City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Table of Contents page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Scope and Why Citygate Was Selected ........................................................................................... 1 Project Scope and Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1 The Selection of Citygate .............................................................................................................. 2 Organization of the Report ......................................................................................................................... 2 Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 3 Section 1—Overview of Animal Sheltering Services Provided Through DACC ................................................... 5 Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Santa Clarita Animal Statistics ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1 Animal Intakes .................................................................................................................. 8
2.2.2 Animal Outcomes ........................................................................................................... 13
2.3 Castaic Animal Care Center Statistics ......................................................................................... 17
2.3.1 Total Live Animal Intakes .............................................................................................. 17
2.3.2 Total Live Animal Outcomes .......................................................................................... 18
2.3.3 Transfers In and Out of the Castaic Animal Care Center from Other DACC Centers .... 20
2.3.4 Live Release Rates .......................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Why Dog and Cat Statistics in Shelters are So Different ............................................................ 23 Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering ............................................................................................... 25
3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 25
3.2 A Historical Discussion of “No-Kill” Policy ............................................................................... 25
3.2.1 The Hayden Bill (1999) .................................................................................................. 26
3.2.2 The Asilomar Accords (2004) ......................................................................................... 27
3.2.3 Shelter Animals Count .................................................................................................... 28
3.2.4 Effects of “No-Kill” Policy on Outcomes ....................................................................... 29
3.3 Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering Policy ............................................................................. 33
3.3.1 What is Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering? ............................................................. 33
3.3.2 How did the Socially Conscious Sheltering Movement Begin? ..................................... 33
3.3.3 DACC Adopted Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering in 2019 .................................... 33
3.4 Community Cats Policy ............................................................................................................... 35
3.5 Policies on Euthanasia ................................................................................................................. 36
3.6 Foster and Volunteer Programs ................................................................................................... 37
3.7 Managed Intake Policies .............................................................................................................. 38
3.7.1 DACC Managed Intake for Owned Pets ......................................................................... 38
3.7.2 DACC Managed Intake for Stray Animals ..................................................................... 39
3.8 Appointment-Based Services ....................................................................................................... 40
3.8.1 “Love at First Sight” ....................................................................................................... 40
3.8.2 Availability of Services for Owned Animals .................................................................. 40
3.9 Adoption Promotions ................................................................................................................... 41
3.10 Outreach through Media .............................................................................................................. 41 City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Table of Contents page ii
Section 4—Shelter Needs Discussion........................................................................................................................ 43
4.1 Capacity for Care at the Castaic Animal Care Center ................................................................. 43
4.1.1 Determining Animal Capacity in Animal Shelters .......................................................... 43
4.2 Physical Plant .............................................................................................................................. 44 Section 5—Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita ............................................................................ 47
5.1 LA County Animal Care Foundation........................................................................................... 47
5.2 Community Corner SCVTV ........................................................................................................ 47
5.3 Informal Social Media ................................................................................................................. 48
5.4 Local Non-Profit Organizations .................................................................................................. 48 Section 6—Options for Consideration by the City ................................................................................................. 51
6.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 51
6.2 City-Sponsored Events ................................................................................................................ 51
6.3 Website, Social Media, and Other Communications ................................................................... 51
6.3.1 Website ........................................................................................................................... 51
6.3.2 Press Releases ................................................................................................................. 52
6.3.3 Social Media ................................................................................................................... 52
6.3.4 Newsletter ....................................................................................................................... 52
6.4 Special Projects and Expansion of Citizen Involvement ............................................................. 52
6.4.1 Targeted Trap-Neuter-Release Programs in Areas of Cat Overpopulation ..................... 52
6.4.2 Promotion of Volunteering or Providing Foster Care ..................................................... 53
6.4.3 Community Service Projects for Civic and Youth Groups ............................................. 53
6.5 Physical Plant Upgrades .............................................................................................................. 53 Section 7—Findings and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 55
7.1 Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 55
7.2 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix
Appendix A—Pets Are Family Brochure (Los Angeles County Animal Care & Control) Table of Tables
Table 1—Santa Clarita Animal Intakes by Year (2017–2022) ...................................................................................... 9 Table 2—Santa Clarita Live Animal Outcomes by Year (2017–2022) ....................................................................... 11 Table 3—Santa Clarita Dog and Cat Intake Numbers (2017–2022) ........................................................................... 13 Table 4—Santa Clarita Cat Outcomes by Year ........................................................................................................... 14 Table 5—Reasons for Cat Euthanasias ........................................................................................................................ 15 Table 6—Cat Outcomes by Percentage of Total Cat Outcomes .................................................................................. 15 Table 7—Santa Clarita Dog Outcomes by Year .......................................................................................................... 16 Table 8—Reasons for Dog Euthanasia ........................................................................................................................ 17 Table 9—Dog Outcomes by Percentage of Total Dog Outcomes ............................................................................... 17 Table 10—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Intakes (2017–2021) ...................................................... 18 Table 11—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2017) ........................................................... 18 Table 12—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2018) ........................................................... 19 Table 13—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2019) ........................................................... 19 Table 14—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2020) ........................................................... 19 Table 15—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2021) ........................................................... 20 City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Table of Contents page iii
Table 16—Summary of Total Animal Outcomes (2017–2021) .................................................................................. 20 Table 17—Animal Transfers – In ................................................................................................................................ 20 Table 18—Animal Transfers – Out ............................................................................................................................. 21 Table 19—Live Release Rates for Santa Clarita Dogs and Cats ................................................................................. 22 Table 20—Summary of Dog and Cat Live Release Rates ........................................................................................... 22 Table 21—Castaic Animal Care Center – Animal Capacity (2022) ............................................................................ 43 Table 22—Calculations for Necessary Enclosures for Dogs and Cats ........................................................................ 44 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Santa Clarita Dog and Cat Intake Trends ................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2—Santa Clarita Cat Outcomes by Category and Year.................................................................................... 14 Figure 3—Santa Clarita Dog Outcomes by Category and Year .................................................................................. 16 City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Executive Summary page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY SCOPE AND WHY CITYGATE WAS SELECTED
Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) was asked by the City of Santa Clarita (City) to conduct an independent study to assess the animal care and control needs of the community—specifically and exclusively as they relate to the shelteri ng of animals coming from within City boundaries. This study provides a data-driven analysis of current services, euthanasia rates, specific policy impacts, and an evaluation of potential service gaps with recommendations on how to best address them.
This analysis will determine whether the community’s distinct shelter needs are met under the City’s existing contract with the Los Angeles Department of Animal Care and Control (DACC) and will detail viable options that exist for the City’s consideration and implementation moving forward.
To provide this analysis, Citygate first held a kick-off teleconference meeting with City staff to ensure mutual understanding of the project scope and to enhance understanding of current services, issues, and goals related to the provision of animal sheltering services moving forward. Citygate obtained data from DACC as well as the City to analyze what services are being provided and if the services meet the needs of City residents. Citygate evaluated animal statistics and ou tcomes, reviewed relevant policies applied by DACC, and assessed the Castaic Animal Care Center and its animal capacity.
Citygate held a Mid -Project Review meeting to discuss initial observations and findings and to provide the City an opportunity to perf orm fact -checks and make any mid -course corrections before preparing the Draft Report. Citygate then prepared a Draft Report documenting the results of the study, including a review of how our approach and analyses were conducted, along with an explanation of our findings and recommendations. The City was then provided the Draft Report for its review and comments. Based on the results of the review process, Citygate prepared and delivered a Final Report to the City.
Project Scope and Objectives
Citygate is providing an analysis of the following six issues of primary concern to the City:
1. A summary of shelter services provided through the City’s existing contract with DACC, including data on euthanasia practices and protocols.
2. A data -driven analysis of animal shelter needs specific to the City, as well as euthanasia rates.
3. A detailed analysis of “No-Kill” policies and the effect of such policies on current operations.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Executive Summary page 2
4. A determination whether the community’s shelter needs are being met by the City’s existing contract with DACC, and whether current practices align with “No -Kill’ goals and objectives.
5. A list of viable options for the City to consider, including options based on “No - Kill” policies and best practices.
6. A recommendation on the best course of action, taking into consideration both the needs of the community and “No-Kill” policies.
The Selection of Citygate
Citygate was selected for this project due to its dedication to providing assessment and improvement services for public sector agencies and the qualifications, professional expertise, and experience of the Citygate Project Team . Citygate has conducted various feasibility studies, performance audits, and organizational analyses for well over 400 city and county governments throughout the U.S., including many animal services reviews.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report is organized into the following sections.
Section 1 Overview of Animal Sheltering Services Provided through DACC – This section discusses how animal care and control services are currently being provided in the City through the contract with DACC. This section includes information on protocols and practices provided by DACC.
Section 2 Animal Sheltering Statistics – This section reviews the animal intake and outcome statistics for the City along with the full animal population cared for at the Castaic Animal Care Center. There is also a discussion of live release rates.
Section 3 Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering Operations – This section provides a thorough review of DACC policies, including historical information and how the policies impact operations and animal outcomes.
Section 4 Shelter Needs Discussion – This section examines the capacity of the Castaic Animal Care Center and how it relates to the animal population entering the shelter.
It also reviews the physical plant elements along with recent upgrades.
Section 5 Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita – This section discusses the work of the Los Angeles County Animal Care Foundation and reviews some local efforts to support the promotion of animal welfare.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Executive Summary page 3
Section 6 Options for Consideration by the City – This section offers several options or ideas that could potentially augment services for the residents and animals of Santa Clarita through expanding the partnership between the City and DACC.
Section 7 Findings and Recommendations – This section provides a list of findings and recommendations based on the analysis contained in the report.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this assessment, Citygate found that the contract with DACC meets the animal sheltering needs of the City. The Castaic Animal Care Center has adequate sheltering capacity to care for the animals coming in from the City, as well as from other geographical areas served by the Center.
DACC has progressive policies and follows best practices related to animal welfare, and services meet and exceed legal mandates.
The Live Release Rate (LRR) for cats coming in from the City from 2017 through 2022 ranged from 67 percent to 86 percent, with the highest rate in 2022. The LRR for dogs coming in from the City ranged from 86 percent to 93 percent over the same period, with the highest rate occurring in 2019.
DACC’s current policies of Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering, Community Cats, and Managed Intake are policies that correspond to current best practices in animal welfare. The Department utilizes adoption promotions, appoint ment-based services, and social media to increase adoptions. The Department has a charitable foundation that provides supplemental funding and services not covered by the DACC budget.
Overall, Citygate recommends the City continue contracting with DACC for animal sheltering in Santa Clarita. The current services and level of service selected by the City meet the current needs of the City’s residents and represent an economy of scale for the City.
Citygate also recommends the City to consider augmenting animal care and control services by increasing its collaboration with DACC and pursuing the following list o f viable options for enhancing services:
◆ The services provided to residents of Santa Clarita could be augmented through City-specific animal events including adoption, vaccination and licensing clinics, spay and neuter services, and disaster preparedness.
◆ The City could expand its media engagement to include more information about the Castaic Animal Care Center and animal welfare in general. ◆ The City could help coordinate special projects that would increase citizen engagement.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Executive Summary page 4
◆ Finally, the City could p artner with DACC and/or private donors/supporters on physical plant upgrades that would improve the living conditions for sheltered animals and promote a better experience for visitors and clients coming to the site.
This report cites findings and makes re commendations, as appropriate, related to each finding.
Findings and recommendations are all contained and sequentially numbered in Section 7. Citygate identified 20 findings and developed a list of 7 recommendations related to this review.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 1—Overview of Animal Sheltering Services Provided Through DACC page 5 SECTION 1—OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL SHELTERING SERVICES
PROVIDED THROUGH DACC
Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) was asked by the City of Santa Clarita (City) to conduct an independent study to assess the animal care and control needs of the community—specifically and exclusively as they relate to the sheltering of animals coming from within City boundaries. The City has a full-service contract for Animal Services with the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control (DACC). The contract services options selected by the City represent the most complete / highest-level options in all areas , and include Full Animal Care Center Services, Field Services under the Standard Plan, Individual Licensing Services, and Additional Outreach and Enforcement Services.
Based on DACC billings to the City, the fiscal year ( FY) 2022 gross cost for the program was approximately $780,260. This amount was partially offset by credit for animal services -related revenues of approximately $253,125, resulting in a net annual billing cost of approximately $527,135 in FY 22.
Under the Full Animal Care Center Services section, DACC provides housing for all stray and relinquished animals, animals that are neglected, animals under quarantine, or animals that pose a threat to public safety. All animals are provided vaccinations, medical care, food, and shelter. The program includes owner reunification for lost animals, making best efforts for adoption, providing emergency care during disasters, spay and neuter services, medica l treatment to make animals more adoptable , and euthanasia (when necessary) and disposal of deceased animals. Services include a current website with photographs of stray and adoptable animals.
Under the Standard Service Plan, Field Services includes answering calls for service 24 hours per day, seven days per week, dispatching or assigning field staff, and performing duties in the field based on priority, location, and availability of staff. Field duties include responding to calls about injured animals, animals running at large, welfare concerns, bite investigations, cruelty or neglect complaints, and a myriad of other types of field activities. The plan also includes maintaining a 24-hour dispatch and communications center to receive calls for service and dispatch staff for field response as appropriate.
The Individual Licensing Services include:
◆ Issuing animal licenses for pets as requested by the City ◆ Processing license applications, payments, and information changes ◆ Issuing license renewal notices
◆ Assessing and collecting fees, penalties, and other financial remittances City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 1—Overview of Animal Sheltering Services Provided Through DACC page 6 ◆ Maintaining a database for animal licensing, records of calls for service, and actions taken.
In the area of Additional Outreach and Enforcement Services, DACC provides animal licensing enforcement, animal facility licensing including annual inspections and a grading scale, vaccination and microchip clinics and participation in the Spay/Neuter Trust Fund which facilitates low-cost or free spay and neuter services for City residents.
The contract also includes maintenance of records of activities and services provided to the City.
Upon request, the following standard reports are available from the DACC on a monthly basis. ◆ Dogs and/or Cats Impounded
◆ Animals Returned to Owners
◆ Dogs and/or Cats Abandoned
◆ Special Intake Dog & Cat
◆ Other Animals Impounded
◆ Quarantined Dogs and/or Cats
◆ Special Intake Other Animals
◆ Private Veterinarian (Outside Medical Expense)
◆ Dead Animal Pick Up Requests
◆ Types of Calls for Service
◆ Location of Impound
The animal care and control services provided to the City through its contract with DACC meet all statutorily required mandates in addition to providing many services that are not mandated.
The Castaic Animal Care Center maintains the following business days and hours of operation:
◆ Open seven days a week from 10 am – 12 pm (by appointment) and 2 pm – 5 pm ◆ Exception – Wednesdays from 2 pm – 7 pm
◆ Closed on County holidays
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 7
SECTION 2—ANIMAL SHELTERING STATISTICS
2.1 OVERVIEW
The reporting of animal intake and outcome statistics is considered a best practice in the animal welfare industry. Many shelters participate in providing data to the Shelter Animals Count organization for its national database. Shelters also post the data to their own websites.
DACC posts its statistics for all animal care centers on its website. The statistics posted for the Castaic Animal Care Center include all live animals received at the shelter, which generally includes animals from the cities of Santa Clarita and San Fernando and animals from the unincorporated area of the County served by the Center. For the purposes of this report, Citygate obtained animal statistics from DACC, specific to intakes from the City of Santa Clarita only.
The human population served by the Center is approximately 326,250, broken down as City of Santa Clarita 228,835,1 City of San Fernando 23,519,2 and unincorporated County 73,896.3 The COVID-19 pandemic has had major impacts on the animal welfare industry. Shelter and field operations were limited to critical needs, shelters were closed or only open by appointment, and conversely, interest in animal adoptions and fostering became very active. Initial ly, shelters were housing significantly fewer animals, having far less (or no) foot traffic, and there was a reduction in field activities for animal control officers. Animal welfare agencies encountered the same challenges faced by many businesses, including staffing shortages due to staff being infected with COVID-19 or suffering from long COVID. Unlike some entities, animal shelters could not allow most staff to work remotely, as shelter animals need to be cared for seven days a week , and field operations require officers to respond to locations to resolve animal concerns in addition to providing 24/7 emergency services.
Statistically, animal intake numbers and field activity numbers were radically reduced in 2020 and 2021. As the country started to adjust to the effects of the pandemic, and COVID-19 vaccinations became available, the trend began to reverse. Shelters opened their doors and began to take in more animals, and responses to field activities increased. When reviewing statist ics and trends, these factors play a role in evaluating shelter operations. As Citygate analyzed statistics for the Castaic Animal Care Center, Citygate observed that animal intakes are following the national trend and began to increase in 2022.
1 State of California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1, 2021–2022, Sacramento, California, May 2022. 2 Ibid.
3 Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control, 2022.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 8
2.2 SANTA CLARITA ANIMAL STATISTICS
DACC provided Citygate with animal intakes and outcomes for animals received from within the City from 2017 through 2022. The following information includes intake numbers for all animals, animal outcome numbers, euthanasia numbers, and calculations of the annual Live Release Rate (LRR) for dogs and cats.
2.2.1 Animal Intakes
The following table shows live animal intakes in the City from 2017 through 2022. Animal intakes are broadly categorized as owned animals or stray animals. Each species is broken down by sub - type of intake, such as stray, owner surrender, abandoned , police request, etc. DACC does not accept animals for owner-requested euthanasia so that sub-category does not appear.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 9
Table 1—Santa Clarita Animal Intakes by Year (2017–2022) 2017 2018 2019
Bird 160 Bird 220 Bird 233
Emer Evac 1 Owner Sur 16 Emer Evac 7
Owner Sur 11 Stray 204 Owner Died 1
Stray 148 Cat 684 Owner Sur 12
Cat 567 Arrested 2 Stray 213
Abandoned 2 Cola Hi* 5 Cat 751
Owner Died 6 Emer Evac 2 Cola Hi* 3
Owner Sur 175 Owner Died 2 Emer Evac 41
Pd Request 5 Owner Sur 205 Hospitaliz 1
Return 33 Pd Request 5 Owner Died 2
Stray 346 Return 33 Owner Sur 187
Dog 828 Stray 430 Pd Request 8
Abandoned 3 Dog 795 Return 47
Arrested 4 Arrested 8 Stray 462
Confiscate 6 Confiscate 6 Dog 842
Danger Dog 1 Danger Dog 1 Arrested 14
Hospitaliz 1 Hospitaliz 3 Cola Hi 7
Owner Died 1 Owner Died 3 Confiscate 2
Owner Sur 239 Owner Sur 235 Emer Evac 36
Pd Request 10 Pd Request 15 Hospitaliz 4
Return 69 Return 86 Owner Died 3
Stray 494 Stray 438 Owner Sur 257
Livestock 7 Livestock 3 Pd Request 47
Emer Evac 4 Cola Hi 2 Return 91
Stray 3 Owner Sur 1 Stray 381
Other 476 Other 682 Livestock 18
Owner Sur 26 Owner Died 1 Emer Evac 16
Stray 450 Owner Sur 33 Stray 2
Total 2,038 Return 1 Other 598
Stray 647 Cola Hi 1
Total 2,384 Emer Evac 2
Owner Sur 50
Pd Request 1
Stray 544
Total 2,442
*Cola Hi = County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative – temporary housing of pet(s) owned by un-housed persons City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 10
Santa Clarita Animal Intakes by Year (2017–2022 Continued) 2020 2021 2022
Bird 196 Bird 218 Bird 147
Owner Sur 1 Owner Sur 28 Owner Sur 1
Stray 195 Stray 190 Stray 146
Cat 298 Cat 246 Cat 348
Abandoned 18 Abandoned 2 Owner Hosp 1
Owner Sur 61 Owner Sur 51 Owner Sur 134
Pd Request 3 Pd Request 1 Pd Request 9
Return 11 Return 16 Return 13
Stray 205 Stray 176 Stray 191
Dog 445 Dog 403 Dog 518
Arrested 6 Arrested 3 Arrested 2
Cola Hi* 1 Hospitaliz 1 Hospitaliz 2
Hospitaliz 2 Owner Died 1 Abandon 6
Owner Died 1 Owner Sur 110 Owner Sur 146
Owner Sur 107 Pd Request 18 Pd Request 30
Pd Request 17 Return 40 Return 66
Return 44 Stray 230 Stray 263
Stray 267 Livestock 4 Livestock 5
Livestock 1 Stray 4 Court 1
Stray 1 Other 678 Emerg Evac 4
Other 633 Owner Sur 39 Other 569
Confiscate 1 Pd Request 1 Owner Sur 26
Owner Sur 21 Return 4 Return 1
Pd Request 1 Stray 634 Stray 542
Return 1 Total 1,549 Total 1,587
Stray 609
Total 1,573
*Cola Hi = County of Los Angeles Homeless Initiative – temporary housing of pet(s) owned by un-housed persons The following table shows outcomes for live animals from the City by year from 2017 through 2022. Each species is broken down by sub -type of outcome, including adoption, rescue/transfer, return to owner, return to nature, released to wildlife rescue, euthanized, died, or escaped.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 11
Table 2—Santa Clarita Live Animal Outcomes by Year (2017–2022) 2017 2018 2019
Bird 106 Bird 159 Bird 149
Adoption 19 Adoption 24 Adoption 9
Died 10 Died 8 Died 5
Euthanized 66 Escaped 1 Euthanized 106
RTN 7 Euthanized 84 RTN 20
RTO 1 RTN 23 RTO 7
Wild Rescue 3 RTO 1 Wild Rescue 2
Cat 499 Wild Rescue 18 Cat 688
Adoption 276 Cat 619 Adoption 462
Aspcatrans 10 Adoption 425 Died 10
Close2home 9 Aspcatrans 3 Escaped 2
Died 12 Died 18 Euthanized 143
Escaped 2 Escaped 3 Missing 2
Euthanized 161 Euthanized 132 Rescue 4
Rescue 4 Rescue 8 RTO 65
RTO 25 RTO 30 Dog 829
Dog 793 Dog 776 Adoption 419
Adoption 346 Adoption 386 Died 2
Aspcatrans 5 Aspcatrans 8 Euthanized 56
Close2home 6 Died 5 Rescue 58
Died 6 Euthanized 63 RTO 292
Euthanized 110 Rescue 43 RTO Fld Id 1
Rescue 56 RTO 263 RTO Micro 1
RTO 263 RTO Fld Id 3 Livestock 18
RTO Micro 1 RTO Fldmic 1 RTO 18
Livestock 5 RTO Micro 4 Other 319
Euthanized 1 Livestock 3 Adoption 56
RTO 4 Euthanized 1 Died 9
Other 200 RTO 2 Escaped 2
Adoption 30 Other 337 Euthanized 142
Died 7 Adoption 44 Missing 1
Escaped 1 Died 9 Rescue 4
Euthanized 110 Euthanized 184 RTN 98
Rescue 1 Rescue 2 RTO 2
RTN 44 RTN 89 Wild Rescue 5
RTO 2 RTO 3 Total 2,003
Wild Rescue 5 Wild Rescue 6
Total 1,603 Total 1,894
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 12
Santa Clarita Live Animal Outcomes by Year (2017–2022 Continued) 2020 2021 2022
Bird 129 Bird 153 Bird 105
Adoption 6 Adoption 28 Adoption 11
Died 8 Died 6 Died 11
Escaped 1 Escaped 1 Escaped
Euthanized 95 Euthanized 92 Euthanized 64
RTN 9 RTN 9 RTN 10
Wild Rescue 10 RTO 11 RTO 1
Cat 236 Wild Rescue 6 Wild Rescue 8
Adoption 178 Cat 172 Cat 259
Aspcapw 2 Adoption 123 Adoption 186
Died 5 Died 4 Euthanized 35
Euthanized 34 Euthanized 34 RTO 22
Rescue 5 Rescue 2 Rescue 10
RTO 11 RTO 9 Escaped 6
RTO Fldmic 1 Dog 386 Dog 481
Dog 424 Adoption 167 Adoption 252
Adoption 181 Died 2 Euthanized 52
Died 2 Euthanized 44 RTO 140
Euthanized 31 Rescue 37 Rescue 37
Rescue 48 RTO 132 Livestock 5
RTO 159 RTO Fld Id 2 RTO 5
RTO Fld Id 1 RTO Fldmic 2 Other 278
RTO Fldmic 2 Livestock 4 Adoption 42
Other 305 RTO 4 Euthanized 151
Adoption 42 Other 352 RTN 62
Died 14 Adoption 62 RTO 2
Euthanized 187 Died 13 Died 13
Rescue 1 Escaped 1 Wild Rescue 8
RTN 53 Euthanized 220 Grand Total 1,128
RTO 3 RTN 48
Wild Rescue 5 RTO 4
Grand Total 1,094 Wild Rescue 4
Grand Total 1,067
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 13
The following table shows the intake numbers of live dogs and cats in the City from 2017 through 2022.
Table 3—Santa Clarita Dog and Cat Intake Numbers (2017–2022) Animal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cats 567 684 751 298 246 348
Dogs 828 795 842 445 403 518
Total 1,395 1,479 1,593 743 649 866
The following figure shows cat, dog, and combined cat and dog intakes in the City from 2017 through 2022. It shows the trend of increased intakes through 2019, with a marked drop in 2020 and 2021 likely due to the effects of COVID-19, along with the implementation of managed intake.
Intakes in 2022 have begun to trend up, as has been reported by many animal care and control agencies of which Citygate is aware.
Figure 1—Santa Clarita Dog and Cat Intake Trends
2.2.2 Animal Outcomes
Measuring outcomes for sheltered animals is an important part of meeting life -saving goals and maximizing positive outcomes. While animals entering shelters are basically identified as stray or owned, there are multiple ways to categorize outcomes. Live outcomes for shelter animals include “return to owner” (RTO), adoption, transfer to another shelter, release to a rescue organization or adoption partner, return to nature, and trap-neuter-release. Non -live outcomes for sheltered animals include euthanasia and “died in care.” Citygate is focusing on dog and cat outcomes 0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
6 Year Dog and Cat Intakes from Santa Clarita
CATS DOGS CATS + DOGS
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 14
following the principles of the Asilomar Accords ( Section 3 of this report includes a historical discussion of “No-Kill” policy).
Cat Outcomes
The following tables and figure depict outcomes for cats coming in from the City over the past six years.
Table 4—Santa Clarita Cat Outcomes by Year
Outcome 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Adoption 276 425 462 178 123 186
Return to Owner 25 30 65 12 9 22
Rescue 23 11 4 7 2 10
Died/Escaped 14 21 14 5 4 6
Euthanized 161 132 143 34 34 35
Total 499 619 688 236 172 259
Figure 2—Santa Clarita Cat Outcomes by Category and Year
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Santa Clarita Cat Outcomes
Adoption Return to Owner Rescue
Died/Escaped Euthanized Total
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 15
The following table shows the reasons for euthanasia in cats over the past six years.
Table 5—Reasons for Cat Euthanasias
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cat 161 Cat 132 Cat 143 Cat 34 Cat 34 Cat 35
Behavior 13 Behavior 5 Behavior 24 Behavior 10 Behavior 2 Injured 9 Feral 69 Feral 51 Feral 56 Feral 1 Injured 6 Other Med 25 Injured 6 Injured 14 Injured 12 Injured 5 Other Med 18 Too Young 1 Other Med 31 Other Med 28 Other Med 18 Other Med 15 Too Young 8 Too Young 40 Too Young 28 Parvo 3 Too Young 3
Upper Resp 2 Upper Resp 6 Space 3
Too Young 27
Citygate reviewed the individual records for the three cats reported to be euthanized for space in 2019, the only year that showed space as a reason for euthanasia. The first record showed a three- year-old stray cat that was held for 20 days, was medically treated, with an outcome condition shown as ill. The second record was a 15-year-old owner surrendered cat that was held for 10 days with the outcome condition shown as ill. The third record was a seven-year-old owner surrendered cat that was held for 12 days, became sick after 7 days , was medically treated , with an outcome condition shown as sick.
Table 6—Cat Outcomes by Percentage of Total Cat Outcomes Outcome 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Adoption 55% 69% 67% 75% 72% 72%
Return to Owner 5.0% 4.8% 9.4% 5.1% 5.2% 8.5%
Euthanized 32.3% 21.3% 20.8% 14.4% 19.8% 13.5%
The outcome trends for cats follow the overall outcome numbers, with adoption trends almost matching total outcomes. As a percentage of total outcomes , cat adoption rates ranged from 55 percent to 75 percent (for the first year of COVID -19). Cat euthanasia trended downward from 2017 through 2022 but had a spike in 2021. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the RTO rate for cats in animal shelters is typically low throughout the animal sheltering industry. The numbers for cat percentages of reclaims in the City is consistent with an RTO rate that was approximately 5 percent, with the exception of an increased rate of 9.4 percent in 2019.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 16
Dog Outcomes
The following tables and figure depict the outcomes for dogs coming in from the City over the past six years.
Table 7—Santa Clarita Dog Outcomes by Year
Outcome 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Adoption 346 386 419 181 167 252
Return to Owner 264 271 294 162 136 140
Rescue 67 51 58 48 37 37
Died/Escaped 6 5 2 2 2 -
Euthanized 110 63 56 31 44 52
Total 793 776 829 424 386 481
Figure 3—Santa Clarita Dog Outcomes by Category and Year
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Santa Clarita Dog Outcomes
Adoption Return to Owner Rescue
Died/Escaped Euthanized Total
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 17
The following table shows the reasons for euthanasia in dogs over the last six years.
Table 8—Reasons for Dog Euthanasia
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Dog 110 Dog 63 Dog 56 Dog 31 Dog 44 Dog 52
Behavior 55 Behavior 26 Behavior 30 Behavior 21 Behavior 25 Behavior 31 Injured 5 Injured 9 Distemper 1 Other Med 9 Injured 5 Injured 2 Other Med 47 Other Med 24 Injured 7 Parvo 1 Other Med 12 Other Med 15 Upper Resp 3 Parvo 4 Other Med 16 Parvo 2 Unable To Place 4 Parvo 2
Table 9—Dog Outcomes by Percentage of Total Dog Outcomes Outcome 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Adoption 43.6% 49.7% 50.5% 42.7% 43.3% 52.4%
Return to Owner 33.3% 34.9% 35.5% 38.2% 35.2% 29.1%
Rescue 8.4% 6.6% 7.0% 11.3% 9.6% 7.7%
Died/Escaped 0.8% 0.6% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0%
Euthanized 13.9% 8.1% 6.8% 7.3% 11.4% 10.8%
The RTO rate for dogs in shelters varies by community but is consistently higher tha n the RTO rate for cats. The RTO rate for dogs from the City was the highest in 2020 (38.2 percent) and ranged from about 2 9 percent to 38 percent over the six-year period. Dog adoption rates as a percentage of total outcomes ranged from about 43 percent to over 52 percent, with the highest percentage in 2022. The trend line for dog euthanasia was variable, ranging from a low of about 7 percent in 2019 to a high of almost 14 percent in 2017, and trending upward in 2021 and 2022.
2.3 CASTAIC ANIMAL CARE CENTER STATISTICS
For this assessment, Citygate is including information on the total animal population cared for by the Center. By including this information, the “big picture” of capacity for care is included in the study.
2.3.1 Total Live Animal Intakes
The following table summarizes the live animal intakes for the years 2017 through 2021.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 18
Table 10—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Intakes (2017–2021) Animal 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Cat 966 1,045 1,193 429 361
Dog 1,534 1,406 1,354 705 746
Other 7,366* 875 765 741 852
Total 9,866 3,326 3,312 1,875 1,959
*The large number of “Other” in 2017 represents impounded fighting cocks If an adjustment is made to normalize the number of “Other” intakes in 2017, the trend shows a slight downward trend of intakes from 2017 through 2019, followed by a dramatic decrease in intakes in years 2020 and 2021 due to the impacts of COVID-19.
2.3.2 Total Live Animal Outcomes
The next five tables show the live animal outcomes by year and category from 2017 through 2021.
Table 11—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2017) Type Cat Dog Other Total
Adoption 682 927 113 1,722
Died 20 8 29 57
Escaped 6 - 2 8
Euthanized 284 176 6,932** 7,392
Rescue 68 215 23 306
Return to Nature - - 108 108
Return to Owner 49 441 141 631
Total 1,109 1,767 7,348 10,224
*The large number of “Other” in 2017 represents impounded fighting cocks City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 19
Table 12—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2018) Type Cat Dog Other Total
Adoption 712 932 124 1,768
Died 33 12 26 71
Escaped 3 - 2 5
Euthanized 217 101 439 757
Rescue 28 129 37 194
Return to Nature - - 179 179
Return to Owner 59 482 32 573
Total 1,052 1,656 839 3,547
Table 13—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2019) Type Cat Dog Other Total
Adoption 841 867 109 1,817
Died 33 3 19 55
Escaped 3 1 7 11
Euthanized 277 89 365 731
Rescue 8 114 29 151
Return to Nature - - 172 172
Return to Owner 78 479 41 598
Total 1,240 1,553 742 3,535
Table 14—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2020) Type Cat Dog Other Total
Adoption 362 365 142 869
Died 9 3 27 39
Escaped - - 1 1
Euthanized 83 50 425 558
Rescue 17 87 39 143
Return to Nature - - 92 92
Return to Owner 19 274 10 303
Total 490 779 736 2,005
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 20
Table 15—Castaic Animal Care Center Total Live Animal Outcomes (2021) Type Cat Dog Other Total
Adoption 275 456 148 879
Died 6 4 34 44
Escaped - - 4 4
Euthanized 56 77 516 649
Rescue 6 69 29 104
Return to Nature - - 96 96
Return to Owner 12 242 23 277
Total 355 848 850 2,053
Table 16—Summary of Total Animal Outcomes (2017–2021)
2017* 2018 2019 2020 2021
Total Outcomes 3,731 3,547 3,535 2,005 2,053
*The number of “Other” animals euthanized has been normalized for year 2017 By similarly adjusting for the large number of “Other” euthanizations in 2017, the trend for animal outcomes between 2017 and 2021 follows the intake trend , with a slight downward trend of outcomes between 2017 and 2019, followed by a dramatic decrease in outcomes in years 2020 and 2021 due to the impacts of COVID-19.
2.3.3 Transfers In and Out of the Castaic Animal Care Center from Other DACC Centers
DACC transfers animals between animal care centers as part of ani mal population management.
For example, if one shelter is at o r exceeding capacity, animals may be transferred to another shelter that has available space. For this assessment, Citygate was informed that the Castaic Animal Care Center is often the recipient of transfers to alleviate crowding at other shelters in the DACC system. The two following tables show transfer history for the past two years at the Castaic Animal Care Center and indicate that more animals are transferred in than transferred out.
Table 17—Animal Transfers – In
Fiscal Year Cats Dogs Other Total
2020–2021 54 52 15 131
2021–2022 6 161 14 181
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 21
Table 18—Animal Transfers – Out
Fiscal Year Cats Dogs Other Total
2020–2021 4 19 2 25
2021–2022 1 30 13 44
2.3.4 Live Release Rates
One measurement that is commonly assessed in animal welfare is the shelter’s Live Release Rate, the simple definition of which is the percentage of live animals cared for by the shelter that have a live outcome of adoption, owner redemption, transfer to an adoption partner or rescue group, return to the community, or other outcome that is not euthanasia. For purposes of this discussion, Citygate is utilizing the Annual LRR formula established by the Asilomar Acc ords (see also Section 3) . This LRR does not include owner /guardian-requested euthanasia (unhealthy and untreatable) or dogs and cats that died or were lost in shelter care.
The formula used to derive the LRR is as follows:
Total Live Outcomes (includes adoption, return to owner, transfer to rescue) + Total Euthanized (does not include died in care or escaped) = Total Outcomes
The LRR is Total Live Outcomes divided by Total Outcomes.
DACC does not accept animals for owner /guardian-requested euthanasia. Instead, DACC refers the owner or guardian to resources who can provide the service for the owner . Depending on the situation, the County will sometimes have resources available so that the service can be subsidized.
In regard to the City’s LRR, Citygate focused exclusively on dogs and cats because these are the species identified to be tracked by the Asilomar Accords . (The Asilomar Accords are discussed further in Section 3, in the historical discussion of “No-Kill” policy.) As shown in the following tables, Citygate calculated the LRR for dogs and cats coming into the Castaic Animal Care Center for the past six years.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 22
Table 19—Live Release Rates for Santa Clarita Dogs and Cats Cats 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Outcomes 485 598 674 231 168 253
Live Outcomes 324 466 531 197 134 218
Euthanized 161 132 143 34 34 35
Cat LRR 66.8% 77.9% 78.8% 85.3% 79.8% 86.2%
Dogs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Outcomes 787 771 827 422 384 481
Live Outcomes 677 708 771 391 340 429
Euthanized 110 63 56 31 44 52
Dog LRR 86.0% 91.8% 93.2% 92.7% 88.6% 89.2%
Cats and Dogs 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Total Outcomes 1,272 1,369 1,501 653 552 734
Live Outcomes 1,001 1,174 1,302 588 474 647
Euthanized 271 195 199 65 78 87
Cat and Dog LRR 78.7% 85.6% 86.7% 90.0% 85.9% 88.1%
Table 20—Summary of Dog and Cat Live Release Rates
LRR 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Cat 66.8% 77.9% 78.8% 85.3% 79.8% 86.2%
Dog 86.0% 91.8% 93.2% 92.7% 88.6% 89.2%
Cat and Dog 78.7% 85.6% 86.7% 90.0% 85.9% 88.0%
The LRR for dogs and cats coming in from the City between 2017 and 2022 ranged from a low of
66.8 percent of cats in 2017 to a high of 93.2 percent of dogs in 2019. The LRR for cats is consistently lower than the LRR for dogs. The overall LRR for both dogs and cats was trending up from 2017 through 2020 before decreasing in 2021 and trending back up in 2022.
While the LRR is a statistic that is commonly measured, it is simply a percentage of animals that left a shelter with a live outcome. It does not address the total number of animals that were saved or the overall impact the shelter has, which varies based on the shelter’s available resources, intake policies, the types of animals coming in, and the challenges those animals face.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 23
2.4 WHY DOG AND CAT STATISTICS IN SHELTERS ARE SO DIFFERENT As indicated by the statistics and trends, shelter dog and cat outcomes have notable differences.
There are several reasons why statistical trends differ by species . While factors c an vary in different communities, some of the main differences observed include (1) a higher number of dogs reclaimed by their owners and (2) a higher percentage of cats being euthanized.
Part of the explanation begins with the very different ways many people view dogs and cats. Dogs are often kept in a fenced yard and would clearly be missed by the owner if absent at feeding time.
Cats, on the other hand , are often seen as independent —allowed to be free -roaming, indoor/outdoor animals—and many owners are not surprised if a cat is not present at feeding time, or even for a few days.
Dogs are required to be licensed , and in most communities, there is a requirement that dogs be leashed. These requirements are much less common for cats, and when the requirements exist, most cat owners are unaware of them. While many dog owners have an identification tag or a traceable rabies tag on their dog’s collar, many cat owners would not consider having a collar on their cat, and some cats refuse to wear a collar. Microchips are permanent forms of identification, yet they are more commonly given to dogs than cats.
Animal control responds to complaints and concerns about free-roaming dogs and often impounds dogs running at large. When dogs go missing, many owners contact local shelter s in a timely manner. Dogs that are identified by a license, identification tag , or microchip can be traced back to the owner, and animal control officers often try to make a field redemption. In any case, owners search shelters and redeem dogs at a much higher rate than the redemption rate for cats.
Conversely, looking for a missing cat at the local shelter is not a step taken by many owners or caretakers. Free-roaming cats are generally not impounded, and policies on shelter impoundments of cats have changed substantially in the past decade to include leaving healthy, unidentified free- roaming cats in their current environment. This is because animal welfare professionals believe that the cats are part of their neighborhood, may be owned, or are at least being cared for. If these cats are taken to an animal shelter , it removes them from their home territories, and owners or caregivers generally do not look for them for many days or weeks (if ever), contributing to the low redemption rate. By the time the caregiver does come looking for the cat, it may have already passed through the shelter.
The changes in policies related to cat intakes have changed and now focus on taking in cats or kittens that are malnourished, orphaned, ill, injured, in danger, or require other assistance so they can receive the care and protection they need at the animal shelter. This also means that the cat populations entering shelters are more vulnerable and fragile, generally, than the dog populations.
Cats or kittens coming in have special needs and may be irremediably suffering or in need of medical care beyond the shelter’s resources. There is also an influx of kittens that come into animal City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 2—Animal Sheltering Statistics page 24
shelters—often unweaned, neonatal , or sick —that are vulnerable, and even the shelter’s best efforts do not result in the kittens’ survival. These challenges are contributing factors to the higher percentage of cat and kitten euthanasia in shelters.
The more widespread acceptance and embrace of spaying and neutering dogs and cats has resulted in progress toward lowering the number of litters of unwanted puppies and kittens being born. This has especially been effective in reducing the number of puppies seen in animal shelters in recent years. However, again we see differences between dogs and cats. Cats are efficient breeders, and owners or caregivers may be unaware that a cat is pregnant until she gives birth. Additionally, feral cats and community cats living in groups may produce litters if not being managed through some type of program for population control. Many jurisdictions have implemented spay and neuter programs for free-roaming cats to address overpopulation in “community cat” populations where there are challenges identifying the owner of the cat(s) and many litters of kittens are adding to cat overpopulation. DACC collaborates with organized community groups working with community cat caretakers to ensure the population control, health, and welfare of free-roaming, unowned cats in the communities in the program titled “Good Neighbor Cat Services.” Services include spay or neuter surgery, vaccination for rabies and FVRCP, flea treatment, ear tip, humane euthanasia, and minor medical procedures.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 25 SECTION 3—EFFECT OF POLICIES ON CURRENT SHELTERING
3.1 OVERVIEW
Well-managed animal sheltering agencies operate under established Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) that are periodically reviewed, updated , and redistributed to staff or others responsible for implementing them. DACC has extensive policies covering all aspects of operations. Citygate reviewed DACC policies applicable to the scope of th is assessmen t to understand how the policies impact animal outcomes and the LRR for animals coming from within the City.
3.2 A HISTORICAL DISCUSSION OF “NO-KILL” POLICY
The term “ No-Kill” is a common term in the animal welfare industry. The term comes from a movement that began in the 1980s and 90s and was formed in response to the alarming numbers of healthy animals being euthanized in shelters across the United States. The “No-Kill” campaign asked for a commitment from communities to take proper measures to save all healthy and treatable pets from unnecessary euthanasia. While it may appear straightforward, the term is not clear and often leads to misunderstandings and inappropriate labe ling. A term that was meant to unite communities in saving animal lives led to a divided animal welfare industry.
The current “standard” to be considered “No-Kill” is a shelter that has at least a 90 percent placement rate for animals within its care. Why is this misleading?
1. The public does not understand that “No-Kill” does not equal no euthanasia .
Humane euthanasia still exists in “ No-Kill” shelters and may be necessary for an animal with a severe or untreatable illness or behavior issues that pose public safety risks.
2. There is no organization or governing body that determines what “No-Kill” means.
The 90 percent placement standard is a rate that is generally agreed upon, but the reporting and data to achieve that rate can be inconsistent across organizati ons despite efforts to standardize.
3. “No-Kill” terminology has proven divisive by creating the perception of two kinds of organizations, with one being considered inherently “good” and the other being considered inherently “bad.” The label of “kill shelter” is judgmental and does not present the true picture of an agency’s impact.
4. An organization’s admission policies can impact its ability to reach “No-Kill” status. Open-admission shelters commit to helping every animal that comes through their doors, while limited-admission shelters are selective about the animals they City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 26 will accept. By turning certain animals away, limited-admission organizations may be able to maintain a higher placement percentage.
Further history on the “No-Kill” movement includes legislation, efforts to define categories of animals entering shelters, and efforts to standardize statistics in animal sheltering. This history will briefly be discussed in the following sub-sections.
3.2.1 The Hayden Bill (1999)
Animal activists were responsible for the promulgation of a significant piece of legislation that became effective beginning in January of 1999. SB 1785 (referred to as the Hayden Bill) modified various California Code sections relat ed to the holding periods fo r impounded and surrendered animals, and the care they are to receive, by:
◆ Stating that it is the policy of the state that “no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.”
◆ Requiring that stray animals be held six busine ss days, not counting the day of impoundment. (The prior requirement was 72 hours, not including the day of impoundment.)
◆ Reducing the holding requirement to four business days, not counting the day of impoundment, if the shelter: (a) is open until 7:00 pm one weekday, (b) is open one weekend day, or (c) has fewer than three employees and is not open during all regular weekday business hours and has established procedures for owners to reclaim lost animals by appointment.
◆ Requiring that surrendered animals be held for two business days, not counting the day of impoundment. This holding period increased to the same as for stray animals previously noted effective July 1, 2001. The effective date of this provision was modified by AB 2754 to become operative July 1, 2002. AB 2754 also modifies the Hayden Bill to allow surrendered puppies and kittens to be made immediately available for adoption. AB 2754 also requires that all animals be scanned for microchips.
◆ Requiring that efforts be made to provide veterinary treatment for ill or injured animals to make them suitable for adoption.
◆ Requiring specific records be kept on all animals impounded, surrendered, and/or medically treated.
◆ Requiring that animals be turned over to non -profit rescue groups prior to the animals being euthanized.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 27 ◆ Requiring that reasonable efforts be made to reunite lost pets with their owners and specifying that owners and finders of pets be provided with specific information. ◆ Providing an exception to this requirement for agencies in countie s having populations of less than 100,000.
The passing of this legislation had the effect of vastly improving care standards in animal shelters in California. It also resulted in improved live release rates and increased awareness of issues and challenges faced by the animal sheltering community. The legislation created an unfunded mandate, making it possible for public shelters to submit claims to the State under SB 90 reimbursement process for legislatively mandated expenditures. While this legislation ha s been suspended, it has had lasting positive effects for animals held in shelters in California due to improved physical plants, increased holding capacity, beneficial impacts on policies and procedures, and extending holding periods, which many agencies have retained.
3.2.2 The Asilomar Accords (2004)
In the summer of 2004 , a group of animal welfare organization leaders participated in a meeting at Asilomar in Pacific Grove, California, and developed and agreed upon the following definitions to provide a standard way to categorize the dogs and cats who comprise the shelter population of the various organizations each year. It was believed that standard definitions are a first step in collecting and reporting reliable data on the numbers of at -risk animals in the nation’s communities. The document created as a result of this meeting is called the Asilomar Accords (2004).
Healthy
The term “healthy” means and includes all dogs and cats eight weeks of age or older that [sic], at or subsequent to the time the an imal is taken into possession, have manifested no sign of a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that could pose a health or safety risk or otherwise make the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and have manifested no sign of disease, injury, a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the animal or that is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future.
Treatable
The term “treatable” means and includes all dogs and cats who are “rehabilitatable” and a ll dogs and cats who are “manageable.”
Rehabilitatable
The term “rehabilitatable” means and includes all dogs and cats who are not “healthy,” but who are likely to become “healthy” if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet guardians in the community.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 28 Manageable
The term “manageable” means and includes all dogs and cats who are not “healthy,” and who are not likely to become “healthy,” regardless of the care provided; bu t who would likely maintain a satisfactory quality of life, if given medical, foster, behavioral, or other care, including long -term care equivalent to the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring guardians in the community; provided, however, that the term “manageable” does not include any dog or cat who is determined to pose a significant risk to human health or safety or to the health or safety of other animals.
Unhealthy and Untreatable
The term “unhealthy and untreatable” means and includes all dogs and cats who, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession,
1. Have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become “healthy” or “treatable” even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet guardians in the community; or
2. Are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the ani mal’s health or is likely to adversely affect the animal’s health in the future, and are not likely to become “healthy” or “treatable” even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet guardians in the community; or
3. Are unde r the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become “healthy” or “treatable,” even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable an d caring pet guardians in the community.
3.2.3 Shelter Animals Count
In 2011, the organization Shelter Animals Count established a national database designed as a tool for basic data collection from animal shelters in the United States. The database contains what many organizations , including ASPCA, National Federation of Humane Societies, American Humane, UC Davis, Maddie’s Fund, Pet Smart Charities, Humane Society of the United States, and Shelter Animals Count have agreed are the minimum data points an organization should gather. The purpose of the database i s to facilitate the gathering of basic data and the merging of data at the local, regional, or national level by providing a common framework which allows agencies to benchmark their work with similar agencies around their region or the nation. Since data gathering began in 2011, adoption numbers have more than quadrupled. As adoption became more popular with the public, shelters were able to gain more funding, which helped build larger facilities, hire more staff to care for and rehabilitate animals, and purchase better medical City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 29 equipment and care. As fu nding has grown, the numbers of healthy and treatable animals being euthanized has markedly decreased.
3.2.4 Effects of “No-Kill” Policy on Outcomes
There have been many positive outcomes for animals in shelters as a result of the “No -Kill” movement or concurrent with it. These have included a focus on exploring all available alternatives prior to euthanasia, increased efforts for positive outcomes utilizing transfers to partner agencies and rescue organizations, expansion of foster programs, social media outreach, mass adoption events and “specials,” promotion of microchipping, expanded medical care, and improved shelter facilities.
However, there have also been serious problems created by the focus on “No -Kill” which have resulted in many animal welfare professionals discrediting the movement. These include risky adoption decisions that jeopardize public safety ; operational decisions resulting in extreme extensions of length of stay for shelter animals; the return of dangerous dogs into the community; increased disease, overcrowding, and neglect in some shelters resulting from the facility exceeding its capacity for care ; shelters accepting and caring for unadoptable animals ; and inhumane conditions in shelters.
Population management in an animal shelter can be described as a balancing act between ensuring the highest number of live outcomes for sheltered animals, safeguarding public safety, and providing the most humane and comprehensive care for animals in the care of the animal shelter.
Many professional animal welfare organizations, both local and national , discuss “No Kill” on their websites and in policy statements. Just a few examples include:
The Maddie’s Fund website states:
Many animal control agencies and traditional shelters feel that no -kill makes them look like villains. In deference to these concerns, Maddie's Fund no longer refers to individual organizations that save all of their healthy and treatable animals as no -kill agencies; instead we call them adoption guarantee agencies. However, we continue to strive for no- kill communities and a no-kill nation. The bottom line is, the no -kill movement represents a paradigm shift, a revolution, if you will, in the way we co nsider and treat companion animals. No-kill shelters have chosen a path different from traditional shelters, refusing to sacrifice an animal because society says there are too many. It's a commitment that directs organizational policy. And when a minority movement like this gains momentum, those who are put in the position of having to defend the status quo generally feel threatened, no matter what terminology is used.4
4 https://www.maddiesfund.org
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 30 The PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) Organization website states the following:
The Deadly Consequences of NO KILL
It’s appalling to contemplate, but when shelters give in to pressure to go “no-kill” before they have overcome the breeding and selling of animals in their communities and before establishing sufficient spaying and neutering services, the results are often far worse for animals than a peaceful death through euthanasia. Here’s what happens:
Animals are turned away at the shelter door, but they don’t magically vanish. “No-kill” shelters are usually at capacity, so they stop taking in animals, including those in emergency or abusive situations. As just one example, someone turning three dogs in to an open-admission shelter in Mississippi told a reporter, “It was either that or shoot them.” Animals still die —but in pain. Instead of a peaceful death in a caring person’s arms, animals die slowly and in agony on the streets, in backyards, under sheds, on chains, and at the hands of abusive people. In San Antonio, Texas—which is striving to be a “no-kill” city—the bodies of nearly 16,000 dogs and nearly 12,000 cats were scraped off the streets and properties in just one year. One animal control officer termed it “euthanasia by proxy.” It is also becoming common for shelters that boast high “ save rates” to have a sky-high rate of unassisted deaths in cages and kennels from illness or injuries.
Animals spend months or years in cages. Experts agree that after as little as two weeks in a traditional shelter, animals can begin to deteriorate psychologically and become withdrawn, depressed, anxious, or aggressive. If adopted, animals who have been confined for exten ded periods are often repeatedly returned because of behavioral issues —a traumatic yo-yo experience that makes them even less adoptable.
Animals are cast out and keep on reproducing. To increase “save” rates, some shelters promote animal abandonment. One big sanctuary recently issued a news release urging Good Samaritans to leave homeless kittens on the streets, rather than taking them to a shelter. That’s madness: Not only are abandoned kittens in danger of infection, disease, starvation, and being hit by cars, attacked by dogs and wildlife, and abused by cruel people, the surviving ones will also eventually go on to reproduce, resulting in even more homeless animals.
Animals are handed over to abusers and hoarders. When numbers become the priority, animals are no longer viewed as individuals deserving of consideration and respect but instead as inventory that must be moved, causing shelters to toss aside even basic safeguards. Homeless animals are increasingly being found tortured and killed by adopters who weren’t screened or, even more commonly, caged in hoarders’ filthy basements, garages, sheds, and ba rns. Every day, headlines appear about raids on self -described City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 31 “rescuers” and the animals—both sick and dead—who were removed from the cruel and disgusting conditions in the homes of the “rescuers.” When one hoarding facility masquerading as a “rescue” in San Jose, California, caught fire, nearly 100 cats burned to death inside carriers, unable to flee while the plastic melted down on top of them.5 The ASPCA (American Socie ty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) website contains this statement:
The ASPCA strongly supports “no kill” community coalitions (as opposed to a single organization within a community) that are committed to reducing the number of cats and dogs in that community who are at risk of becoming lost, abandoned or relinquished to shelters. Toward that end, the ASPCA supports efforts to maximize accessible and affordable spay/neuter services; practice TNR of feral cats; promote the adoption of homeless animals; educate potential guardians on pet selection, the use of microchips and visible ID tags; and provide ongoing expert training and behavior assistance to guardians so that they may live successfully with their companion animals.6 The Pasadena Humane Society (California) has the following statements on its website:
ARE YOU A NO KILL SHELTER?
Pasadena Humane is a Socially Conscious Animal Shelter . We accept all animals regardless of age, breed, health or temperament from within our 11 animal control service areas. While we technically meet the no -kill threshold of saving more than 90% of pets entering our shelter, we choose not to use the no-kill terminology.
WHY DON’T YOU USE NO KILL TERMINOLOGY?
Pasadena Humane adopted the Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering model because we believe it offers the most holistic approach to sheltering. No -kill has been used as a marketing tool and rallying cry, but it does not re flect the responsibility animal welfare organizations like Pasadena Humane have to the animals in our care and to keeping our communities safe.
While no-kill has gained in popularity over the years, it is often misunderstood. No -kill does not mean no eutha nasia. In fact, most no -kill shelters strive to attain a save rate of 90%. What that means in practice is that even at no -kill shelters, 10% of animals may be euthanized for any reason and the organization would still be considered no -kill. While reaching a 90% save rate may be attainable for some communities, it may not be realistic for others based on the animals coming into that shelter. For example, a shelter that admits
5 http://www.PETA.org
6 http://www.ASPCA.org
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 32 a large percentage of very ill or unhealthy animals may not reach a 90% save rate even if they place all adoptable animals.
The Larimer Humane Society (Colorado) has this statement on its website:
You may have heard the terms like ‘open admission’ and ‘no -kill’ in references to shelter or rescue models. In most cases, open -admission shelters accept all animals in need of shelter whether as a result of neglect, abandonment, abuse, or simply an individual’s inability to maintain ownership of their pet. Open admission shelters do not turn away animals based upon their breed type, those who may be injured, ill, very old, or those that have temperament or aggression problems.
Organizations that follow the no -kill model, along with limited admission and adoption guarantee models, may choose to restrict the types of animals they take based on the animals’ viability for adoption, the number of animals currently in the organization’s care, and/or the discretionary criteria. These organizations may decide not to take in elderly, very ill, aggressive, seriously injured animals, or a breed type that may be considered too dangerous, costly to care for, or challenging to adopt. These organizations may prioritize certain criteria as well, such as breed -specific rescues, or rescues specifically for elderly animals.
Open-admission shelters are the place for any animal in need of shelter, medical attention, and/or protection. As a result, open -admission shelters sometimes face the need to humanely euthanize animals in their care. At Larimer Humane Society, euthanasia is carried out only in specific situations. It is sometimes the most compassionate act in order to end an animal’s suffering resultant from an insurmountable injury or illness.
Additionally, because no animal is turned away, we sometimes see animals who are unsafe – either to people or other pets – and who cannot be responsibly placed for adoption. While behavior intervention efforts are part of our day-to-day protocol, and we work closely with partner agencies to exercise other options, not every animal can be rehabilitated. Dogs and cats at Larimer Humane Society are never euthanized for reasons involving the length of time they have been in our care, or in response to the shelter population. Animals will remain in our adoption center as long as it takes to find them a loving home, provided their health and temperament remain positive.
There are many more examples of this type of messaging on websites and in press releases of public and private animal welfare agencies and ranging from large national organizations to small private agencies.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 33
3.3 SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS ANIMAL SHELTERING POLICY
3.3.1 What is Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering?
Socially Conscious Sheltering is a compassionate, transparent , and thoughtful model outlining how animal shelters and rescues can best support vulnerable animals in their care and in their community. Socially Conscious Sheltering is a shared set of beliefs, defined by a framework of “tenets,” that help ensure the best results for pets in shelters and rescues.
3.3.2 How did the Socially Conscious Sheltering Movement Begin? The movement began because shelter leaders recognized the need to create a shared set of values to guide organizations —values that could be communicated easily and that would share the responsibility for animal welfare with the entire community. Four large animal shelters in Colorado came together to discuss their animal welfare beliefs, including shelter practices. Out of that conversation came the Socially Conscious Sheltering model.
The model was then shared with shelter Chief Executive Officers from across the United States for their feedback, each shelter with different communities, intake policies , and levels of community engagement. The insight was incorporated into the fundamental goals of Socially Conscious Sheltering, and a website, scsheltering.org, was created.
Socially Conscious Sheltering is being embraced by communities across the United States, and it is also being considered in Australia. Additionally, the Association for the Advancement of Animal Welfare will be shepherding Socially Conscious Sheltering as a national initiative. This movement will be most effective when it is owned by the entire animal welfare community. Hundreds of communities are going through the process of engaging their stakeholders to officially join the movement.7
3.3.3 DACC Adopted Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering in 2019 In 2019, DACC adopted the philosophy of “Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering.” According to DACC, Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering strives to create the best outcomes for all animals by treating them respectfully and alleviating their suffering. Fundamental goals of Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering, as stated and adopted by DACC, are provided to:
◆ Ensure every unwanted or homeless pet has a safe place to go for shelter and care. DACC care centers will not turn away animals in need of assistance. ◆ Place every healthy and safe animal. DACC will not offer for adoption animals that are irremediably suffering or dangerous to public safety.
7 http://www.scsheltering.org
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 34 ◆ Assess the medical and behavioral needs of homeless animals and ensure these needs are thoughtfully addressed. DACC, through its medical team and its animal behavior and enrichment team, strives to provide a holistic approach to ensuring each animal’s needs are properly addressed.
◆ Align DACC policy with th e needs of the community. DACC recognizes its responsibility to the public trust, and ensures its programs and policies reflect and support this obligation.
◆ Alleviate suffering and make appropriate euthanasia decisions. DACC often accepts animals that are irremediably suffering and cannot live with severe, unremitting pain or other serious health challenges. In these situations, it is most humane to relieve an animal’s suffering with compassionate euthanasia. ◆ Consider the health and wellness of animals fo r each community when transferring animals. DACC participates in many animal transport programs where animals are taken from DACC’s care centers to areas of the country that are experiencing a shortage of shelter animals. These win -win programs save thousands of animal lives each year. However, it is also important that animals transported through these programs do not suffer from physical or behavioral defects that could endanger animals or people in their new communities. ◆ Enhance the human -animal bond thr ough thoughtful placements and postadoption support. DACC works with potential adopters to ensure the animals they select are suitable matches for their lifestyles, sophistication in animal care and handling, and other factors to make certain the placement is successful. DACC provides postadoption support to adopters to ensure the placement thrives. ◆ Foster a culture of transparency, ethical decision -making, mutual respect, continual learning, and collaboration. DACC remains committed to upholding the highest ethical standards in meeting its mission of protecting people and animals.
In a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, the DACC director stated:
“As I have advised your offices in the past, the term “No-Kill” in the field of animal welfare has created significant problems for animals and the community. The grossly extended length of stay for animals in the shelters, shelters’ willingness to accept unadoptable animals into their care, risky adoption decisions and the return of dangerous dogs into the community, and increased disease and neglect of animals in the facilities are all well - documented results of No-Kill practices. The ‘No-Kill’ philosophy has been discredited among animal welfare professionals across the nation due to countless examples of failed attempts to implement its operational practices. For these reasons, Department of Animal City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 35 Care and Control (DACC) did not embrace the ‘No-Kill’ philosophy and its harmful operational practices. Instead, DACC used many innovative solutions to achieve a high live release rate of animals while serving the community needs. As part of its process of continuous improvement, DACC is now adopting a new and more responsible philosophy that has emerged to ensure safe and humane results for animals and people. This philosophy is called ‘Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering.’” Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering has had wide adoption by animal welfare organizations since its introduction. Based on the reasons cited above, DACC does not endorse “No-Kill” or use the term in reference to its operations.
The concept of Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering and a Sociall y Conscious Animal Community has been embraced formally and informally by many organizations across the United States. As stated above, the endorsement by the Association for the Advancement of Animal Welfare encourages its adoption by both public and private animal sheltering entities. The website www.scsheltering.org shows a map of organizations in the United States that have formally signed on as partners.
3.4 COMMUNITY CATS POLICY
DACC has in place a Community Cats program that adopted nationally recognized best practices regarding the admission of cats. The program was formu lated in consultation with veterinarians that specialize in animal shelter medicine at the UC Davis Koret Shelter medicine program, as well as leading animal welfare organizations around the country. The following is quoted from the DACC website:
At DACC, healthy cats with no signs of illness or injury and without owner identification are encouraged to be kept in place where they were found because they are thriving in their current environment. Many free-roaming cats have a human family or caregiver and vary their time between the home and outdoors. Other times, a home or group of homes is providing food and water to unowned neighborhood cats. These cats have established themselves as part of their neighborhood, are being cared for, and do not need care center assistance.
Bringing these cats to a care center removes them from their home territories, and caregivers generally do not look for them at care centers for many days or weeks, if ever, contributing to the low redemption rate. Deferring healthy stray c ats provides better options for them to remain in their home or group of homes that care for them and where they are thriving. Any cats or kittens that are malnourished, ill, injured, in danger, or require other assistance are welcomed at DACC so they can receive the care and protection they need.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 36 Partnering with the community is key to addressing concerns about outdoor cats and we have increased our resources to help support community members and neighborhood cats.
We offer cat deterrents to residents so t hey may discourage cats from interfering with the residents’ ability to enjoy their homes. Our finder -foster program for underage kittens found without a mother provides free milk replacer and other resources so community volunteers can raise unweaned kittens until they are old enough for adoption.
Spaying and neutering cats is the key to reducing the population of unwanted, ill, and homeless cats. DACC provides the Good Neighbor Cat Spay and Neuter program, where we provide low -cost spay/neuter surgeries f or cats at six of our animal care centers.
Residents may bring in cats to be sterilized to prevent the birth of unwanted kittens. All these approaches chip away at the problems we see for outdoor cats and can, over time, ameliorate many of the concerns.
DACC takes a multi-prong approach to the management of cats within the communities it serves. Having an educational approach and resources to provide spay and neuter and vaccinations, prior to returning healthy “community cats” to the location where they came from is considered a current best practice, reduces euthanasia, and provides a life-saving measure for cats that would not thrive in an animal shelter environment.
This type of approach is endorsed by NACA (National Animal Control Association) and its position statement on community cats can be found at the NACA website.8
3.5 POLICIES ON EUTHANASIA
DACC policies on euthanasia include the policy that no adoptable or treatable animal should be euthanized, including definitions of “adoptable,” “treatable,” and “irremediable suffering.” DACC has extensive and detailed policies on the decision-making process and procedures which include many safeguards to ensure the wrong animal does not get euthanized. The policies specify who can euthanize an animal and def ine how to verify the correct anima l identity (including forms when needed). The policies also include guidelines for veterinary authorization for euthanasia by a department veterinarian and clear direction on not euthanizing an animal during its required holding time. Euthanasia is performed by lethal injection and includes tranquilization and sedation when necessary. Persons authorized to euthanize meet California requirements for certification to perform euthanasia and the legally required record keeping is fully described in the policies.
DACC has a zero-tolerance policy for improper euthanasia or negligent animal abuse. The policies follow current best practices for euthanasia in animal shelters.
8 https://www.nacanet.org/animal-control-intake-of-free-roaming-cats/ City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 37
3.6 FOSTER AND VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS
DACC has a Foster Progr am with clear policies and extensive resources for the fostering of underage kittens and puppies. The Foster Program is active at each of its seven animal care centers.
Volunteers interested in fostering animals receive special training and support. The po licies for fostering are extensive and include such topics as:
◆ Designating animals for foster to increase the animals’ adoptability ◆ Qualifications for persons interested in fostering
◆ Medical care procedures for foster animals
◆ Preparation for an animal designated for foster care
◆ Record-keeping procedures
◆ How to handle emergencies with foster animals
◆ Adoption guidelines
◆ Extensive training manuals for the fostering of kittens and puppies ◆ Recent implementation of a virtual training program for foster caretakers ◆ Special “Finder Foster” protocol/procedures for persons finding an animal.
The Castaic Animal Care Center has approximately 40 volunteers and 46 foster care providers.
Each quarter, the Center averages about 1,000 volunteer hours per month. The Center hos ts volunteer orientations quarterly. For the orientation held in November of 2022, DACC reported:
◆ A total of 89 people were invited
◆ 30 slots open for the orientation
◆ 27 people registered
◆ 12 showed up for orientation
◆ Training will start on November 12
The Winter Quarter Volunteer Orientation was held on February 25, 2023. There were 12 attendees and training has begun for the new volunteers.
This information is included to show the typical volunteer recruitment response seen in animal welfare organizations. Shelters devote resources to recruit and retain volunteer s. Active management of foster and volunteer programs is considered to be a best practice in animal welfare.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 38
3.7 MANAGED INTAKE POLICIES
Managed Intake was adopted by DACC as part of its implementa tion of the animal sheltering model known as Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering. One purpose of Managed Intake is to identify alternative options for stray and unwanted animals entering shelters and provide solutions to the problems that otherwise would bring these animals to the shelter. Managed Intake programs allow agencies to manage and reduce the flow of both owned pets and homeless animals into their care. By reducing the intake of animals from the community, an agency is better able to provide individual care and attention to each animal in its care.
DACC describes community engagement as the key to successfully employing Managed Intake.
It describes its approach as providing the community the appropriate training and resources to allow them to retain their pet or help a lost pet find its way home. It also describes the engagement of volunteers and community partners as key components to a successful Managed Intake approach due to the vast human and material resources they can bring to fostering, net working, facilitating adoptions, or solving problems to allow pets to stay with their owners.
3.7.1 DACC Managed Intake for Owned Pets
When an owner considers relinquishing a pet, DACC follows these steps. ◆ Recommend and offer resources such as training and behavior advice, food and supplies, or support with other solutions to help keep the pet in the home. ◆ Discuss concerns such as medical care costs and housing issues and refer them to resources that will allow them to reconsider surrendering their pets. ◆ For owners frustrated with behavioral problems or lack ing the resources to fix fencing or other one -time needs , DACC offers suggestions and assistance for resolving these issues.
◆ If a pet owner is still unable or unwilling to keep their pet, DACC provides advice to owners about how to rehome their pets themselves and avoid having to surrender their pets to an animal care center.
◆ If the owner is unable to rehome their pet on their own, DACC will accept it and seek the best possible outcome for that animal.
◆ Managed Intake at DACC also assists pet owners experiencing homelessness or other serious , temporary personal situations such as severe illness or domestic violence by referring pet owners in need to resourc es for pet -friendly housing, homelessness services, free veterinary treatment, or free temporary pet boarding.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 39
3.7.2 DACC Managed Intake for Stray Animals
Found Pets
When a member of the public contacts DACC about a found pet, DACC follows these steps. ◆ Encourage people who have found lost pets to first attempt reuniting the pets with their families by having the pets scanned for microchips to identify owner contact information, using neighborhood and social media apps to publicize found pets, and posting fliers in the neighborhood.
◆ Advise on effective pet reunification strategies, provid ing templates for flyers to post in neighborhoods, and offer other suggestions to engage the neighborhood and community.
◆ When finders are not successful, or are unable to engage in these activities, DACC accepts the animals to ensure the safety of both animals and the public.
Community Cats
◆ Healthy, free-roaming cats are generally deferred from impoundment because they are thriving in their current environment.
◆ Free-roaming tame cats may have a family and vary their time between the home and outdoors.
◆ Often a home or group of homes is providing food and water to unowned neighborhood cats.
The return-to-owner rate for cats brought to shelters is less than five percent. This is true for DACC countywide and is also a national trend. Prior to Managed Intake at DACC, approximately 50 percent of impounded cats were euthanized Countywide. That number has dropped dramatically because healthy, free-roaming cats are allowed to remain where they live.
Found Kittens Safety Net
The “Got Kittens” program is thus described by DACC:
DACC addresses the seasonal influx of kittens by educating the public about identifying whether kittens are truly abandoned by their mother and in need of immediate assistance, so that more kittens can remain with their mothers during the critical nursing stage until weaned. This approach is healthier for kittens and improves their chance to later be successfully adopted. If the kittens have actually been abandoned by their mother, DACC provides education and fostering supplies to community members who enjoy caring for them until they are old enough for adoption through DACC or other resources. Underage kittens impounded without their mothers are in fact the most co mmon reason for animal City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 40 euthanasia, and DACC is preventing the unnecessary impoundment of kittens by educating the community and expanding its volunteer foster program.
Any cats or kittens that are malnourished, ill, injured, or require assistance are welcomed at DACC so they can receive the care they need. DACC is also exploring opportunities to expand low-cost spay/neuter services for cats to prevent the birth of unwanted kittens.
3.8 APPOINTMENT-BASED SERVICES
DACC has implemented appointment-only services to eliminate long, in-person customer waiting lines and be better prepared to individualize the provision of resources and the outcome plan for each animal. Appointments are conducted with a case management approach , emphasizing the individual human -animal bond. Preliminary phone interviews are conducted prior to in -person services and can even prevent the need to come to an animal care center. Phone interviews also prepare visitors to ensure proper physical distancing requirements are maintained when in-person services are required.
3.8.1 “Love at First Sight”
Following study and analysis of the impacts of COVID-19, DACC launched an enhanced adoption program titled “Love at First Sight.” The stated purpose of the program is to improve the adoption experience for customers, increase adoption rates, decrease anima ls’ length of stay, and increase efficient use of staff time. Members of the public interested in adoption can self-schedule appointments to view all available animals and adopt on a first -come, first -served basis. The program eliminated waiting lists and opened the kennels for opportunities for the public to make that “love at first sight connection with a new furry family member.”
3.8.2 Availability of Services for Owned Animals
DACC offers vaccinations and microchips by appointment at its animal care cen ters. DACC also has a number of partnerships in place to promote the spaying and neutering of owned pets. These include:
◆ A partnership for low -cost spay and neuter surgeries with a veterinarian in Santa Clarita through a voucher program
◆ Inclusion in the SPAY4LA program, which has mobile clinics ◆ A spay/neuter voucher program.
DACC also has a couple of safety net programs geared toward specific challenges faced by some pet owners. There is specific funding available to assist in the care of pets owned by home less individuals with temporary situations preventing them from being able to care for their animal(s).
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 3—Effect of Policies on Current Sheltering page 41 A second program is available to victims of domestic abuse in need of assistance caring for their animal(s).
3.9 ADOPTION PROMOTIONS
Citygate reviewed t he adoption specials that DACC promoted Countywide in 2022. There have been promotions of adoption discounts or fully waived fees every month. Examples include:
◆ Fees waived for cats and dogs in care for 60 days or longer ◆ Adopt a Shelter Dog – fees waived October 24 through October 31 ◆ Clear the Shelters (month of August) – cat adoption fees waived; dog adoptions $20
◆ Adoptober – cat adoptions $13.
Additionally, the Castaic Animal Care Center participates annually in the Subaru Adoption Event.
This is an event sponsored by the ASPCA where animals from Castaic, Lancaster, and Palmdale Animal Care Centers are brought to a local Subaru dealership to be adopted.
3.10 OUTREACH THROUGH MEDIA
DACC regularly issues press releases to communicate policy changes, announce adoption promotions, advise the public on accomplishments of the Department, and address community concerns.
The DACC website is comprehensive, providing extensive information about its services and fees, animal statistics, procedures, animal care centers, staff, adoption process, how to make a request for service, animal licensing, laws and enforcement, adoptable animals, what to do if your pet is lost, and news releases.
The use of social media has become a vital too l in animal welfare. Competition for the public’s attention has led to creative messaging from shelters seeking homes for pets, volunteers, or foster caregivers. Many shelters have had success utilizing social media to reach a broader audience.
DACC utilizes social media to highlight special events, make the public aware of urgent animals needing adoption, and general requests for assistance from the public when the shelter is full.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 4—Shelter Needs Discussion page 43
SECTION 4—SHELTER NEEDS DISCUSSION
4.1 CAPACITY FOR CARE AT THE CASTAIC ANIMAL CARE CENTER DACC provided a summary of the current animal capacity at the Castaic Animal Care Center.
Table 21—Castaic Animal Care Center – Animal Capacity (2022) Animal Type Max Animals Housed
Cats 56
Dogs 51
Horses 8
Small Livestock 1 (pen)
Other 1 (chicken coop)
1 (reptile enclosure)
Dogs and cats are separated by species. Cats and small pocket pets are housed in a building with centralized climate control systems. Dogs are kept in kennel runs which have access indoors and outdoors. The inside of the dog area is kept cool by swamp coolers, fans, and ice whenever needed; the outside is ambient air cooled by misters whenever needed.
Livestock stalls are outdoor stalls with shade covers. One stall has access to an indoor barn. There are a variety of aquariums and terrariums for smaller and exotic animals with heating sources if they are needed. There is an enclosure for tortoises and one for aquatic turtles which are exposed to ambient air. The chicken coop is exposed to ambient air and has an enclosure as well.
4.1.1 Determining Animal Capacity in Animal Shelters
The method use d to determine animal enclosure capacity is based on two factors: the average animal intake per day , and the targeted length of stay for each animal. To determine the needed enclosure capacity, the formula is to multiply the average animal intake per day by the targeted length of stay.
To determine the capacity requirements for dogs and cats at the Castaic Animal Care Center, Citygate used the numbers for all intakes, not just the animals coming into care from the City. This provides clarifying information on the capacity needed to care for all dogs and cats coming in each year. Citygate analyzed the animal intake and length -of-stay data for all dog and cat intakes averaged from 2017 through 2019. 2020 through 2022 were omitted due to the marked decrease in intakes related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The methodology for calculating the number of enclosures needed is shown in the following table.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 4—Shelter Needs Discussion page 44
Table 22—Calculations for Necessary Enclosures for Dogs and Cats Animal
Intakes Average
Intakes
per Day
Average
Length of
Stay
Number of
Enclosures
Needed 2017 2018 2019 Total Average
Cats 966 1,045 1,193 3,204 1,068 2.9 16.22 47
Dogs 1,534 1,406 1,354 4,294 1,431 3.9 10.34 40.3
As shown previously, t he capacity of 51 spaces for dogs and 56 spaces for cats at the Center exceeds the calculated holding capacity needs. Based on historical statistics from the past five years, the Center has adequate animal capacity.
As described earlier, Citygate is also aware that the Center has foster volunteers and also transfers animals out to adoption partners and rescue groups, both of which help population management.
The Center accepts transfers in to help prevent overcrowding at some of the County’s other animal care centers. This occurs f airly frequently and would not be possible if the center did not have adequate capacity. In addition, although less frequently, the Center transfers animals to other shelters in the DACC system. The purpose of transfers out to other DACC center s could include reducing crowding, provision of specialized medical or behavioral care, local interest in adoption of the specific type or breed of animal being transferred, or release to a rescue or adoption partner.
The Center is also utilized for disaster response and as an evacuation site during emergencies. It has frequently been designated for emergency sheltering operations.
4.2 PHYSICAL PLANT
The Castaic Animal Care Center is an older facility. The site is approximately five acres in size.
The most recent sign ificant renovation was a new clinic and modular office built in 2015. The following is a list of recent capital projects and renovations at the Center, which was provided to Citygate by DACC.
◆ Replacement of asphalt with concrete around the kennel building – 2013 ◆ Construction of a new Spay and Neuter Clinic and modular office building – 2015 ◆ New Care Center Way finding signage – 2019
◆ Electrical panel replacement/upgrade – 2021
◆ New kennel epoxy system in cages – 2021
◆ New epoxy on floor in cat room – 2021
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 4—Shelter Needs Discussion page 45
◆ New concrete floor in cooler – 2021
◆ New asphalt and lighting in parking lot – 2021
◆ New truck wash in wash rack – 2021
◆ New fencing around Emergency Horse Evacuation Area – 2021 ◆ Replacement of commercial washing machine – 2021
◆ Replacement of the HVAC system in the Cat Building – 2021 ◆ Installment of a “Catio” in the Cat Building – 2021
While t he County does not currently have any future capital improvement s scheduled for the center, there may be some areas the City would like to consider partnering with DACC and/or private donors/supporters to upgrade.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 5—Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita page 47 SECTION 5—CURRENT ANIMAL ADVOCACY EFFORTS IN SANTA
CLARITA
5.1 LA COUNTY ANIMAL CARE FOUNDATION
The L os Angeles County Animal Care Foundation is a philanthropic or “ Friends of” type organization in support of the DACC. Santa Clarita City Councilmember Laurene Weste currently serves as a board member for the LA County Animal Care Foundation and is the liaison to the Castaic Animal Care Center. The Foundation’s Board of Directors serve in a voluntary capacity to raise and distribute funds to support the animals served by the seven animal care centers in LA County. Each board member is an independent voting member and receives no payment for their services. The foundation aims to support DACC through fundraising for spay -and-neuter programs, pet adoptions, public education , and animal welfare. The Foundation funds items and services beyond the budget of DACC, often through grant funding and private donations. Some of the current programs include:
◆ Care Vouchers that cover non-emergency veterinary services, dental care, medical grooming, kenneling or boarding, compassionate euthanasia, and pet supplies ◆ Spay/Neuter Vouchers assistance program for pet owners in the unincorporated County and specific cities, including Santa Clarita
◆ Good Neighbor Cat Services providing medical care for free -roaming, unowned cats through community outreach
◆ Vet at the Park offering free medical wellness care to pet owners ◆ Pet Food Pantry
See also the brochure “Pets Are Family” in Appendix A of this report.
5.2 COMMUNITY CORNER SCVTV
SCVTV is the public education channel funded by the City of Santa Clarita. SCVTV’s Community Corner is hosted by Communication s Manager Carrie Lujan. The show has highlighted various animal topics, including:
◆ Renee Focht and Christine Sheriff from the Castaic Animal Care Center have been featured in multiple episodes to introduce pets who are ready for adoption. ◆ Jill Dyche from Outta the Cage was featured in an episode and share d footage on dogs that are ready for adoption.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 5—Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita page 48 ◆ The Gibbon Center was featured in an episode that shared information on the care of gibbons and habitat preservation.
5.3 INFORMAL SOCIAL MEDIA
While the City does not currently lead any animal welfare social media groups, there are a few informal groups in existence geared toward helping pet owners in Santa Clarita. ◆ Lost & Found Pets of SCV (public group on Facebook): This group is dedicated to reuniting lost and found pets with their families from the Santa Clarita Valley.
Images of lost or found pets are posted on the page, giving each pet the attention they need in order to help reunite them with their owners. ◆ Everything Pets in SCV (public group on Facebook): This group provides education and outreach to help pets and their families with general pet information, adoptions, rescues, and urgent pet news.
◆ Friends of the Castaic Shelter (public group on Facebook): This group is dedicated to spotlighting pets available for adoption at the Castaic Animal Shelter. ◆ SCV Wildlife Alert (private group on Facebook): This group provides education and outreach for residents that encounter injured wild animals.
5.4 LOCAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
A few non-profits that assist and provide services for animals are in or near the City. Many also provide education on pet ownership, including importance of spay/neutering. These include:
◆ Brittany Foundation 9 (based in Action, greater Los Angeles service area):
Rescues, rehabilitates, and provides safe shelter for homeless, abused, and abandoned dogs, with a focus on older, handicapped, and less -popular breeds of dogs.
◆ Deaf Dog Rescue of America 10 (based in Santa Clarita, national service area):
Rescues, trains, and places deaf dogs of all breeds. Operates a shelter for deaf dogs. ◆ Furever Purr Rescue11 (based in Santa Clarita): Network of volunteers operates a foster-based cat/kitten rescue. Volunteer fosters take in homeless cats or cats from shelters to foster them until they can be adopted.
9 http://www.brittanyfoundationonline.org/
10 http://www.deafdogrescueofamerica.org/
11 http://www.fureverpurrrescue.org/
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 5—Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita page 49 ◆ Golden Years Dog Sanctuary 12 (based in Sylmar, greater Los Angeles service area): Provides shelter for senior and at -risk dogs, intended to be a last, loving home. Also operates a foster network for dogs and at-risk cats/kittens. ◆ Hank’s Legacy Foundation 13 (based in Santa Clarita): Network of volunteer - fosters for dogs and cats.
◆ Mutt Match LA14 (based in Santa Clarita): Operates an all -breed, all-ages rescue ranch in Santa Clarita, focusing on puppies, seniors, and special-needs cases. Dogs that are not adoptable due to health or behavioral issues remain at the ranch. ◆ Outta the Cage 15 (based in Los Angeles, greater Los Angeles service area ):
Partners with DACC to foster and train dog s that are difficult to place, including seniors, special needs animals, and “dominant” breeds. Also leverage social media to encourage adoptions.
◆ Save a Kitty Inc. 16 (based in Santa Clarita): Currently operates a network of volunteer-fosters for cats/kittens, but is in the process of building a physical shelter.
Provides education on TNR and a TNR program.
◆ Sunny Day Acres 17 (based in Agua Dulce, greater Los Angeles service area):
Provides a shelter facility for animals who were surrendered or cannot be adopt ed to the general public, including dogs, cats, and farm animals. Provides general training for adoptable dogs.
◆ Tails and Scales Animal Rescue 18 (based in Santa Clarita): Operates a foster - based rescue for many animals in need, including dogs, cats, snakes, lizards, and bunnies.
◆ Valencia Trap-Neuter-Release Initiative19 (based in Santa Clarita): Network of volunteers who provide cat rescue and adoption services.
12 https://goldenyearsdogsanctuary.com/
13 https://hankslegacyfoundation.org/
14 https://www.muttmatchla.org/
15 https://outtathecage.org/
16 https://www.saveakittyca.org/
17 https://www.sunnydayacres.org/
18 https://www.facebook.com/TailsandScales/
19 https://www.facebook.com/ValenciaTNR/
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 5—Current Animal Advocacy Efforts in Santa Clarita page 50 There are also a number of non -profits with broader animal conservation and welfare missions, including:
◆ The Gentle Barn 20 (based in Santa Clarita): Their mission is to teach people kindness and compassion to animals, each other, and the planet. Shelters animals, including cows, horses, pigs, turkeys, chickens, sheep, and llamas. ◆ Gibbon Conservation Center21 (based in Santa Clarita): Their mission is to promote the conservation, study, and care of gibbons through public education and habitat preservation. Shelters gibbons, housing the rarest group of apes in the Western Hemisphere. The facilities provide observation and non-invasive research opportunities for students and scientists.
◆ Placerita Canyon Nature Center22 (based in Santa Clarita): The Placerita Canyon Nature Center aims to inspire a passion, awareness, and respect for the environment and pres erve and protect for future generations the history and ecosystem of Placerita Canyon.
20 https://www.gentlebarn.org/
21 https://www.gibboncenter.org/
22 http://www.placerita.org/
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 6—Options for Consideration by the City page 51 SECTION 6—OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY
6.1 OVERVIEW
The current contract with DACC is comprehensive, provid ing all mandates required by law and going beyond mandated services and programs in many areas. However, there are ways to augment the animal services provided to the City and its residents. This section will discuss some options the City may want to consider.
6.2 CITY-SPONSORED EVENTS
The City could partner with DACC on a variety of different types of animal events, for example:
◆ Adoption promotions with high visibility that have been well -promoted could increase adoptions, especially during the times of the year when the shelter is experiencing high capacity (typically spring and summer). ◆ Low-fee (or no-fee) vaccine, microchipping, and licensing clinics held within the City to assist in owner compliance with legal requirements and offer educational and outreach opportunities. These clinics also provide owners with information on pet care, affordable spay -and-neuter services, animal laws, and other information that would promote responsible pet ownership.
◆ Inclusion in City -sponsored disaster preparedness fairs or exercises that would highlight the importance of including pets in your plans and provide information such as checklists or “ go bags” to be prepared for both human and animal family members in case of emergency.
◆ The City and DACC could collaborate on access to affordabl e or free spay and neuter clinics for owned animals, specifically in the City. ◆ The City could also collaborate with DACC by inviting them to have a booth at City events and include special activities. For example, DACC could attend the annual Oktoberfest to host a booth with adoptable animals and organize Weiner Dog Races for owned dogs, which are always very popular.
6.3 WEBSITE, SOCIAL MEDIA, AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
6.3.1 Website
The City currently has information on its website regarding animal control services, and a search of “animal” or “dog license” quickly takes the reader to the page with information on the provision of services by DACC at the Castaic Animal Care Center. While Animal Control is not a City City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 6—Options for Consideration by the City page 52 Department, finding a way to make the servi ces more visible on the website would expand the partnership with the County and promote animal awareness . Adding information such as the following would highlight the City’s commitment to animal welfare:
◆ Directions to the shelter
◆ Hours
◆ Photographs of adoptable animals
◆ Information about volunteering and fostering.
6.3.2 Press Releases
Consider whether including press releases issued by the DACC could be included on the City’s press releases list. Most of the releases are general in nature and provide information that residents who are concerned about animals and animal issues would find interesting.
6.3.3 Social Media
DACC is active in social media posts. Since the City does have active accounts across all the major social media platforms ( e.g., F acebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter), the City may want to consider including local information distributed by DACC in its social media outreach. Content specific to pet adoption or other DACC promotions, services available, upcoming events, or other related topics promoting the care of animals could be featured.
6.3.4 Newsletter
Inclusion of an animal-related article in the City’s monthly newsletter on a regular schedule, such as quarterly. These articles could highlight information about the Castaic Animal Care Center, such as services available, upcoming events at the Center or in the City, volunteering and fostering, animal laws, adoptable animals, how to find lost pets, and the importance of licensing.
6.4 SPECIAL PROJECTS AND EXPANSION OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT The City and DACC could partner on projects to resolve specific issues identified within the City.
Examples could include:
6.4.1 Targeted Trap-Neuter-Release Programs in Areas of Cat Overpopulation DACC and the Los Angeles County Animal Care Foundation offer targeted trap -neuter-release (TNR) programs in collaboration with organized community groups working with community cat caretakers to ensure the population control, health and welfare of free-roaming, unowned cats in the communities. Services include:
◆ Spay or neuter surgery
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 6—Options for Consideration by the City page 53 ◆ Vaccinations for rabies and FCVRP
◆ Flea treatment
◆ Ear tip
◆ Humane euthanasia
◆ Minor medical procedures
There are a number of models for community programs for cats. The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program has information and webinars on its website.23 The national organization Alley Cat Allies is a strong proponent of TNR programs and has extensive information on its website.24 By working with the Foundation and the DACC on targeted TNR programs, the City could build on the successful partnerships that are already in place and better the welfare of community cats throughout the City.
6.4.2 Promotion of Volunteering or Providing Foster Care The City could actively promote citizen involvement at the Center by featuring volunteers or providing information on the foster program through its social media and newsletter.
6.4.3 Community Service Projects for Civic and Youth Groups The City could also promote or sponsor community service projects for civic or youth groups to improve care and engage new partners.
6.5 PHYSICAL PLANT UPGRADES
While maintenance of County facilities is performed by the County, the City could par tner with the County and/or private donors for upgrades to the Castaic Animal Care Center that would expand the facility or improve conditions for the animals. Some possibilities would include:
◆ Upgrading the climate control system in the dog holding area ◆ Expanding dog play areas
◆ Creating a separate isolation area for dogs
◆ Expansion of the adoptable cat habitat area
◆ Addition of designated areas for volunteers
23 https://www.sheltermedicine.com/community-cats-webinar-resources/ 24 https://www.alleycat.org/our-work/trap-neuter-return/ City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 6—Options for Consideration by the City page 54 ◆ Partnering on the purchase of a permanent generator that would help ensure the facility maintains power during emergency sheltering operations.
By partnering with DACC and the LA County Animal Care Foundation the City would generate synergy for capital projects to improve the quality of life for animals during their stay at the Castaic Animal Care Center.
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 7—Findings and Recommendations page 55
SECTION 7—FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 FINDINGS
The following are Citygate’s findings related to this assessment of animal care and control sheltering services for the City of Santa Clarita.
Finding #1: DACC consistently posts its statistics for all of its seven animal care centers on its website.
Finding #2: The effects of COVID -19 caused reductions in animal intakes and led to changes in animal sheltering practices.
Finding #3: The Castaic Animal Care Center has adequate capacity to serve the needs of the cities of Santa Clarita, San Fernando, and the unincorporated portion of L os Angeles County that the shelter is designated to serve.
Finding #4: The Live Release Rate for dogs and cats coming in from the City to the Castaic Animal Care Center has improved over the last five years with the exception of 2021, when the rate dipped before trending back up in 2022.
Finding #5: The number of cat and dog intakes from the City decreased dramatically beginning in 2020—most likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic—but intakes have begun to increase again as of 2022.
Finding #6: The Castaic Animal Care Center transfers animal in from other DACC centers to relieve crowding.
Finding #7: The trends for cat redemptions in the City follow the typically low numbers seen by most animal control agencies.
Finding #8: The DACC has progressive policies and adheres to best practices for animal welfare agencies.
Finding #9: The DACC has extensive and appropriate policies in place for the Foster Program, the Volunteer Program, Managed Intake, Community Cats, and Animal Euthanasia which directly impact the care and welfare of sheltered animals.
Finding #10: DACC does not provide the service of euthanasia for owned pets.
Finding #11: DACC does not have a policy on “No-Kill.”
City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 7—Findings and Recommendations page 56
Finding #12: DACC implemented the Socially Conscious Animal Sheltering philosophy in 2019.
Finding #13: Managed Intake policies have resulted in increasing positive outcomes for animals by reducing the flow of both owned pets and homeless animals into care centers.
Alternatives to impoundment provide more resources and result in increased positive outcomes for the animals that do have to be admitted to animal care centers.
Finding #14: DACC encourages that healthy cats with no signs of illness or injury, and without owner identification, be kept in the place they were found because they are thriving in their current environment. DACC does have resources for population control of feral cats.
Finding #15: DACC utilizes adoption partners and rescue gr oups as a resource to increase its Live Release Rate.
Finding #16: DACC has a number of programs in place to assist owners in need of services or assistance with their pets.
Finding #17: In the event of a surge in intakes —such as a hoarding case or the need for emergency evacuation of a large number of animals —the Center is able to utilize other animal care centers under its management or enter into mutual aid agreements with outside agencies if necessary.
Finding #18: The Castaic Animal Care Center is an older facility. The County has implemented various upgrades, improvements, and renovations in recent years (2013–2021), and the animal areas are climate controlled.
Finding #19: The Los Angeles County Animal Care Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides many benefits to the animals cared for by DACC as well as animals owned by residents in the DACC service area.
Finding #20: There are local non-profits that collaborate with DACC to advocate for animals at the Castaic Animal Care Center.
7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are Citygate’s recommendations related to this assessment of animal care and control sheltering services for the City of Santa Clarita.
Recommendation #1: The City should continue contracting with DACC for animal sheltering in Santa Clarita. The current services and level of service selected by City of Santa Clarita, CA
Animal Care and Control Sheltering Services Assessment
Section 7—Findings and Recommendations page 57
the City meet the current needs of the City’s residents and represent an economy of scale for the City.
Recommendation #2: The City should augment animal care and control services by increasing its collaboration with DACC. A key focus area should be a targeted TNR program for community cats.
Recommendation #3: Partner with DACC on City -sponsored events to increase adopt ions, expand awareness and access to services for owned pets , and provide education and resources related to disaster preparedness.
Recommendation #4: Expand the City website to highlight the Castaic Animal Care Center and its services to the residents of Santa Clarita.
Recommendation #5: Expand the City’s media coverage to more broadly include DACC.
Recommendation #6: Implement special projects in collaboration with DACC to increase citizen involvement.
Recommendation #7: Examine the possibilities of partnering with the County and/or private donors/supporters on physical plant upgrades to the Castaic Animal Care Center.