter:
Program Assessment
A mission statement is a valuable tool for your organization. Develop a clear, succinct statement that defines your organization's purpose. The Board should review the mission statement yearly and update it as needed. Include the mission statement in your publications. As a tool, a mission statement will keep you on track with the goals and objectives of your organization. When reviewing projects for your organization, go back to the mission statement and determine if the project fits with your mission. If a project does not fit with your mission, don't do it.
Be realistic about your financial resources. Cash flow and financial stability drive the organization and dictate how much you will be able to do. Many people delude themselves about money and fundraising. The reality is the more money you have the more you can do for the animals. Too many times I hear board members say, "I can't ask for money" or "I want to play with the animals; let someone else do the fundraising." The Board is a resource for the organization. You need people on your Board who are passionate about your agency and willing to engage the community to support your mission. There are many ways the Board can provide the necessary wealth, wisdom and work to make your organization strong. Be careful not to expand your programs until you have built a strong base and can fund new programs adequately. It is okay not to be everything to everybody. Decide what you do best and do it to the best of your ability.
Scan the environment in your area to determine community needs and circumstances that will have an impact on your organization. Try not to duplicate services of other agencies if they are meeting the need in your community. Identify social, economic, political, technological and private sector trends and evaluate how these effect your programs.
Reality Check
What do your customers want? Be realistic about your housing capacity. If you fill your kennels with large dogs and most people are looking for smaller dogs you decrease your ability to adopt more dogs. If your focus is on saving as many animals as you can through adoption you will have to adjust the types of animals you take in to the ones you have a good chance to place.
Maintain quality animal care. Make a commitment to provide the best possible environment for the animals in your care. To fulfill this commitment, you will have to make some hard choices: DO NOT OVERCROWD YOUR KENNELS- if you are full put animals on a waiting list or refer to another agency. Understanding that there will be animals you do not want to accept into your adoption program, develop a method of evaluating animals for acceptance and stick to it.
Establishing Your Role
If you change your shelter to a no-kill facility be fair and truthful in your promotional materials. Avoid claims such as, "They kill animals and we don't." What are you saying? They are the bad guys, and we are the good guys? This is not a good way to foster a spirit of cooperation in your community and many times is not fair when fund- raising. No-kill shelters still have to deal with euthanasia. The important questions in any community are how many adoptable animals are being killed in our community and how can we work within our community to end this practice. Promote the positive programs of your agency without bashing other organizations. Respect the role each agency has in creating a whole range of community services.
Identify other groups and agencies in your community and the role each plays. Remember it is very difficult to be everything to everybody, and funding is a major part of the services you can realistically provide. Breed rescue, adoption rescue, government animal services and private shelters each play a valuable role.
Look at the whole community and start to network with the agencies providing services for animals. Take into consideration the number of adoptable animals killed in your community and begin to develop a plan to reduce this number. In humane work, we must remember to stay focused on what is best for the animals and be humane to each other in the process. Working together we can make our communities better places for people and animals.
We have traveled a long and many times painful road in Austin, but the animals have benefitted. Today there are more groups and agencies working on behalf of animals than ever before. The Austin City Council took a major step in December 1997, passing a resolution to end the killing of adoptable animals at the city shelter within five years. The resolution, presented to City Council by Austin Pets Alive, a grassroots group, with support of the Animal Advisory Commission, the Humane Society and other animal advocate groups, passed unanimously. As a result of this resolution agencies in Austin joined with the City to create a no-kill plan to accomplish this goal. The no-kill partner agencies meet monthly to track the progress of the plan. Going no-kill was a good move for the Humane Society. It got us really focused on our mission to save animal lives and out of the political struggle to maintain a government contract. It also brought the local government up to date on the issues of running a shelter and made them pay more attention to animal services. I think the important thing is to begin the journey and remember it starts with the first step.
|
|
