Millions of Dollars & Common Sense

I wanted to take some time to address todays announcement of a new publication by the No Kill Advocacy called Dollars & Sense - The Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control.  I see that No-Kill Delaware is already excited about the publication, and encouraging people to send the link to their county and city officials.  So I want to show those same officials the reality. 

One of the first things I noticed was the absence of Austin TX in the publication.  Since Austin has been discussed in my various posts on this blog, and I addressed the sustainability issue at Working to Help Animals, there is no need to address that issue further.  I guess the advocacy center did not want to explain away the fact that Austin's budget has been increasing over half a million every year.

Reno - Washoe County, NV

The advocacy has chosen to now make Reno their highlighted community in this publication. 

"In just one community, a No Kill initiative yielded $250,000 in increased revenues at a time the shelter also significantly reduced expenditures....Before Reno’s No Kill initiative, the shelter adopted out less than 5,000 dogs and cats every year. The remainder was put to death at great cost to taxpayers and donors. In 2010, as death rates declined, the number of animals adopted doubled to just under 10,000 adoptions. In addition to a cost savings of roughly $200,000 associated with killing, adoption fees brought in almost $250,000 in additional revenues." - NoKill Advocacy, The Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control

I've addressed Reno in previous posts, but I want to look at the numbers more in depth to address the reality that the Reno No-Kill initiative that began in 2006 has not saved taxpayer dollars, it has cost them millions.  Whether you look below at their Regional Animal Services expenses alone (2005 at $3,179,173 vs 2010 at $4,244,328)  or in combination with Nevada Humane (2005 at $5,347,996 vs 2010 at $7,816,195), the reality is that the No-Kill initiative is costing them millions more than before and that is the reality.

Nevada Humane
	Revenue	Expenses
2004	3,410,457.00	3,007,114.00
2005	4,864,256.00	2,168,793.00
2006	2,667,227.00	3,667,694.00
2007	2,206,609.00	3,062,223.00
2008	3,438,898.00	3,676,263.00
2009	2,454,312.00	3,545,476.00
2010	3,277,896.00	3,571,867.00
Washoe Regional Animal Services
	Revenue	Expenses
2004	3,693,216.00	2,920,972.00
2005	3,982,409.00	3,179,173.00
2006	5,510,841.00	3,318,141.00
2007	5,297,703.00	4,132,631.00
2008	5,561,106.00	4,512,437.00
2009	5,173,898.00	4,428,917.00
2010	5,103,791.00	4,244,328.00
Combined Washoe County / Nevada Humane
	Revenue	Expenses
2004	7,103,673.00	5,928,086.00
2005	8,846,665.00	5,347,966.00
2006	9,178,535.00	6,985,835.00
2007	7,504,312.00	7,194,854.00
2008	9,000,004.00	8,188,700.00
2009	7,628,210.00	7,974,393.00
2010	8,381,687.00	7,816,195.00

So while the statement made by the NoKill Advocacy about $250,000 in additional revenues may not be an outright falsehood, it does not address the fact that those 5,000 additional animals are typically in shelter longer requiring care which equals veterinary expenses, salaries for workers to care for them, etc.  Those costs are evident in the increased expenses. 

The statement also ignores the fact that both Austin and Reno do promotions to keep animals moving out the door, and in some cases they are even giving promotional items like in the case of the promotion currently taking place that not only waives the adoption fee, but also gives the adopter a free pet fountain.  So not only did these animals cost the shelter additional resources that they aren't being reimbursed for, they are actually giving adopters a freebie to take the animal.  It amazes me that animal welfare has been warning pet owners about giving their animals to strangers for free forever, but now we are supposed to not be concerned that these free animals aren't going to become lab animals, bait dogs, and who knows what else. 

Sustainability

The new publication also states that No-Kill initiatives are sustainable.  Well this time instead of looking at the increased tax burden in Austin, I will look at the factor that most threatens the sustainability in Reno.  Since 2006 when the No-Kill initiative began, Nevada Humane has had an operating deficit each and every year, and some of those deficits have been susbtantial.   Non-profits aren't in the business to make money, but continual and susbstantial losses not only risks the sustainability of the No-Kill initiative, but also risks the sustainability as an ongoing business concern, and the animals certainly won't be better off if a shelter goes under. 

Nevada Humane
Deficits Since No-Kill Effort Began 2006
2004	403,343.00
2005	2,168,793.00
2006	(1,000,367.00)
2007	(855,614.00)
2008	(237,365.00)
2009	(1,000,164.00)
2010	(293,971.00)

That has also been my concern with CAPA here in Delaware.  Kent County SPCA recently noted in a newspaper article that they lost $450,000 due to the added requirements of CAPA.  Looking at previous financials, the shelter ran fairly efficiently, excesses and deficits were held fairly low.  Now as a result of the Delaware No-Kill initiative, the future of our shelters hang in the balance.  Delaware SPCA began their no-kill journey in 2008, and they have also had susbstantial losses as well ever since then.  No-Kill advocates threaten the viability of our shelters to remain going concerns, and if these shelters succumb as a result of continual losses, it's the animals that will suffer.  Animal care is not free and I do think there are shelters that aren't paid adequately for their service, but as a public service it also needs to be fiscally responsible and show it can be sustained over the long term. 

Economic Impact

I do have to say I found one part of the document laughable.  The statement is shown below.  Since I've already addressed the inaccuracy of the cost savings, and you can see by the revenue numbers that they have in fact gone down since 2005 for Reno, I guess there is no added benefit and only additional costs.

"Moreover, the positive economic impact of economic spending by adopters on those animals to community businesses totaled over $12,000,000 in annual sales. With an average lifespan of roughly 11 years per animal, the total revenues to community businesses over the life of those pets could potentially top $120,000,000. The number is substantially higher given that those impacts are exponential (in Year Two, businesses would benefit from two years worth of adoptions; in Year Three, they would benefit from three years of adoptions; etc.). In addition, not only do those businesses then employ people who turn around and spend even more, all these activities also bring in badly needed tax revenues. At an average 6% rate, adoptions over a ten-year period could potentially bring in over $20,000,000 in sales tax alone.

While many of these economic benefits will be realized regardless of where people get their animals, cost savings and other revenues will not be realized". - NoKill Advocacy, The Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control

But the part that I find most amusing is the economic impact analyis.  As stated, the pet product sales and associated sales tax impacts are realized whether a person gets an animal from a breeder or a shelter, but it also provides breeders with this same argument and the breeders in fact have the additional economic impact of sales revenue from selling puppies.  Needless to say, I think we as a community are more than willing to give up the revenue that puppy mills bring to communities, but I just found it amusing that the advocacy group wanted to use the large numbers for shock and awe, but in the end that statement said absolutely nothing.