ANIMAL HEALTH COMMITTEE

Raymond Lamb, Chairman
Florine Ernst
Joseph Probst
Richard Sobel
Sofia Sommer
Sheldon Williger

AN EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES

INTRODUCTION

The 1998-1999 Los Angeles County Grand Jury in October of 1998 undertook to perform a limited management audit, as well as a special study, of the Department of Animal Regulation of the City of Los Angeles. The scope of this review sought to:

Because a separate section will be employed detailing the limited management audit conducted on the Department of Animal Regulation, this section will primarily deal with the investigation conducted by members of the Grand Jury's Animal Health Committee. It is not our intention to cover the same areas already reviewed by the audit team but to look at the Department of Animal Regulation as any group of concerned citizens would. This committee report will not only augment the audit team's work, but also adds a perspective to the overall investigation that benefits the residents of Los Angeles as a whole.

Background

The Department of Animal Regulation serves a population of approximately 3.8 million residents on a year-round basis. These services are provided primarily through theoperation of six animal shelters located in the North Hollywood, San Pedro, West Los Angeles, South Central, West Valley, and North Los Angeles areas. The Department performs an important and necessary service for the residents of Los Angeles. This service is exemplified in the Department's own mission statement which reads:

During the 1997-1998 fiscal year there were 16,895 calls for service to the Department of Animal Regulation, up from 12,943 during the 1995-1996 fiscal year. This surge of activity occurred while the Department, according to their own budget proposals, as well as comments from its General Manager and Animal Commission members, remained understaffed and underfunded. Our research disclosed the Department of Animal Regulation takes in an average of 91,000 animals per year, which keeps the Department's six shelters at 150% of their normal capacity. In addition, on any given day in Los Angeles there are approximately 44,000 dogs and 3 million cats running loose in the City.

While statistics on the number of dog bites in Los Angeles County have not been kept since 1995 due to budget constraints, the County did issue a public health warning in June of 1998 regarding dog attacks within the city. This warning was issued due to a perceived increase in dog attacks. During the first ten months of 1998 the Los Angeles Police Department reported 43% of all police shootings involved dogs, up from 30% in 1997. These statistics are not cited to frighten people, but to underline the importance that animal regulation plays in Los Angeles. From stray dogs and cats to wild coyotes, from exotic animals to mountain lions, the Department of Animal Regulation plays an integral part in the daily lives of Los Angeles residents.

The importance of this review for the residents of Los Angeles lies in achieving a clearer picture as to the level of success the Department of Animal Regulation has attained in achieving the ideals outlined in its mission statement. To accomplish this task, the Committee focused on the four areas of inquiry listed on the first page of this report.

Methodology

The methodology used in gathering information for this special report included interviews with key Department of Animal Regulation managers and staff. State law, as well as other mandates, were reviewed, in addition to Department policies and procedures, budget and accounting information, and other documentation. In addition, members of the Grand Jury's Animal Health Committee inspected all six City shelters during public operating hours, from September 2, 1998 to December 8, 1998.

Findings

Facilities and Equipment

Animal shelter facilities are aging and in need of repair and upgrade. The reason cited for this state of affairs is lack of available funding over a period of many years for facility maintenance. The East Valley Animal Shelter was built in 1965 and had suffered extensive earthquake damage over the years. Funding for facility repairs has largely come from individuals or animal activist groups. Despite the fact that East Valley currently serves 500,000 residents, funding for East Valley is less today than it was in the 1970's when it served far fewer people. There was a general consensus among officers and supervisors at all six shelters that deterioration had occurred with their facilities over the years and a need existed for additional equipment. Several shelters, including East Valley and West Valley, reported a need for "quick release" latches on their dog pens. Several staff members have been bitten while cleaning dog pens. Dogs would manage to get back into their pens from a separate enclosed area, and attack. The staff members were unable to quickly escape because of the design of the door latches.

All of the shelters had "wish lists" of equipment staff believed would allow them to better serve the public. Harbor's animal shelter needed a new freezer, as well as a sedan for transportation. South Central's shelter needed a mechanical lift to help carry dead animals into a storage area. Staff was currently forced to do this by hand. East Valley's shelter needed showers for its staff members. Currently, staff who handle diseased animals have no way of showering or properly cleaning up afterward. This practice exposes staff to unnecessary health risks since they are forced to wait until they return home before having access to proper shower facilities.

Personnel

While personnel at the six City shelters have done a commendable job, they have been forced to provide increased services to residents without an increase in comparable staffing. There are only 45 Animal Control Officers for the entire City of Los Angeles. In a city of approximately 3.8 million people that is one officer for every 88,000 residents. The West Valley Animal Shelter had six trucks (collection vehicles) but only two drivers per shift to operate them. All of the shelters reported an inability to staff their facilities with 24-hour coverage because of a lack of personnel.

Management at all six shelters cited a need for additional personnel to better fulfill their mandate. East Valley indicated a need for five additional Animal Control Officers to better serve the public. The West Los Angeles shelter indicated a need for two additional officers. South Central indicated a need for four additional officers. Harbor indicated a need for at least three additional officers. Supervisors and staff at all six shelters stressed a current need for additional Animal Control Technicians, veterinarians, and clerks. The lack of clerks is a problem because it ties down staff doing paperwork who would be more useful in the field. The City only recently funded an increase of staff from one to three veterinarians but according to the Department's General Manager, the City needs at least twelve.

The importance of an increase in personnel cannot be stressed enough. Currently there are not enough Animal Control Officers to handle all of the calls the Department receives. Animal Control Officers are forced to prioritize calls from the public with the most pressing calls handled first. Police and fire department personnel have had to wait extended periods of time during calls that involve animals, because of the lack of animal control personnel. The day is long gone when a resident could call for an Animal Control Officer to come and pick up a stray dog or cat. The Department of Animal Regulation simply does not have the staff to provide complete coverage.

Public Access

Adequate access to animal services and information by the public has been an ongoing concern. The current phone system at East Valley was so out of date the public had a difficult time getting through. In addition, it is difficult for shelter personnel to contact the police or fire department in case of an emergency. We heard similar stories from personnel at the other City shelters. The Department of Animal Regulation is aware of this problem and some improvements have been made. During the 1998-1999 fiscal year additional cabling was installed in shelters and a toll-free number to access a call management system was activated to alleviate the telephone call overload problems the Department had been experiencing. This call management system provides recorded answers to questions most frequently asked by the public, thereby freeing up staff time for less common public inquiries. Additional funding to further upgrade the phone system has been requested in the Department's 1999-2000 budget request.

Policymaking

The Board of Animal Regulation, by City Charter, has the power "to supervise, control, regulate and manage the department and to make and enforce all necessary and desirable rules and regulations therefor." What this means is the Board of Animal Regulation has a major say in developing the mission, goals and objectives of the Department of Animal Regulation. Because of the Board's prominent role in policymaking it is imperative the public have knowledge and access to the Board's actions during the deliberative phase of policymaking.

The Board of Animal Regulation holds meetings twice a month where the public can address the Board with its concerns. However, members of the public are allowed a combined total of only fifteen minutes (a maximum of three minutes per person) to state their views or concerns at the end of each meeting. One of these meetings is held at 5:00 p.m. each month in a district location, the other is held downtown. The problem with these meetings is twofold. The downtown meeting is held Monday at 9 a.m. on what, for mostpeople, is a workday. If a resident wanted to attend that meeting he or she would have to take time off from work, drive downtown, find parking, then locate the building where the Board actually meets.

In addition, the fact that the Board holds meetings at all is not well known to the general public. While contact information regarding the Board can be found on the City's web site, it is not listed in most telephone books. Generally, a resident with a concern regarding animals literally stumbles onto the option of sharing his or her concerns with the Board. This most often occurs during the process of contacting someone from the Department of Animal Regulation who may mention this option to the resident. Because of the present situation people who attend meetings of the Board of Animal Regulation are generally representing special interest groups, particularly from the animal rights lobby. Policy that is considered and approved by the Board is often a collaboration between designated members of the Department and representatives of these special interest groups. The one group that appears to be left out much of the time is the general public.

Care of Animals

In general we found that animals under the control of the Department of Animal Regulation are well cared for, even with the understaffing. The animals are provided adequate food, water, and medical care. We did observe that many of the shelters are overcrowded-at 150% capacity-but this was expected with the increased demands on shelters, without a comparative increase in facilities.

In 1998 the Department of Animal Regulation took in approximately 91,000 animals. Of this total, 35,522 dogs and 17,604 cats were euthanized, mostly because they were simply not adoptable. They were too old, diseased, or skittish. Another problem was simply overcrowding. Shelters, under current law, can euthanize an animal after seventy-two hours. This has proved necessary in response to the massive increase of the dog and cat population, particularly stray dogs and cats, in recent years. Shelters are holding dogs and cats that are adoptable for as long as possible while clearing space by euthanizing the ones that are not adoptable.

Pit Bulls-A Special Problem Area

The numbers of pit bulls have increased substantially in Los Angeles during the past several years. Bred for fighting, pit bulls are not even recognized as an official breed by the American Kennel Club, the organization that controls the purebred dog business in the United States. Animal Regulation officials estimate that nearly half of the dogs held in city shelters are pit bulls or pit bull mixes. This has strained kennel space since the more aggressive pit bulls must be placed in cages by themselves. Pit bulls serve as the primary economic draw in a growing illegal underground activity promoted by amateur breeders who use the animals for dog fighting. Backyard breeders of pit bulls will often select a couple of the largest dogs in a litter for fighting and release the remainder onto the streets, or sell them. This has resulted in an enormous increase in the number of pit bulls running loose within the County.

During the early months of 1999, a number of high profile incidents occurred in which pit bulls attacked men, women and children. These highly publicized incidents have frightened the public and have led to a rapid increase in the number of pit bulls placed in the City's animal shelters. Nearly 100 pit bulls were placed in the City's six animal shelters by their concerned owners after an infant was attacked by a pit bull on March 6, 1999. The rapid increase of these highly aggressive dogs in the animal shelters, as well as the thousands that are loose on the streets, has underscored the lack of resources the City's Department of Animal Regulation has available due to years of inadequate funding.

Conclusions

The conclusions and recommendations we have drawn from our special report on the Department of Animal Regulation are in addition to those made by the audit team. By providing both sets of recommendations the Committee believes it has set forth a blueprint for improving the services provided to the public by the Department of Animal Regulation.

The overall conclusion to be drawn from our report is that the Department of Animal Regulation, under the guidance of the Board of Animal Regulation, is not providing adequate service to the residents of Los Angeles. Blame for this situation cannot be placed on the Department's current general manager, who has been on the job for less than a year and by all accounts is doing a fine job with what resources are available. The reason for this state of affairs is directly related to the low priority that City government has assigned the Department of Animal Regulation over a period of many years. The Department has had to make do with funding that has not kept pace with the need for facility maintenance, equipment upgrade, additional staffing, the ever growing population of stray dogs and cats, and increased public demands for service.

In addition, the Department needs to be more accessible to the general public. Some improvements to the Department's antiquated phone system have been completed and additional upgrades are anticipated, but more needs to be done. Increased staffing would provide for more person-to-person contact between members of the Department and the general public.

At the policymaking level, the Department could do a better job of educating the public concerning the Board of Animal Regulation and the public's right to address issues before the Board. Posted information regarding the dates and times of Board meetings, and their agendas, would be an improvement. Better information on the Department's web site, along with a listing for the Board in the government pages of phone books would also provide an avenue for a better informed public.

In addition, the public would be better served if the Board of Animal Regulation heldits public meetings during the later evening hours or on the weekends. Currently, these meetings are held when members of the general public have great difficulty attending. Designated members of the Department, special interests, or animal rights groups should not arbitrarily formulate policies that affect millions of City residents. The general public should have the opportunity to be aware of animal policy issues and the opportunity to participate in the discussions.

Recommendations

DESCRIPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL REGULATION

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Regulation is one of 45 City departments, excluding the offices of the Mayor and the City Council, and one of eight departments which are "under the control and management of a board of five commissioners" (known colloquially as a "`B' Commission"). The commissioners are appointed and removed by the Mayor, subject to approval by a majority vote of the City Council. By Charter, the Board of Animal Regulation has the power "to supervise, control, regulate and manage the department and to make and enforce all necessary and desirable rules and regulations therefor."

The day-to-day administration of the Department of Animal Regulation is performed by a General Manager, who is appointed and removed by the Mayor subject to majority vote of the City Council. The General Manager is required to submit his annual budget recommendations to the Board of Animal Regulation. However, the annual budget proposal is subject to approval by the Mayor and the City Council.

The powers and duties of the Department of Animal Regulation are defined in Article XIII, §155 of the City Charter. This Section states:

To accomplish this, the Mayor and the City Council appropriated $8,209,558 to the Department of Animal Regulation in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998-99. This included approximately $7,709,104 in departmental operating costs and equipment expense, and $500,454 for interdepartmental charges for workers' compensation, telephone, pool vehicles, and postage expenses. In addition, the City will incur an additional $4,234,554 in other related costs which are not considered part of the Department's operating budget, bringing the total reported costs for the Department of Animal Regulation to $12,444,112 in FY 1998-99.

The Department is projected to receive $3,635,940 in direct revenues in FY 1998-99, which includes $829,600 from Shelter Operations, $2,804,340 from License and Permit Operations, and $2,000 in miscellaneous revenue. As a result, the projected net General Fund Cost (i.e., the portion of the Department cost funded from discretionary tax revenues) is projected to be $8,808,172 in FY 1998-99.

These budgeted appropriations are used to support the operations of six shelters and animal control enforcement districts throughout the City. These operations are staffed by 190.5 authorized positions, and approximately 3.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) temporary positions, for a total of approximately 194.0 FTE positions. Actual staffing is less due to vacancies, extended sick leave and other factors.

In addition, the Department utilizes the services of a contractor who is responsible for canvassing the City to discover delinquent animal licenses; a pet store chain offers impounded animals for adoption through a contract with the Department; and, informal (unwritten) agreements exist with local veterinarians to sell animal licenses, provide spay and neuter services, conduct post-adoption pet examinations, and supply emergency care for sick and injured animals impounded by the Department. Other informal working agreements have been entered into with various animal rescue agencies to distribute spay and neuter discount coupons to the public.

Recent History of the Department of Animal Regulation

The Department of Animal Regulation was established as a Charter mandated function in 1947.Reportedly, by the 1970s the Department was considered by some to be a "national model" which generated significant revenues from its license enforcement and animal regulation activities. However, this status reportedly declined during the 1980s and 1990s as the discretionary resources of the City diminished, the City's priorities changed, and department management deteriorated.

During the past seven years, the Department has been managed by four persons, including the current General Manager who was hired by the City in July 1998 (approximately eight months prior to the completion of this report). According to various individuals interviewed for this study, the absence of a permanent manager during the past several years, has led to department instability and difficulties accomplishing the goals and objectives of the Board of Animal Regulation and Department. Combined with the recession in the early 1990s, the age and condition of some shelter facilities, and other factors, the Department now appears to be in a state of crisis.

This has been recognized by the current General Manager who has spent the first six months of his employment evaluating the operations of the Department, assessing resource needs and making management changes. In a draft "Preliminary Management Assessment" report prepared by the new General Manager, he states:

Resource issues for the Department have significantly impacted services to the community. As will be described in later sections of this report, Animal Control Officer staffing is not sufficient to provide 24-hour coverage in all districts, leaving police officers and the public without sufficient service; Animal Control Technician staffing is similarly low, resulting in long periods at some locations where no staff is available to receive animals and provide animal care; the Department's telephone system has been problematic and public callers are reportedly lost or kept on hold for extended periods (although no data exists to support this assertion); and facilities are overcrowded, making it difficult to segregate dangerous animals, puppies and kittens from the general population, leading to increased risk of animal disease and injury.

SB 1785, (The Hayden Bill)

In 1998, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 1785. This legislation, which will be fully effective July 1, 1999, has redefined the conditions under which an animal may be euthanized, changed requirements for the care and treatment of impounded animals, extended the mandatory time that an animal must be held for adoption, and increased Department record-keeping requirements. These changes in the law--specifically those which will extend the length of time animals must be held for adoption--will have a significant impact on crowding in the City's animal shelters and on capital needs, staffing, and other costs associated with the care and treatment of animals.

As a result of his assessment of current operations, and in response to the requirements of SB 1785, the General Manager has submitted a budget request for FY 1999-00 which increases operating expenditures by approximately $5.6 million and 118 FTE positions (a 45.2 percent increase in total costs). This budget augmentation and position increase would finance adjustments to employee compensation, as well as increases in staffing and other resources related to field enforcement, shelter operations and licensing. This proposal is currently under review by the Mayor, and final recommendations to the City Council will not be known until April 20, 1999.

DEPARTMENT ORGANIZATION

The current organization of Department of Animal Regulation operations and administrative functions under an Assistant General Manager position results in an excessive number of direct reports at that level, and in redundant executive management.

In addition, the six shelter facilities are managed by Senior Animal Control Officers, who are also responsible for law enforcement functions. However, kennel staff at each facility report to the Chief Veterinarian, creating the potential for dual supervision. This organization does not provide clear lines of authority or accountability, and could be modified.

Although these issues have been recognized by the new General Manager, it is incumbent upon the Board of Animal Regulation, the Mayor and the City Council to recognize and fund basic management changes if the Department operation are to be improved and animal regulation services enhanced. By deleting the position of Assistant General Manager and adding mid-level managers in Field and Kennel operations, Department management would be significantly enhanced, at an added cost of approximately $43,000 per year.

The current organization of the Department of Animal Regulation includes the General Manager (GM), who reports directly to the Mayor and functionally to the Board of Animal Regulation. The GM has an executive management staff which includes Board support, public information and program development personnel. Below the General Manager is an Assistant General Manager (AGM) who is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Department.

Responsibilities Of The Assistant General Manager

In recent years, the AGM has had broad responsibility for animal control, animal care and administrative functions of the Department. Directly reporting to the AGM have been 15 mid-level managers, supervisors and analysts with a broad range of duties. The mid-level managers within the Department are responsible for the following functions and activities.

In addition to these management functions, the AGM coordinates Department responses to citizen inquiries and complaints, and directly responds to the more problematic communications. Historically, the AGM has also been responsible for hiring, discipline and termination of staff, which can be time consuming; and, for special projects such as coordinating the construction of the new South Central Animal Care and Control Center.

This broad range of duties and other factors have reportedly impacted management effectiveness at the AGM level. As a result, many of the AGM's duties and functions have been informally and formally assumed by other managers and staff within the Department. Reportedly, other responsibilities have not received the attention they should have received.

The current General Manager has recognized many of these difficulties and has taken several remedial steps during his seven month tenure with the Department. He has broadened the responsibilities of the Chief Veterinarian to take direct responsibility for all animal care functions at the shelters, has proposed two new mid-management positions of Director of Field Operations and Director of Kennel Operations in his FY 1999-00 Budget Proposal and has taken other steps to strengthen internal management of the Department. With the recent decision by the incumbent AGM to leave the Department, there is an opportunity to make even broader organization changes at the executive management level which would otherwise have been more difficult.

Proposed Executive Management Changes

It is clear that the current organization of the operating and administrative functions under the AGM results in excessive direct reports at that level. Combined with the other administrative duties of this position, the ability to effectively discharge the duties of the position are hampered.

Accordingly, we support the General Manager's proposed additions of Director of Field Operations and Director of Kennel Operations. However, because these positions are incorporated in the first and fifth funding augmentation priorities submitted to the Mayor by the Department, it is uncertain whether either or both positions will be funded, or whether the Mayor will consider segregating these positions from the broader request if full funding for the first and fifth augmentation priorities are not approved. At the time of this report, the Mayor had not yet indicated whether he would support the addition of either position.

Although we believe the addition of these two positions is appropriate, we do not believe that the retention of the AGM position is required if they are added. If the AGM is retained, the Department will have a linear organization at the executive management level which is neither efficient nor necessary. Two new managers at the Director level will assume a large amount of responsibility which is presently assigned to the AGM. Remaining administrative functions currently assigned to the AGM could be assigned to the Senior Management Analyst II position, which presently supervises many of the more significant administrative activities within the Department. Accordingly, it is uncertain whether a position of Assistant General Manager is required in a department the size and with the functional scope of the Department of Animal Regulation.

The Department's FY 1999-00 Budget Proposal includes an augmentation of $140,528 for the two positions of Director of Field Operations and Director of Kennel Operations. If the Assistant General Manager position was deleted, this augmentation request would be reduced by $121,461 (offsetting savings), for a net additional budget augmentation of $19,068.

However, with the elimination of the Assistant General Manager position, it may be appropriate for the City to consider an adjustment in the scope of duties and salary of the proposed Director of Kennel Operations to a level which is approximately equivalent to that of the proposed Director of Field Operations. If this suggestion were implemented, the net cost to the Department would be increased by approximately $24,000. However, by elevating this position to the higher level, the General Manager would have four executive level positions in the Department who could be assigned as acting General Manager in his absence (the Director of Field Operations, Director of Kennel Operations, the Administrative Services Manager/ Senior Management Analyst II, and the Chief Veterinarian).

During discussions of opportunities to enhance the organization of the Department of Animal Regulation, the General Manager suggested that if the position of AGM is eliminated, an executive support position of Administrative Liaison would be required to assume some functions related to liaison with the offices of the Mayor, City Council and Board of Animal Regulation. We do not support this suggestion at this time since:

The General Manager has also commented that if the Assistant General Manager position is eliminated, secretarial and clerical support staff will need to be augmented, resulting in increased costs of Department operations. Due to the scope of this study, we did not evaluate this assertion extensively. However, we recommend that as part of any broader study by the City of the Department of Animal Regulation, clerical and administrative support functions be evaluated for potential reorganization, augmentation and efficiency and effectiveness opportunities. Further, we note that the Executive Secretary position currently reporting to the AGM would be retained in our proposal, and would be available to support the new management team.

District Management

Under the current organization of the districts, each is managed by a Senior Animal Control Officer assigned to the location. These individuals are responsible for directly supervising Animal Control Officers and clerical personnel, coordinating all facility and equipment maintenance and repair, and responding to citizen inquiries and requests for service, as necessary.

Prior to the current organization, these individuals were responsible for other aspects of each shelter, including the supervision of all Animal Control Technicians (ACTs) and Registered Veterinarian Technicians (RVTs). However, the previous General Manager placed the supervision of the ACTs and RVTs under the Chief Veterinarian. The reason for this organizational change was to ensure that standards of shelter and kennel sanitation, as well as animal population management procedures, were consistent with those required to minimize animal illness and injury. This functional reorganization has reportedly worked well, except in the following areas:

These conflicts have reportedly lead to inefficiencies and employee confusion, although such confusion has apparently subsided in recent months. Under the proposed new organization, which would include the directors of Field Operations and Kennel Operations, clear lines of authority and accountability would be established. At a minimum, responsibility for field enforcement and shelter operations would be more clearly delineated.

Further, clerical staff should be incorporated into shelter operations and supervised by the Director of Kennel Operations. However, Veterinarians and Registered Veterinary Technicians should continue to report to the Chief Veterinarian, who is responsible for all medical care provided to animals within the custody of the Department.

Conclusions

The current organization of Department of Animal Regulation operations and administrative functions under an Assistant General Manager position results in an excessive number of direct reports at that level, and in redundant executive management.

In addition, the six shelter facilities are managed by Senior Animal Control Officers, who are also responsible for law enforcement functions. However, kennel staff at each facility report to the Chief Veterinarian, creating the potential for dual supervision. This organization does not provide clear lines of authority or accountability, and could be modified.

Although these issues have been recognized by the new General Manager, it is incumbent upon the Board of Animal Regulation, the Mayor and the City Council to recognize and fund basic management changes if the Department operations are to be improved and animal regulation services enhanced. By deleting the position of Assistant General Manager and adding mid-level managers in Field and Kennel operations, Department management would be significantly enhanced, at an added cost of approximately $43,000 per year.

Recommendations

Costs and Benefits

The total cost for the operations of the Department of Animal Regulation would increase by approximately $43,000 per year. This augmentation includes approximately $164,528 in additional personnel costs for the new positions of Director of Field Operations and Director of Kennel Operations, offset by $121,461 in savings from the deletion of the Assistant General Manager position.

The organization of the Department would be streamlined, span of control and chain of command would become more effective at the executive and district levels, and reporting lines would be clarified. The overall management of the Department would be improved.

DEPARTMENT STAFFING

Animal Control Officer and Animal Care Technician staffing at each District are not sufficient to provide 24-hour coverage. Shifts are often not staffed, response times are reportedly delayed, and customer services are diminished.

Various alternatives exist for increasing the availability of staff during critical periods, including (a) adding personnel to provide required coverage at each district; (b) redrawing district boundaries to consolidate staffing during low activity periods; (c) modifying staff schedules and scope of duties to better accommodate customer convenience and need, resulting in annual savings of approximately $30,000; and, (d) constructing low-cost night cages and other minor facility improvements to enhance customer services. In addition, the City may wish to consider adding sufficient as-needed clerical and animal care worker staff to adjust weekday and Saturday shelter hours, and open to the public on Sundays. The additional cost for this latter suggestion would be approximately $110,000 per year.

Although there are positive and negative aspects to each of these suggestions, the Department should develop a plan which incorporates these and other alternatives for enhancing animal control and care services to the public.

Each District is assigned a different number of staff based on the Districts' geographic size, animal control activity, shelter characteristics and customer demands. Depending on these and other factors, a limited number of shifts may be staffed at some locations. The table below shows the average number of scheduled employees by shift andlocation for the two classifications of Animal Control Officer and Animal Care Technician.

Table 1

Animal Control Officer and Animal Care Technician

Staffing by Location and Shift - January 1999

(Average Staffing Per Day)

Animal Control

Officers

 North

Central

 South

Los Angeles

 West

Los Angeles

 East

Valley

 West

Valley

 Harbor
Day Shift 5.5 3.9 3.6 2.6 2.4 1.9
Swing Shift 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 -
Night Shift - 1.6 - 1.6 - -
Animal Care

Technicians

 North

Central

 South

Los Angeles

 West

Los Angeles

 East

Valley

 West

Valley

 Harbor
Day Shift 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.6 2.4 1.5
Swing Shift 1.6 1.6 - 1.6 1.6 -
Night Shift 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6

As shown in the table, ACO staffing and ACT staffing are not provided on all shifts. In the North Central, West Los Angeles, West Valley and Harbor districts, no Animal Control Officer staffing is provided during the night shift ("graveyard"). In the Harbor District, ACO staffing is also not provided on the swing shift. At the West Los Angeles and Harbor shelters, no Animal Control Technician staffing is provided on the swing shift.

In addition to the shifts when no ACO or ACT staff are scheduled to work, there are periods when scheduled shifts may be unstaffed due to vacation, sick leave, worker injury and other factors. During these periods, staff from other districts may be reassigned to cover unstaffed locations, or relief workers may be utilized. However, the Department reports that this can only occur when there are sufficient staff at other locations who can be reassigned. Therefore, in order to sufficiently staff ACO and ACT shifts, it is often necessary for personnel to work overtime to ensure at least minimum coverage. This can lead to unanswered service requests, increased response times, and diminished customer service.

In circumstances when no Animal Care Technician is available, Animal Control Officers can assist with some kennel duties. However, Animal Care Technicians are not qualified to perform Animal Control Officer duties. Therefore, when Animal Control Officer absences occur, ACOs from one district may be required to provide coverage in other districts. As indicated by the data in Table 1, the need for overlapping coverage occurs regularly on a scheduled basis on the night shift. Reportedly, these circumstances can delay responses to emergency calls for service made by the public, by police officers and fire fighters, or by other City personnel.

Due to the scope of this management audit, we were unable to independently verify the frequency or severity of service lapses for customers and public safety personnel due to the unavailability of ACOs, ACTs and clerical personnel. However, managers and staff described some impacts which appear reasonable given the scheduling data analyzed for this study, as well as an limited review of service logs maintained by the West Los Angeles Animal Services District.

While inspecting the East Valley Kennel, the day shift was ending. Staff from this shift were trying to complete their animal care assignments prior to leaving work, while also assisting customers. This further impacted customer service and employee effectiveness. Although the East Valley Animal Shelter is considered one of the busiest and most crowded in the Los Angeles system, these situations can reportedly also occur at other locations.

Possible Solutions to Staffing Issues

Department management has recognized many of these operational difficulties. In FY 1999-00, the Department has requested additional ACO, ACT and clerical staffing to provide enhanced services to the public. At the time of this report, the Department was optimistic that the Mayor would support the addition of Animal Care Technician, Veterinary Assistant positions, Veterinarian positions requested in its budget proposal. The Department was also hopeful that the Mayor would support one-time funding for an improved telephone answering system, and as-needed staffing for shift relief, to support due process hearings, and to provide scheduled animal redemption services for the public. However, the Department was less optimistic about the addition of Animal Control Officer and Senior Animal Control Officer staffing.

Although these positions are being requested, in part, to provide resources for the implementation of SB 1785 mandates, they are also intended to provide 24-hour coverage in all districts and at all shelters. Additionally, the General Manager suggests that the "non-funding" of other positions requested for the administrative support of the Department, including human resources management, accounting, and analysis functions will continue to overburden staff who will only be able to respond to the most urgent matters. "In-depth analysis upon which to base sound management decisions, the efficient and effective management of personnel, and the proper accounting functions will be diminished due to a lack of resources."

We generally support adding some staff as a first step toward resolving some of the public service and animal care issues surrounding the Department. While adding personnel is one solution to the chronic problems of under staffing in the districts and at the shelters, there are other potential solutions which could more efficiently use staffing. Once these other solutions are explored and efficiency and effectiveness programs are implemented by the Department, the augmentation of the Department's budget with additional personnel should be revisited.

Redraw District Boundaries Based On Historical Call Activity

Many police organizations redraw patrol beats during low activity periods in order to provide the same geographic coverage with fewer personnel. These planned staffing adjustments can provide more consistent service, focus resources where and when they are most needed, and minimize costs.

Beat consolidation is done by the Department of Animal Regulation when Animal Control Officer staffing is not available at one district location because of position vacancies, scheduled shift vacancies, or worker absences. However, beat consolidation has not been developed strategically, based on quantitative data of calls for service or geographic characteristics of the City.

For example, the Department staffs the North Central and East Valley districts during the night shift based on a general understanding that these are the busiest and most demanding areas of the City. Yet this practice leaves large areas of the City unmanned during late night hours. Although these allocations of staff may generally be representative of need, the Department should compile historical summaries of Animal Control Officer calls for service by (a) location, (b) time of day, and (c) service request priority (e.g., emergency, urgent, or low priority). This data should then be analyzed to determine periods of the day and day of the week when beats could potentially be collapsed and ACO staffing optimized. Current personnel should then be reassigned based on these historical service request profiles.

Modify Staff Schedules To Better Accommodate Customer Convenience And Need

With the exception of the West Los Angeles and Harbor facilities, Animal Care Technician staffing is scheduled for 24-hours each day. This staffing pattern ensures that no long periods elapse when animals are without care, except at the two facilities for which no swing shift is scheduled and in instances when there are staffing vacancies, vacations or absences. It also ensures that staff will generally be available to assist customers during public service hours and receive animals during periods when the shelters are closed. The City's shelters are open to the public Tuesday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

With the proposed budget augmentations, 24-hour coverage would be available at each facility for receiving animals. In addition, with clerical and temporary staffing, the Department would be better able to accommodate customer service demands. However, certain changes to staffing schedules should be considered which will improve customer services at more minimal cost.

By adding as needed clerical and Animal Care Technician staffing to each shelter to provide support for public hours on Sundays, and provide assistance on Tuesdays through Saturdays during morning hours, the City would incur an additional annual cost of $110,000 per year. This additional cost would be partially offset by the approximate $30,000 in savings generated from the scheduled staffing changes, discussed above. The Mayor and the City Council should consider this augmentation as a method for enhancing public access to the animal shelters on weekday and weekend days.

Constructing Low-Cost Night Cages And Other Minor Improvements to Reduce Public Demands On Staff During Late Night And Early Morning Hours

The shelter facilities in the City are overcrowded and are not optimally designed. Public counter areas are not well signed (unclear, handwritten, and not well organized), are not "user-friendly" or appropriately designed in some locations, and do not always provide secure access to kennel areas. Public information brochures, forms and other useful information are not prominently displayed, resulting in a need for personal service in all cases.

In addition, none of the City's shelters have "night drop" cages, or prominently displayed external signage to direct the public after normal business hours. Combined with inconsistent staffing at each facility and other factors, customer service during late night and early morning hours is diminished.

The Department should work with the City's General Services Department (GSD) to redesign the public counter areas in each shelter. Low cost improvements should be explored which would enhance physical appearance; entrance, egress and security; signage; and access to public information. After such improvements are identified and costed, the Department and GSD should submit a budget augmentation request to the Board of Animal Regulation, the Mayor and the City Council for funding.

In addition, the Department should explore the risks and benefits associated with the construction of secure night cages for after-hours animal drop-off. Other animal sheltersthroughout California use night cages as a method for ensuring that the public can drop-off stray, abandoned or unwanted animals when staff is otherwise not available to receive the animals. Further, these cages can be constructed so that they can be accessed from both within and outside of the facility, increasing staff security during late night hours, and ensuring that animals are warm and have sufficient water until extended care can be provided. In addition to these benefits, such improvements would ensure that animals are not left tied to fences and doors for long periods, without water or shelter. They would also ensure that young and very small animals are not left in boxes or other enclosures from which they can easily escape, become stray and endangered.

The General Manager does not support the use of night cages. He reports that other jurisdictions have experienced situations where persons have placed aggressive and vicious dogs in cages with smaller dogs and cats, where animals are crowded into cages which are too small for the number or sizes of animals, and other circumstances. However, we believe the advantages may far outweigh the risks in terms of customer convenience, staff efficiency and safety, and animal care. Accordingly, the Board of Animal Regulation should examine this alternative to 24-hour ACT staffing closely, based on experience reported in other jurisdictions and other factors.

Conclusions

Animal Control Officer and Animal Care Technician staffing at each District are not sufficient to provide 24-hour coverage. Shifts are often not staffed, response times are reportedly delayed, and customer services are diminished.

Various alternatives exist for increasing the availability of staff during critical periods, including (a) adding personnel to provide required coverage at each district; (b) redrawing district boundaries to consolidate staffing during low activity periods; (c) modifying staff schedules and scope of duties to better accommodate customer convenience and need, resulting in annual savings of approximately $30,000; and, (d) constructing low-cost night cages and other minor facility improvements to enhance customer services. In addition, the City may wish to consider adding sufficient as-needed clerical and animal care worker staff to adjust weekday and Saturday shelter hours, and open to the public on Sundays. The additional cost for this latter suggestion would be approximately $110,000 per year.

Although there are positive and negative aspects to each of these suggestions, the Department should develop a plan which incorporates these and other alternatives for enhancing animal control and care services to the public.

Recommendations

Costs and Benefits

Certain unidentified costs would be incurred for minor facility improvements discussed in this report. In addition, administrative analyst staff time would be required to conduct a comprehensive analysis of calls for service by location, time of day, and call characteristics for the purpose of reconfiguring district boundaries. If the Mayor and City Council decide to extend public service hours at the animal shelters by four hours on Sundays, and modify the hours of service on Tuesdays through Saturdays to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., additional costs of $110,000 per year would be incurred. This would be partially offset from savings related to staff schedule changes, discussed below.

The Department would save $29,149 annually by modifying staff schedules. Customer services would be enhanced by redrawing district boundaries to take call activity into consideration, by the suggested staffing changes, and by minor facility improvements. Other benefits associated with worker safety and animal comfort would occur with the construction of night cages, which have access from the interior of the shelter facility.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

The Board of Animal Regulation is responsible for considering and establishing policies for the Department based on suggestions from elected official, the General Manager, and the public. Yet the Board of Animal Regulation has not established bylaws, rules or goals and objectives which clearly define its purpose, role or intent regarding its health and safety or humane functions.

In addition, a review of records retained on selected policy issues indicate that analysis performed for the Board has been variable, and that the record illustrating the rationale for final policy determination is unclear.

Certain Charter Reform proposals would result in (a) changes in the status of the Board and Department from Charter mandated functions to discretionary functions established by ordinance, and (b) modifications in the role of the Board from the head of the Department to advisory only. Accordingly, it is imperative that the mission, rules, goals and objectives of the Board of Regulation be better defined so that the historical basis for current policies are clear. In addition, the quality of policy analysis prepared for the Board should be improved.

As previously discussed, the Board of Animal Regulation is mandated by the City Charter, and serves as the "Head" of the Department of Animal Regulation. In this role, the Board has the power "to supervise, control, regulate and manage the department and to make and enforce all necessary and desirable rules and regulations therefor."

Based on a review of the Charter and discussions with the Department's General Manager, the President of the Board, and a Board member who has served for over five years, a primary function of the Board is to develop the mission, goals and objectives of the Department. This assessment is supported by a review of various documents produced by the Board and the Department in pursuit of this goal. Some of these are described below.

We also conducted a detailed review of the minute summaries for the Board of Animal Regulation for the period June 1998 through January 1999 and a general review of the minute summaries for the years 1994 through May 1998. In general, we found that the Board of Animal Regulation is regularly involved in policy development on a variety of specific issues brought to its attention by the public, individual Board members, the Department and other City departments and officials. We also found that there was significant discussion of the need to refine the Department's mission and goals statements. In November 1994, the Commission discussed the development of a mission and goals statement based, in part, on the document discussed previously. In 1996 the Board regularly discussed the development of the "Department's Vision Plan," which was eventually adopted in January 1997.

As part of this study, the General Manager provided an additional document entitled "Goals: Building a Foundation for Change," which provides a calendar for accomplishing both short-term and long-term goals and objectives for the Department. Based on a review of this document, and discussions with the General Manager, it is his intention to work with the Board to develop more refined goals and objectives, performance standards and performance measurements by Spring 1999. The General Manager indicates that he has discussed the possibility of a Board retreat in 1999 to accomplish this plan.

These efforts are commendable. However, there are opportunities to enhance the level and quality of analysis performed to support policy development, improve the public record of Board policies, and establish Board rules which govern policy development and deliberation. Each of these issues are discussed more fully below.

Develop An Enhanced Public Record Of Board Policies

Based on discussions with management and a review of records maintained by the Department, there is no well organized, accessible, comprehensive or current record of Boardor Department policies. The last major effort to compile such a record was in 1980, at which time three manuals were developed which included: (a) Administrative Procedures, (b) Government Codes, and (c) Operational Procedures. Each of these manuals included various amendments to specific sections of the original policies and procedures through the 1980s and early 1990s. However, several of the policies and procedures are clearly out-of-date, inconsistent with current law, and conflict with policies adopted by the Board of Animal Regulation, which were reviewed for this study. In addition, it is not clear whether these policies and procedures-which are admittedly of limited value-have been distributed or maintained at the district shelters or are immediately accessible to staff.

It is critical that an organization such as the Department of Animal Regulation have a comprehensive and current record of all policies and procedures. Such documentation serves as a guide to employees, a resource for the public, and a historical basis for the development of future policy deliberations. Without such a record, there is an increased risk of employees misinterpreting and incorrectly implementing City policy, and increased exposure on litigation and other matters.

The current General Manager has recognized this deficiency and has assigned a Management Analyst to conduct a thorough review of policies and procedures documentation within the Department. Once the historical record is compiled, it is to be organized into current manuals for use by management and employees. Once this current record is produced, the General Manager should ensure that an ongoing program is established to maintain all policies and procedures manuals. In addition, the base manuals and all future updates should be distributed to major divisions and district locations, and made easily accessible to all staff.

Establish Board Rules

Discussions with Department management and members of the Board of Animal Regulation indicate that the Board has not established bylaws or rules that govern its decision-making processes. Bylaws are important because they establish the mission of the Board, the scope of its authority and responsibility, the roles and responsibilities of members, and other parameters under which the Board is organized. Although some of these elements are defined by the City Charter, it is imperative that the Board expand upon Charter provisions which are more general in nature, having been established for the broad category of "B Commissions."

In addition to bylaws, the Board may wish to consider establishing rules that govern its operations, procedures, and policy development practices. Although many current rules are culled from general Charter provisions (e.g., "Each board shall hold a regular meeting at least twice a month."- L.A. City Charter §74), follow general parliamentary procedure, and are based on historical practice, all rules should be formalized and established as part of the record.

For example, although the Board of Animal Regulation is required by Charter to meet twice each month, the Board has established an informal practice of holding one regular meeting each month at 9:00 a.m. in the main office at 419 Spring Street, and one meeting each month at 5:00 p.m. in a district location. In addition, there are other Board practices which have been applied inconsistently in the past which should be clarified. For example, Department management has not been consistently requested to perform analysis and submit recommendations on major policy matters before the Board. This is discussed more fully, below.

Improve The Quality Of Analysis For Policy Deliberation

To assess the level and quality of analysis considered by the Board of Animal Regulation when formulating policy for the Department, we reviewed the documentation on three major policies developed during the past five years. These included policies related to (1) trapping coyotes and (2) trapping feral cats, and (3) the development of budget policy supporting the formation of the "Special Enforcement Unit (SEU)" to reduce the incidence of packing dogs within the City. The results of our review of each of these major policy issues are discussed below.

Coyote Trapping Policy

On June 28, 1993, the Board of Animal Regulation adopted a policy which banned the trapping of coyotes. Specifically, the policy instructed "the Department of Animal Regulation to ban trapping of coyotes in the City of Los Angeles and proceed immediately with an education program." The policy was adopted after consideration of a May 1993 policy recommendation made to the Department by the prior Board of Animal Regulation, which was advisory at the time. That recommendation suggested that the Department ban the use of steel jaw and box traps on coyotes.

The initial deliberations on whether to allow coyote trapping in the City of Los Angeles were initiated by the Department based on costs for trapping, the relatively low impact on coyote population from the Department's 25-year trapping efforts, and the need to focus resources on other aspects of animal regulation within the City. In March 1994, after the adoption of the trapping ban, concerned residents in the Los Angeles foothills reported increased sightings of coyotes and a public hearing was held to discuss the trapping ban. At that public meeting, several wildlife management professionals reportedly spoke in favor of the trapping ban, suggesting that public education was a better alternative to trapping to control coyotes in residential neighborhoods. This perspective supported the Board's previous conclusions in 1993, the product of which was the publication of a public information pamphlet that was widely distributed entitled, "Co-Existing With The Coyote."

As a result of the March 1994 public hearing, the Department was directed to "investigate the issues regarding the control of coyotes in the City of Los Angeles." The General Manager was also required to provide a report on alternatives for controlling the coyotes to the Board. That report was submitted on May 31, 1994.

Included in the analyses of alternatives were programmatic and public service impacts, estimates of program costs, and suggested procedures for implementation. At the hearing, the Department invited representatives from the State Department of Fish and Game, the County of Orange (Orange had previously banned coyote trapping), and the local Wildlife Rehabilitation Center to speak on the issue.

The results of the Department analysis and the testimony received at the public hearing were revisions to the policy of totally banning trapping. The revised policy included education, advice to property owners on how to "coyote-proof" their residences, and a fee-based trapping program for particularly troublesome, sick or injured coyotes (particularly those which may be rabid), or as required by the federal or State governments.

This issue appears to have been extremely controversial at the time, and a review of Board minutes indicates that public concerns have continued regarding the policy since that time. However, our review indicates that the analysis conducted by the Department was thorough and the Board deliberations were thoughtful. Although the issue was raised to the Mayor and City Council levels, the revised policy, as approved by the Board, was upheld.

Cat Trapping Policy

In 1997, at the conclusion of approximately six months of discussion, the Board of Animal Regulation adopted a cat trapping policy for the City of Los Angeles. This policyplaced a ban on stray and feral cat trapping, with the following exceptions:

Under any circumstance, a person must obtain a permit from the Department of Animal Regulation before attempting trapping, and must notify neighbors within 300 feet of the trapping location so that owners of any pet cats are aware of the trapping effort.

The current cat trapping policy was an outgrowth of public concerns regarding the large number of stray and feral cats in the City of Los Angeles, and the problem that family pets were often trapped, brought to the Department of Animal Regulation and euthanized prior to any action by the cat owner to redeem the cat. The proposal to establish the current cat trapping policy also followed from Board committee efforts to study the feral cat problem in the City and proposals to require licensing of cats by cat owners.

The cat trapping policy proposal was developed by the Department at the Direction of the Board, and with the assistance of a citizen committee appointed by the Board. During the development of the policy, the Board issued a moratorium on cat trapping by the Department or by citizens "unless a cat is sick, injured or evidence is presented to the Department that the cat has bitten someone."

The initial proposal from the Department, dated August 18, 1997, recommended that persons be required to obtain a permit to trap cats. On an emergency basis, cats could be trapped for most reasons cited above, but also if the cat were considered dangerous. There was no provision to trap a cat for the animal's welfare. On a non-emergent basis, the Department recommended that cats could be captured if they were feral, if the owner wanted to capture his/her own cat, or if the cats were a nuisance (too many in the immediate area, property damage, defecating on property, etc.). The proposal included provisions for notifying neighbors, and releasing "non-targeted cats." In the final policy, cats cannot be trapped if they are feral or considered a nuisance.

Concurrent with the development of this policy was consideration by the Board of issues concerning the shortening of feral cat holding periods, which elicited public requests for using City owned property to establish a "feral cat colony," and others. As a result of this discussion, the feral cat holding period in the City was reduced from eight to three days,which the Department indicated would provide added cat holding space for stray, owned cats and extend the period for redemption and adoption of these animals.

As indicated by the record, the decision to exclude feral cats from the trapping policy (except to spay or neuter, and then release the feral cats), was the result of the political hearing process and concerns expressed by special interests, and not the result of a careful deliberation of health and safety, environmental, or general public concerns. The record does not include staff analysis of (1) the impact of feral cat populations on the health and safety of the community, (2) the impact of feral cats on the natural environment, (3) public interest groups which may consider feral cats a nuisance, or (4) practices in other jurisdictions which report similar problems. Unlike the staff work conducted to support the coyote trapping policy, there are no impact or cost-benefit analyses, nor are there alternatives for consideration by the Board.

It is our impression, from discussions with staff and a review of the record, that this absence of analysis was more the product of the process followed by the Board and not any deficiency on the part of staff. Had the Board required such analysis, we believe it would have been produced by staff as it was in the case of the Coyote Trapping Policy.

Establishing The Special Enforcement Unit

Los Angeles has had an ongoing problem with large numbers of stray and feral dogs in some areas of the City. These dogs can be dangerous when they form packs, endangering persons, livestock and pets. There are many reports of serious person injuries within the City, and Department representatives indicate that some neighborhoods are "regularly terrorized" by these dogs, which often den under houses.

In the past, the Department addressed this issue by assigning Animal Control Officers to periodic "sweeps" of problem neighborhoods, capturing as many stray and packing dogs as possible, often while working overtime. The record shows that the Department made regular budget requests for additional staff to perform regular enforcement functions and support periodic deployment into neighborhood sweeps.

In FY 1996-97, members of the City Council proposed establishing a "Special Enforcement Unit (SEU)" within the Department of Animal Regulation, the primary purpose of which was to establish a directed enforcement effort for reducing the number of loose and packing dogs in the City. At the request of the City Council, five Animal Control Officers would be assigned to the SEU on a City-wide basis. The creation of the SEU, which was a political initiative, was endorsed by the Department as a means of obtaining additional ACO resources during a period when staffing was otherwise diminishing within the Department.

Due to the budget circumstances at the time, and because the proposal was initiated by the City Council, there was reportedly very little analysis conducted to determine itseffectiveness. Although statistics produced by the Department indicate that impounds for dogs caught by Animal Control Officers increased during the two years 1997 and 1998, it is not clear the extent to which this increase results from the establishment of the SEU versus other factors, including a general increase in ACO resources.

In the FY 1999-00 Budget Request, the Department included a request for an additional seven Animal Control Officers to enlarge the existing SEU and create a second SEU. This proposal is conceptually supported by the Mayor, and it is probable that some additional ACO staffing will be funded by the City Council, although not at the levels which will allow the Department to fill all its needs. Despite the political attractiveness of the SEU proposal, the Board has not fully evaluated its effectiveness or whether other methods of deployment may be more effective. In fact, a review of documentation for this study indicates that SEU staff does not perform directed enforcement activities on all workdays, and are instead used to backfill for vacancies and absences on a regular basis. The new positions being recommended by the Department and supported by the Mayor on the premise of creating a second SEU will also be used to "provide community outreach on responsible pet ownership" and will "provide a pool of resources to help with due process investigations."

While we support the addition of these Animal Control Officers, the circumstances surrounding the creation of the first SEU-and now the potential creation of a second SEU-appear to be more the result of political initiative by the Mayor and City Council instead of any rational process involving a departmental evaluation of the program's merits and deliberation by the Board as the Charter mandated "Head" of the Department.

These three comparisons suggest that there is inconsistent analysis performed on major policy questions before the Board of Animal Regulation. The process for evaluating policy proposals should be strengthened, and the Board of Animal Regulation should establish a process which requires that the Department provide comprehensive analysis of all future policy initiatives to the Board, which include evaluations of the current policies, summaries of concerns from the public or others which suggest a change, a presentation of alternatives, impact analyses and statements for each alternative, and recommendations.

Potential Charter Revisions

The City of Los Angeles is presently involved in a review of its Charter. This effort has been undertaken by two bodies-one which was appointed by the City Council, City Attorney and Chief Administrative Officer in 1996, and a second which was elected in 1997. It is hoped that these two bodies will come forward with a unified proposal for Charter changes. However, the outcome of the efforts of these two groups is unknown at this time.

One proposal which is being considered would change the Charter to eliminate certain departments from being mandated. These departments, including the Department of Animal Regulation, would no longer be headed by a Commission. Instead, the General Manager would be appointed by the Mayor, subject to approval by the City Council, and could be removed by the Mayor alone. Because the Animal Regulation function would no longer be mandated by Charter, the Department would need to be established by ordinance. It is unclear if the Board of Animal regulation would continue in any capacity, but it is likely that it would be advisory only.

If this Charter amendment is approved by the voters, the roles and functions of the Board and the Department would change dramatically. It is unclear whether the Board would make policy decisions, or be advisory only. Current policies could be altered significantly based on decisions by the Mayor and the General Manager.

On the advent of such significant potential change, it is incumbent on the Board of Animal Regulation to establish a framework for transition. Its organization, structure, and rules should be clearly defined so that they can be built upon by any new body that may be created, and modified to reflect the change in status of the Board. In addition, Board policies should be formalized and an accurate record maintained for future reference. Finally, a clear and meaningful process should be established to ensure that all policy considerations receive thorough analysis, a presentation of alternatives with impact statements, and recommendations by the Department. Such a process will strengthen future decision making despite the fate of the proposed Charter revision.

Conclusions

The Board of Animal Regulation is responsible for considering and establishing policies for the Department based on suggestions from elected officials, the General Manager, and the public. Yet the Board of Animal Regulation has not established bylaws, rules or goals and objectives which clearly define its purpose, role or intent regarding its health and safety or humane functions.

In addition, a review of records retained on selected policy issues indicate that analysis performed for the Board has been variable, and that the record illustrating the rationale for final policy determination is unclear.

Certain Charter Reform proposals would result in (a) changes in the status of the Board and Department from Charter mandated functions to discretionary functions established by ordinance, and (b) modify the role of the Board from the head of the Department to advisory only. Accordingly, it is imperative that the mission, rules, goals and objectives of the Board of Regulation be better defined so that the historical basis for current policies are clear. In addition, the quality of policy analysis prepared for the Board should be improved.

Recommendations

FACILITY CONDITION AND WORKER SAFETY

The animal shelters operated by the City of Los Angeles are older and their conditions are deteriorating, have design flaws, and are extremely overcrowded in some locations. These conditions result in operating inefficiencies, and impact worker safety.

Our observations at two facilities, and discussions with managers and staff, indicate that as many as six to seven adult dogs may be placed together in kennels, dangerous dogs and feral cats cannot always be housed in areas that are secure from public access, cage latches and locks are often inadequate or dysfunctional, lighting is poor, temperature regulation is variable, and facility security is weak.

In November 1998, the Department submitted a request to the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee to initiate consideration of funding to replace and expand animal shelter facilities. This request is pending with the Committee, and the potential for funding is uncertain.

Given the inefficiencies and kennel overcrowding created by the current design of facilities, the anticipated animal population growth related to the implementation of SB 1785, and issues surrounding worker safety, the City should immediately proceed with the study on the need for facility replacement and expansion. Included in this evaluation should be an assessment of whether operating cost savings could be achieved by centralizing shelter services whenever possible.

During interviews conducted for this study, we were advised of several issues related to the size, design, condition and appearance of these facilities. We also reviewed various internal assessments of facility condition conducted by Department employees. Based on these audit activities, we found that:

As part of this study, we toured the East Valley and West Los Angeles facilities and observed many of the deficiencies sited by the staff. At West Los Angeles, the floor was cracked, dogs isolated for medical reasons had to be kenneled in cages adjacent to vicious animals, some animals were caged outside because of a lack of interior facility space, and staff areas were small. At East Valley, some dogs were found to be crowded six to seven to a kennel, the euthanasia room had damaged walls and flooring, the public reception area was poorly designed, public access into secure areas was unhampered, and lighting was inadequate. In addition, staff demonstrated problems with kennel latches and locks, and pointed out the difficulty closing and opening vertical doors which allow kennel workers to confine dogs into smaller areas of the kennels. Although we did not conduct a detailed inspection of these facilities, our limited inspection indicates that the significant deficiencies cited by the Department in various documents and reports fairly represent the overall condition of the facilities.

Facility Maintenance Issues

In addition to the request for funding to accomplish various safety improvements to the Animal Shelters on June 1, 1998 (discussed above), the Department prepared a request for funding for 38 additional alteration and improvement projects as part of its FY 1999-00 budget request. These projects would correct many of the more egregious problems sited in the internal inspection reports prepared by the Department. However, at the time of this report, it was unclear whether any portion of the request would be recommended for funding by the Mayor.

In addition, the City's General Services Department (GSD) for building maintenance and repair, sent a facility survey to Department of Animal Regulation District managers on March 17, 1998 which requested assessments of repair projects at each facility. That survey was returned, and requests for improvements and repairs were entered into GSD's data management system, and coded according to priority.

On the date of our interview, there were 7,558 backlogged service requests City-wide. These requests had been made by all City departments, including Police, Fire, Public Works, and the various administrative offices in the City. At that time, the Department of Animal Regulation had 109 backlogged requests pending for all categories of repairs. Two of these requests were categorized as Priority 1 (highest priority), two were categorized as Priority 4 (lowest priority), and the remainder were categorized as Priority 2 (requested by a department manager or other City official).

Forty of these requests for service were 60 days old, or less. However, the remaining 69 requests had been made one to two years prior to our review date, with the oldest repair date going back to May 1995.

According to the General Services Department, all requests for service must be addressed in the annual GSD budget appropriation approved by the Mayor and the City Council. During the past several years, GSD states that this budget has been significantly underfunded. This underfunding has been exacerbated by the following conditions:

Recognizing the limitations of the Department, the GSD has requested increased funding for building maintenance in FY 1999-00. However, at the time of this report, the level of funding and how it may impact facility repair needs for the Department of Animal Regulation was uncertain. In addition, the GSD reports that in FY 1994-95, the City prepared a report that identified a minimum of $60 million in deferred maintenance projects citywide. The Department is hoping to receive approximately $23 million toward these repairs in the next budget year. Even if received, the GSD reports that only "emergency repairs" can be accomplished at that funding level.

It is unclear whether the facility safety issues brought to the attention of the Mayor and the CAO have been included on the GSD listing of pending projects. Clearly, the Department has recognized these and other safety issues, made reports, and requested funding over the past year. In addition, it is clear that these repairs represent health and safety, as well as potential legal liability issues for City workers who may be injured on the job. Yet only a few of these projects are recognizable on GSD's listing, and none of the projects appear as Priority 1 requests. Accordingly, we believe it is imperative that GSD be apprised, once again, of the Department of Animal Regulation's safety concerns and evaluate these closely to determine whether they fit the criteria for Priority 1 requests. In addition, the Mayor and the City Council should make it their highest priority to fund these and other facility safety improvements for City departments in the FY 1999-00 budget.

Facility Replacement

Because of the age, conditions, and harsh use of the City's animal shelters, it is likely that repair needs will continue to surface and worsen over the years. Two of the facilities are approaching 50 years old, and another is nearly 40 years old. Even under the best conditions, buildings of this age have difficulty withstanding the continual pressure from a 24-hour, intensive operation such as animal control.

In addition, the facilities are currently undersized. Our observations during this study and the Department's assessments show that some facilities are operating at up to 150 percent of capacity. This situation will worsen under requirements contained in SB 1785, which goes into effect this year. As stated in the Introduction to this report, this legislation will require the Department of Animal Regulation to care for animals for extended periods of time so that they may receive medical care, if necessary, and increase the possibility of redemption and adoption.

In November 1998, the Department of Animal regulation General Manager submitted a request to the City's Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee to receive funding for a study to assess the Department's facility needs. This is the first step toward securing bond funds for construction under the City's current procedures. In the past, the City had a less formal process for estimating costs and submitting bond measures to the voters for consideration.

According to representatives from the Chief Administrative Office (CAO), in the past, the City would make broad estimates of capital projects costs and go forward with proposals to the voters which officials believed would be politically salable. This process often resulted in underfunding for projects, which created a loss of voter confidence when the City could not complete projects on time or within initial budget estimates.

In FY 1995-96, the City Council adopted a policy which requires "preplanning" before placing bond proposals on the ballot. Under this policy, the City now prepares a Master Plan "for each category of City facility" which identifies "Citywide capital projects priorities." Preplanning efforts are governed by an oversight Committee, which includes representatives from the Mayor's Office, the CAO, and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). Also sitting as non-voting (ad hoc) members are the City Attorney, City Engineer and the department's General Manager.

This process has been initiated for various departments since 1994. Most recently, on December 8, 1998, the "1998-99 Proposed Police, Fire, Public Safety Complex & Technology Issues Report" was produced by the Public Safety Facilities Oversight Committee. This report identifies over $2 billion of new facilities and needed facility improvements which the City wishes to construct over the course of the next 20 years.Recommendations have been made to place a $727.2 million bond measure on the April 1999 ballot to initiate this program, and return to the voters every five years with additional measures until the planned construction program in completed.

Shortly after coming to the Department of Animal Regulation, the current General Manager recognized the need to replace and expand some facilities. On November 13, 1998, he submitted a proposal to the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee recommending that "the City Council direct the Department of Animal Regulation to prepare a Request for Qualifications, advertise and interview persons or firms to perform an assessment of the present Department of Animal Regulation Animal Care Facilities, and identify any additional needs for additional facilities to care for animals impounded by the City. Further that the Department be directed to return to the City Council with a recommendation for the award of a contract and appropriation of the money necessary for the performance of the assessment."

Based on interviews conducted with the General Manager, CAO staff and LAO staff, the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee made a decision to pursue the issue of a Department of Animal Regulation facilities study after issuing the Police and Fire bond proposal. In the December report from the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee on Police and Fire, the Committee states:

We have been advised that the City administration, in general, is very supportive of conducting the needs assessment, although there is some discussion regarding the appropriate scope of the study (i.e.,., should it be a study of operational needs, leading to an assessment of facility needs; or, should it focus solely on the replacement of existing facilities?). No matter which study approach is taken, City administration estimates that the study process will take approximately one-year, with a goal to place a bond measure for shelter facilities on the November 2000 ballot.

However, it is uncertain whether bond funding will be approved by the voters for this purpose. Although the City has not gone forward with a bond proposal to construct general government facilities since 1989, the voters will be asked to approve a $727.2 million bond measure for Police and Fire facilities in April 1999. A bond measure would be presented to the voters for the Department of Animal Regulation facilities approximately 19 months later, and other bond measures are being developed for the City Library and other municipal functions. Requiring a two-thirds majority of voters for passage, a successful general obligation bond measure for the construction of new animal shelters is uncertain, at best.

In addition, even if a bond measure is approved for this purpose, it will be a minimum of four to five years before construction is completed. During this period, the existing facilities will continue to be used, and will become more overcrowded and deteriorated.

Because of these factors, the City needs to aggressively address interim facility improvements for the five older facilities it operates. At a minimum:

· The City should immediately identify and correct all employee and public safety facility deficiencies in the shelters. These would include the items listed by the Department in its June 1, 1998 memorandum to the Mayor, as well as lighting and other facility issues which impact working conditions.

Although there could be substantial short-term cost for these types of improvements, the existing facility conditions need to be improved if the Department is to appropriately serve the community, protect its workers, and humanely care for the animals in its charge.

When designing the study being considered by the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee, the City should seek proposals for meeting both short and long-term solutions to facility needs for the Department of Animal Regulation. In addition, the studyteam should evaluate potential savings which could potentially occur by consolidating shelter services and patrol areas whenever possible.

We also examined why the City did not integrate a bond funding request for animal shelters with Proposition CC, which provided funding for renovation of the Los Angeles Zoo. Two explanations were given in response to this inquiry.

Now that the City has begun the process to seek bond funding for new animal shelters, the reasons for not addressing the issues at an earlier time appear to be moot. The current General Manager has clearly taken the initiative to replace and improve facilities, and based on discussions and public statements, the need has been recognized by leading City officials.

Conclusions

The animal shelters operated by the City of Los Angeles are older and their conditions are deteriorating, have design flaws, and are extremely overcrowded in some locations. These conditions result in operating inefficiencies, and impact worker safety.

Our observations at two facilities, and discussions with managers and staff, indicate that as many as six to seven adult dogs may be placed together in kennels, dangerous dogs and feral cats cannot always be housed in areas that are secure from public access, cage latches and locks are often inadequate or dysfunctional, lighting is poor, temperature regulation is variable, and facility security is weak.

In November 1998, the Department submitted a request to the Public Safety Facilities Bond Oversight Committee to initiate consideration of funding to replace and expand animal shelter facilities. This request is pending with the Committee, but the potential for funding is uncertain.

Given the inefficiencies and kennel overcrowding created by the current design of facilities, the anticipated animal population growth related to the implementation of SB1785, and issues surrounding worker safety, the City should immediately proceed with the study on the need for facility replacement and expansion. Included in this evaluation should be an assessment of whether operating cost savings could be achieved by centralizing shelter services whenever possible.

Recommendations

Costs and Benefits

The cost to fully fund safety improvements identified by the Department would be $336,000. Other potential capital costs cannot be estimated at this time. Staff time will need to be directed toward facility assessments and the development of a strategy and plan to secure donations and other sources of capital projects funds.

Back to Table of Contents Crimminal Justice Committee