Question About 95% Rehoming Rate At Das Pound , Act

[Diana R]

Arghh - triple post!

Edited August 31, 2014 by Diana R

[Diana R]

Sorry!

Edited August 31, 2014 by Diana R

[Diana R]

Further to the points Steve has raised, it's important to remember that stats aren't the best or most informative way of assessing org performance too. They don't reflect population make up at each step, welfare of the dogs while at the org (a huge one), welfare of staff and volunteers, or how successful placements actually were (although you can sometimes get a feel for this from return rates, really bad orgs won't necessarily have high return rates regardless though, as people simply don't take the dog back but rehome it in other ways). Most importantly, stats will never reflect how good a job an org does at keeping pets in their homes, so they don't become a statistic. Community support pre-surrender and education and support programs (for new families, victims of domestic violence, owners who struggle financially etc) are a huge way that pounds and sheltrrs can improve welfare... but none of that is reflected by stats.

Just my opinion, but I worry that the focus on stats will lead to more effort being expended on keeping the public happy with 'good' numbers, while taking already limited resources away from other important issues (I know this already happens in several facilities in my state).

[Little Gifts]

Sorry Diana but I don't totally agree. Stats are always going to be tangible performance indicators regardless of what organisation you are talking about. But to me a bottom line is still a bottom line. 1000 dogs in. 800 dogs out. Then you keep breaking that down and making sense of those numbers. Of the 1000 dogs in if 200 of those were returns then it indicates a problem area that could be addressed with other operational programs (if that organisation was so inclined). If of those 800 dogs out 400 of them were euthanized then you would be drilling down further to identify the reasons for pts to see where changes could best be targeted (if again, you were so inclined to seek improvement). I'm also big on looking at overall figures against overall incoming and outgoing dollars as that will often tell you how closely an organisation is to working against it's own organisational goals. Are they about animals or money?

Animal and social welfare organisations always face a dilemma in how they reflect their preventative work and how they can predict 'service growth' in stats. That's why most annual reports for large orgs are not just statistical. And that's why they happen every year so you can see how the preventative programs and other operational changes may be positively impacting on those bottom line figures. And of course those bottom line figures should also be reflective of the values an organisation espouses. So if we are talking animal welfare and a reduction in kill rates then if I am not seeing that in the bottom line and in the money I'd be wanting to know why. Don't pretend you are about animal welfare yet have a big fat bank account and appalling stats (looking at you RSPCA).

I used to work in statutory child protection for many years and as you can imagine, making our stats look pretty wasn't an easy task. Constant growth in all the stats you wouldn't want to see partly because of population growth, partly because of socio economic factors in some geographical areas (which will skew overall stats) and never seemingly improved through all the money thrown at prevention. But it is what it is and like animal welfare it can simply be a reflection of social deterioration. We can justify bad figures all we want but if we don't know what it looks like then we can't ever hope to find a solution. And if the stats aren't easy to understand then you have to ask yourself why, what are they trying to hide or have misinterpreted?

I'd like to think the general public are horrified by scary and unacceptable stats but I doubt the majority actually care a whole lot as it doesn't affect them on a day to day basis. But they are important to other animal welfare groups when thoughtfully considered (along with the corresponding break down stats and background text) and quoted sensibly.

[Steve]

Sorry Diana but I don't totally agree. Stats are always going to be tangible performance indicators regardless of what organisation you are talking about. But to me a bottom line is still a bottom line. 1000 dogs in. 800 dogs out. Then you keep breaking that down and making sense of those numbers. Of the 1000 dogs in if 200 of those were returns then it indicates a problem area that could be addressed with other operational programs (if that organisation was so inclined). If of those 800 dogs out 400 of them were euthanized then you would be drilling down further to identify the reasons for pts to see where changes could best be targeted (if again, you were so inclined to seek improvement). I'm also big on looking at overall figures against overall incoming and outgoing dollars as that will often tell you how closely an organisation is to working against it's own organisational goals. Are they about animals or money?

Animal and social welfare organisations always face a dilemma in how they reflect their preventative work and how they can predict 'service growth' in stats. That's why most annual reports for large orgs are not just statistical. And that's why they happen every year so you can see how the preventative programs and other operational changes may be positively impacting on those bottom line figures. And of course those bottom line figures should also be reflective of the values an organisation espouses. So if we are talking animal welfare and a reduction in kill rates then if I am not seeing that in the bottom line and in the money I'd be wanting to know why. Don't pretend you are about animal welfare yet have a big fat bank account and appalling stats (looking at you RSPCA).

I used to work in statutory child protection for many years and as you can imagine, making our stats look pretty wasn't an easy task. Constant growth in all the stats you wouldn't want to see partly because of population growth, partly because of socio economic factors in some geographical areas (which will skew overall stats) and never seemingly improved through all the money thrown at prevention. But it is what it is and like animal welfare it can simply be a reflection of social deterioration. We can justify bad figures all we want but if we don't know what it looks like then we can't ever hope to find a solution. And if the stats aren't easy to understand then you have to ask yourself why, what are they trying to hide or have misinterpreted?

I'd like to think the general public are horrified by scary and unacceptable stats but I doubt the majority actually care a whole lot as it doesn't affect them on a day to day basis. But they are important to other animal welfare groups when thoughtfully considered (along with the corresponding break down stats and background text) and quoted sensibly.

Stats are great for giving them a bit of a snap shot on how they are doing where they need to change, how they can better manage money andanimals, etc and if you are clever enough it encourages supporters and donations.

As it stands now whenever someone quotes stats at me to tell me why they want new laws or regulations or blame one group or one type for thestate of affairs etc or what sort of job they are doing to build their credibility I would take any released with suspicion. There are loads of things which go on behind closed doors and secret squirrel stuff happens to protect a reputation or a brand and the only visibility is the one they want to share. Some would say that's fair enough if you are looking at the human element or their ability to do what they think and have decided is what is best for the dogs.

But in my opinion this shouldn't be about the humans before it's about the dogs .if the focus were on keeping the stats to answer questions and collectively work out real life potential management options to prevent dogs coming in and ensuring the best outcome when they do we might be able toone day see the way clear to addressing and eliminating the problem with knowledge rather than guesses or at best educated guesses based on what somegroup has seen or think they have observed in their area.If stats were kept under one protocol with some type of accountability and they ALL told us

1. Where the dog came from and the reason given for surrenders

2. Where the owner who is surrendering the dog got their dog from

3. What condition the dog was in when it came in

4. What expenses and or man hours were required to prepare it for rehoming

5. How many were rehomed, how many were put to sleep how many stay for years.

6. What level of temperament and basic good manners the dog had at in and out

7. How many are desexed when they arrive

8. How many are sick when they arrive

9. How many are old when they arrive

10. How many are puppies when they arrive

11. How many are pregnant when they arrive

12. How many have already been "saved" by any other org previously.

13. Wha tis the turnaround time

14. Probably a bunch more

Then we could really do some realistic research and knowwhat needs to be done to have a go at slowing down the supply. At this point intime it would be easier to teach big fat feral pigs to fly.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Steve

[khaleesi]

I agree with Diana that stats aren't everything and that there are many other important factors to consider such as the welfare of the animals, whether they have do a good job of screening potential adopters etc. However I still maintain that they provide some very useful insights, particularly if you want to look at state differences, or look at trends over time?

Last week just out of curiosity I did a quick graph of the reclaim rates (returned to original owners) of dogs at the RSPCA ACT using their freely available stats. http://imgur.com/4YHMZ2t There is a clear increasing trend in reclaim rates with more of the incoming dogs being returned to their owners. In 2008 compulsory microchipping was introduced, and this could perhaps explain the increase seen particularly from that year onwards?

As a side note, I actually think it is very useful to separate out reclaim rates and rehome rates as they are very different processes and require different strategies to improve. To increase reclaim rates you need to educate the public about microchips etc, to have reasonable fees to release dogs that people can reasonably afford to pay while still acting as a 'stick' or disincentive, reasonable opening hours, a user-friendly website with photos or a list of dogs at the pound so people can see if their pooch is there etc.

To increase rehome rates the pound might advertise the dogs, work with rescues etc.

Of course also as Diana said the makeup of the population has to be considered. For example some geographical areas of Australia might have much higher % of dogs that are surrendered, whereas others might have a much higher % of seized dogs. When interpreting the statistics and doing intrer-shelter comparisons this can easily be taken into account if the stats were made available.

[BarbedWire]

Over the past few months DAS doesn't seem to have as many dogs as usual. I have no idea why. Not many if any are being transferred from the RSPCA. Previously there were about four each week.

I wonder if it is compulsory microchipping making a difference to the stats because I don't think it is being policed. Maybe there is another reason. Perhaps dog ownership is declining.

[Simply Grand]

RSPCA ACT has made changes to its operating procedures since the new CEO started there, with a specific aim being reducing the number of dogs sent to DAS. Sounds like it could be working sarsaparilla.

Edited September 2, 2014 by Simply Grand

[keetamouse]

The main reason dogs are sent to DAS from the RSPCA is because their quarantine pens are full if they only have 10 quarantine pens and 20 dogs come in then 10 go to DAS.

They could have 20 empty pens in the dogs for rehoming section but still have to send those 10 to DAS

Maree

CPR

Edited September 3, 2014 by keetamouse