Skip to main content

Home/ Teleperra/ Group items tagged distémper

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
pepa garcía

Maddie's Fund - Using Data to Make Austin a No-Kill City - 0 views

www.maddiesfund.org/...ake_Austin_a_No_Kill_City.html

esterilización distémper mitos datos estudios no kill austin *

shared by pepa garcía on 03 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • I founded a low-cost and free spay/neuter clinic, Emancipet, in 1999.
  • The thought was to decrease the number animals entering the shelter through fewer births in the community so fewer would have to be euthanized in the shelter for lack of space.
  • By 2008 and after over 60,000 spay/neuter surgeries, I had expected to see a bigger reduction in city shelter intake numbers.
  • ...36 more annotations...
  • Although there was an initial decrease in euthanasia from 85% to 50% between 1999 and 2001, after 2001 the AAC (the only open admission shelter in Austin, Texas) consistently took in over 23,000 animals and euthanized an average of 50 - 55% of the animals admitted each year.
  • In fact, AAC euthanized over 14,000 animals in 2007, which was a decade record and showed me that my efforts were not decreasing shelter intake or euthanasia like I had hoped.
  • The other piece of data that was eye-opening to me in 2008 was that the number of AAC live outcomes stayed static at 10,000 per year, year after year, even after budgetary increases.
  • By then, the City of Austin and the Austin nonprofit animal welfare partners were providing substantial community services for spaying, neutering, vaccinations, and wellness clinics; however, the city's live releases had not changed at all in spite of the wealth of community resources that were geared towards lowering euthanasia.
  • It was clear that the city had a system that was capable of producing no more than 10,000 live outcomes per year, regardless of intake numbers, which meant that euthanasia only fluctuated when intake numbers fluctuated. If intake went up, euthanasia went up. If intake went down, euthanasia went down.
  • For years, the city had been measuring "inputs" for city performance standards such as the number of spay/neuters performed, the number of microchips placed, the number of rabies vaccines given; and with the large amounts of city and donor funds going into free and low-cost spay/neuter, it appeared to politicians and foundations from a performance measure standpoint that Austin was at the top of its game.
  • The thing that really struck me was that although "outputs" such as euthanasia, adoption, return to owner, and transfers were being documented and measured, decisions to directly impact those numbers were not being driven by their measurement. Funds were never requested to directly improve live outcomes and city staff was not being directed to strive for higher live outcome numbers. In fact, there was no live outcome improvements projected for at least the five years after 2007 and that was apparent as plans for capacity in building a new shelter got underway.
  • It bothered me that we had no real conclusive studies that showed the impact of spay/neuter on euthanasia in the shelter
  • and that the labors of all my work were not something I could see an impact from in a decade.
  • I felt strongly that there had to be a way to save more lives at the shelter and a more direct way to measure the work that provides that impact.
  • If it takes longer than a decade to see an impact at the shelter euthanasia level through spay/neuter, the work can never be tweaked to have a bigger impact.
  • There had to be a more direct method to save lives that could be measured month-to-month and tweaked quickly if the desired effect is not seen.
  • It appeared that a new and different kind of work needed to be created to really get measurable results on euthanasia figures since it also appeared that all current resources were operating at their max.
  • It was apparent to me that I needed to change what I was doing to effect faster change in the community.
  • The American Veterinary Medical Association's (AVMA) Demographic Sourcebook dispelled my belief that there were not enough homes.
  • In the Greater Austin Area, AVMA calculates that at least 75,000 homes take in a pet less than one year old each year, and the ASPCA has reported that only 20 - 25% come from shelters and rescues. We only had to find homes for up to 14,000 pets per year.
  • This seemed very doable when 75,000 homes are open each year for incoming pets.
  • Using Data to Identify and Fill in the Gaps
  • Using Data to Re-Assess and Fine-Tune Programs
  • The second strategy
  • Using Data to Develop Programs: Filling the Gaps
  • The first strategy
  • the medical help that I provided did not help the sheltered animals leave alive in any larger numbers.
  • off-site adoption programs
  • These were animals with mange or kennel cough, minor behavior issues like being scared, or animals with minor injuries. APA created a large-scale foster program to provide short-term foster for these animals as they overcame their minor problems.
  • neonatal nursery with all the supplies needed for around-the-clock kitten care
  • again built up a large-scale medical foster base for all the injured and ill animals.
  • large breed dogs with behavior problems.
  • The Austin community's demand for adopting a pet is higher than the supply from AAC
  • By bringing in animals from other shelters, APA is able to prevent adopters from becoming pet store pet buyers and thus save a whole lot more lives.
  • adult large breed dogs with behavior issues are adopted each year because of improved customer service,
  • pet-matching practices,
  • behavior modification
  • APA rescued over 5,000 animals last year. No cat, kitten, small breed dog, puppy of any breed, or large breed friendly dog, including pit bulls, died in the City of Austin in 2011 simply because it didn't have a home.
  • increase the number of adoption venues
  • additional exposure.
1 - 3 of 3
Showing 20▼ items per page