Thanks for Four Years of Awesome
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Blogged Around Philly: Farewell Edition
Photoist
Author's note: As we were drafting this writeup yesterday, we received word that an article on this topic by Stu Bykofsky would be running in this morning's Daily News. At the risk of being redundant in light of the Bykofsky article, we offer our own take on the city animal services contract situation.
Disclaimer: The author is a PAWS volunteer. To the extent the objectivity of this post can be questioned, question away. We're not claiming to be objective here.
In case you didn't know, our good friends at PAWS represent the adoption branch of the Philadelphia Animal Care & Control Association, which has been the city's contractor for animal services for the last several years. Here's an example of how it worked (in an admittedly oversimplified way): When a person saw a stray animal, he or she would call the city (or PACCA directly), for PACCA to catch the animal. When the PACCA workers caught the animal, if it was adoptable, they would turn it over to PAWS so that it could be adopted out.
Since PAWS was formed to coordinate adoptions for the animals brought in through PACCA, the "save rate" for animals processed through PAWS has jumped from a horrific 11% to nearly 70%. That jump is even more impressive when you consider that the number of animals coming into the PAWS shelter has increased by 10 to 15% in the same time frame. So, PACCA is bringing in a larger number of animals, and saving an exponentially larger percentage of those animals than the city had been before PAWS was formed.
A few weeks ago, the city renewed its contract with PACCA, so that PACCA would continue to provide the animal services for the city—and, by extension, adopt out as many animals as possible through PAWS (with occasional assistance from other shelters and rescue organizations, including the PSPCA). The contract was to run through next July. Then, last week, the city put out a Request for Proposals for a brand new contract for animal services (really, animal control), to take effect January 1, 2009.
Essentially, the RFP request means that the city is yanking PACCA's contract and will be turning animal services over to another organization, most likely the PSPCA. PACCA isn't even going to bid on the new contract because it would be "futile," according to PACCA Board President John Martini. By putting out the RFP in the first place, the city is really indicating that it wants to give PACCA the boot. Editorially, we'd like to see PACCA bid on the contract, specifically to force the city to explicitly reject PACCA and explain itself, rather than PACCA just giving up on the contract.
In essence, the RFP looks like a cost-cutting move on the city's part. PACCA's budget is upwards of $3 million, and PACCA has about 60 employees. The RFP calls for a budget cap of $3 million, and about 40 employees. Three million bucks may sound like a lot of money, and 40 employees may sound like a decent number, but in reality, PACCA is underfunded and understaffed. And now the city wants to short-change its animals further by depleting the rescue resources available to it.
Here's the thing about the RFP that makes the hair on the back of our neck stand up. It's looking for a "catch and kill" animal control program. And the city isn't even disputing that. From today's Bykofsky article:
Some in the animal-welfare community fear that the RFP is offering a "catch and kill" contract. [City Health Commissioner Dr. Donald] Schwarz calls that "an unfortunate use of the phrase."
An unfortunate use of the phrase. Not "inaccurate." Not "misleading." It's just unfortunate. True, but unfortunate. You've got to be shitting us.
Moving on, in the "Contractor Duties" section of the RFP, the city states that one of the primary duties of the contractor will be to "[p]urchase equipment, supplies and transport vehicle(s) necessary to capture, convey, keep, detain, hold, euthanize, or dispose" the animals. The RFP doesn't include a single word about establishing an adoption program or providing facilities that are appropriate for the public to come and see potential pets. It's not that the city doesn't contemplate adoption as a component of animal control; the RFP does mention that the contractor will have to "[p]rovide spaying or neutering for all animals adopted out of the shelter," but it doesn't actually require the contractor to adopt the animals out in the first instance.
This is less about PACCA losing the city contract than it is about the animals losing, period. So many questions are hanging out there right now:
- With the city providing for fewer resources in terms of funding and manpower available for animal services could any organization, specifically the PSPCA, run anything but a catch and kill program under the contract?
- If (or rather, when) the contract goes to the PSPCA, what will become of the PAWS adoption program? Will PAWS volunteers—almost all of whom are advocates for Pit Bulls—support the PSPCA, which had an anti-Pit Bull reputation until only recently (and we've heard it suggested that the PSCPA's about-face on Pit Bulls was a purely strategic PR move in order to angle for the city contract)?
- If the city wanted to save money on animal services, why didn't it ever devote some of its resources to enforcing licensing laws (a task that, theoretically, the animal services contractor is responsible for; but with resources for animal services already scarce, has been more or less impossible for PACCA to perform) and establishing the City Code-mandated Animal Control Fund, which would fund animal services and which, to our knowledge, doesn't exist.
- Is there any hope for Philadelphia ever becoming a No-Kill (i.e., a save rate of at least 85%) city?
Sadly, none of these questions have answers at the moment. Things will continue to unfold in the coming days and weeks, as bids in response to the RFP are due October 17. As we learn more, we'll pass the information along. In the meantime, we encourage you to check out Citizens for a No-Kill Philadelphia, which is run by a PAWS volunteer who believes that the city contract should stay with PACCA (and explains exactly why on the website).
Image Credit: Flickr user rumble1973
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit