After reviewing the 2000 State Audit, I think I now understand why
The below document has mysteriously all but disappeared from Google, but this one is still online. So far. It can be viewed here
Before issuing a license, the Program conducts pre-license inspections to explain the Program’s rules and regulations and to determine if the facility will be able to comply with the Program’s standards for providing humane care. The Program also conducts routine, unannounced inspections of licensed facilities to ensure they are meeting the requirements for providing humane care. The Program has an informal policy of conducting routine inspections of animal shelters three times a year and pet dealers, bird dealers, and kennels once a year. The Program also investigates complaints regarding such matters as unlicensed operators, inhumane care of animals, diseased animals, unsuitable training and boarding facilities, and collectors who are not in compliance with the Animal Protection Act. When serious deficiencies are found during an inspection or a complaint investigation, the facility is given time to correct the situation and, if necessary, is reinspected. The time frames given for improvement and the consequences of failing to do so are dependent on the severity of the situation. If severe deficiencies exist at the time of inspection, the Program may issue a stopsale order or stop-movement order that prevents the facility from selling, relocating, or placing for adoption any of its animals until the problem is resolved. In cases in which a veterinarian diagnoses diseases that are communicable to humans or other animals, the Program can issue a quarantine order. Facilities that continually fail to meet minimum requirements may be called in for a violation hearing in which the steps needed to comply with the standards are explained, or for a settlement conference in which disciplinary action is taken. The Department has the authority to suspend or revoke a facility’s license. If a facility is found to be operating without a license, the Program notifies the facility of the licensure requirement, provides a copy of the standards that must be met to obtain a license, and schedules a pre-license inspection. If a facility operating without a license has been previously notified of the licensure requirement, it may be cited for operating without a license.
In calendar year 2000 (as of October 31st) the Program had conducted 1,796 inspections and 112 reinspections. The Program had handled 313 complaints and issued 21 stop-sale and/or stop-movement orders and 33 quarantine orders.
The audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards for performance audits and focused on data from calendar years 1998 and 1999 as well as fiscal year 2000. The audit methodology included reviews of Program records and interviews with Program personnel. This report has been discussed with appropriate personnel representing the Department. A draft copy was also provided for their review and comment. Pertinent responses received from the Department have been included in the report as appropriate.
The Department agrees that accurate information should be compiled for evaluating the Program’s overall effectiveness.
1 According to the Animal Protection Act, humane care of animals is defined as the provision of adequate heat, ventilation, sanitary shelter, and wholesome and adequate food and water.
The Governor’s Budget Reports for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 include two objectives (desired results) for the Animal Protection Program:
(1) at least 96% of the licensed facilities inspected will meet the legal standards of humane care 1, and
(2) 96% of the facilities cited for not providing humane care will be reinspected and brought into compliance or will be subjected to license revocation and/or a settlement conference.
Complete data was not available, however, for determining the Program’s effectiveness in meeting these objectives. The Budget Report for fiscal year 2001, for example, indicates that 96% (241) of 250 facilities cited for noncompliance in fiscal year 1999 were brought into compliance or subject to disciplinary action.
The Department has indicated that support for these numbers had been generated by hand and was no longer available.
In an effort to assess the Program’s effectiveness in meeting its stated objectives, the audit team conducted a file review of routine inspections completed during the period January through June 2000. Of the 611 facilities inspected by the Program, approximately 97% met the legal standards of humane care (which was in line with the Program’s objectives).
A separate review of violation notices issued during the period found that only 64% of the facilities cited for violations were brought into compliance at the first reinspection.
It should be noted that complete information was available for only 33 of the 62 facilities cited for violations during the period reviewed.
By compiling accurate inspection data, the Program would be able to monitor its effectiveness on an ongoing basis.
The Department of Agriculture has agreed that a management information system should be developed that would enable the Program to operate in a more efficient and effective manner.
Although the Program is responsible for regulating approximately 2,200 bird dealers, pet dealers, kennels, and animal shelters, it is dependent on a manual system to keep track of thousands of inspections, reinspections, and complaints. The only computerized records available to Program personnel do not provide Program management with the summary data necessary to implement strong internal controls.
As it currently functions, the Program cannot ensure that inspections are being conducted as required, that citizens’ complaints are being investigated in a thorough and timely manner, or that Program inspectors are making optimal use of their available work hours. The type of summary data and internal controls needed by the Program to improve the inspection process, complaint-handling procedures and employee productivity are addressed in the following recommendations.
The Animal Protection Program has agreed that it should take steps to improve all phases of the inspection process, from scheduling inspections to following up on violations.
Currently, the Program does not have the type of summary information or controls needed to ensure that pet dealers and other facilities are being inspected in a timely, thorough, and consistent manner.
Summary data is not readily available to identify facilities that have not been inspected in the previous calendar year, to determine if inspectors are reasonably consistent in citing facilities for violating Program regulations, or if facilities cited for violations take corrective action as required.
Reviews of the Program’s files also disclosed that a number of inspection reports and reinspection reports could not be located. These issues are further discussed below.
· Although the Program allows its inspectors to schedule their own inspections, it cannot ensure that priority is given to those facilities that have not been inspected in the previous calendar year. Program policy, however, specifies that pet dealers, bird dealers, and kennels will be inspected once a year and animal shelters will be inspected three times a year.
A file review of 100 facilities that were licensed in both calendar years 1998 and 1999 found that inspection reports were not on file to verify that 24 of the facilities (including eight animal shelters) had been inspected during the two-year period.
In its response, the Department indicated that its productivity was impacted by a shortage of trained personnel and by budgetary constraints.
· Summary data is not readily available for Program management to determine if its inspectors are reasonably consistent in citing facilities for violations of Program regulations. A manual review of all of the violation notices issued by the Program during a six-month period found significant differences in the number and percentage of facilities cited by the inspectors for violating one or more of the Program regulations. Among the seven inspectors who conducted 50 or more inspections, the percentage of facilities cited for violations ranged from 0% (0 of 149 inspections) to 6% (26 of 442 inspections). As noted in the response to this report, the inspector who did not find any violations is no longer with the Department.
As it currently functions, the Program cannot provide reasonable assurances that facilities with serious deficiencies are reinspected as required.
Of the 62 facilities cited for deficiencies during a six-month period, files could not be located for 10 of the facilities and notices of violation could not be located for two facilities.
Of the remaining 55 facilities, reinspection reports could not be located for 17 facilities.
Implementation of a management information system would enable the Program to do a better job of ensuring that inspections are conducted in a timely and consistent manner and that reinspections are conducted as required.
The Program has agreed that internal controls should be implemented for ensuring that complaints are addressed in a thorough and timely manner.
Currently, the Program does not have a computerized system for tracking complaints to ensure that they have been investigated and satisfactorily resolved.
A review of 115 complaints received by the Program in fiscal year 2000 found that 50% (58) did not have documentation readily available to verify they had been investigated.
Examples of these 58 complaints include: diseased animals; animals living in feces; dogs that were beaten and not fed; malnourished animals with abnormal-sized stomachs; and failure to dispose of dead animals.
For those complaints that had been investigated, the inspectors’ findings could not always be determined; in some cases, it could not be verified that the complaint had been resolved.
The Program has agreed to implement additional controls for monitoring its inspectors’ work activities.
Although Program inspectors are required to indicate the start and stop times on their inspection reports, this data has not been used to develop productivity standards for each type of facility inspected. As a result, the Program has not developed an effective system of internal controls for monitoring the inspectors’ workloads. A review conducted by the audit team found significant differences in the total number of inspections conducted by each inspector during the second half of fiscal year 2000. Among the four inspectors who were employed by the Program during the entire six-month period (excluding supervisory personnel), the total number of inspections ranged from 93 to 442. While driving times and other factors may have contributed to these differences, the data indicates a need for the Program to develop better procedures for monitoring its inspectors’ work activities.
Procedures should be developed to en-sure that disciplinary action is taken in a timely manner against facilities that are not providing adequate care to animals.
Currently, the Program will conduct multiple reinspections of problem facilities to try to bring them into compliance rather than take disciplinary action such as holding a settlement conference.
No guidelines have been established, however, for determining when the conditions at a facility warrant taking disciplinary action. Because the Program does not have a management information system with summary data for each facility, the number of facilities that have been cited for repeat violations could not be determined. Manual reviews of inspection reports, however, did identify cases in which no disciplinary action had been taken despite repeated violations of the Program’s rules.
In one case, for example, the Program determined that a breeder was not providing humane care for his dogs on November 23 and December 28, 1999 and again on January 10, 2000. Most of the problems had been corrected by February 10, 2000, and all of the problems were found to have been corrected on May 31, 2000.
Other than issuing a stop-sale order on November 23 (for three dogs that had mange), no disciplinary action was taken against the breeder.
In its response, the Department noted that this situation occurred during the time a new director was taking over the Program.
In another case, the Program found that an animal shelter had inadequate drainage and poor record-keeping procedures during inspections conducted on January 19, February 8, and February 29. 2000. Although it was not clear from subsequent reports if the facility had corrected the problems, no penalty was levied against the facility.
A routine inspection conducted in July 2000 found the same problems.
The Department has noted that it is still working to resolve this conflict involving another state agency and a county facility.
If the Program had the specific authority to issue citations and fine facilities when violations are found, it could take disciplinary action in a more timely manner. Implementation of this recommendation may require a change to the Animal Protection Act.
The Program needs to continue to revise its inspection procedures to make more effective utilization of its available resources.
Our review of the Program’s operations found that the Program could improve its overall efficiency by prioritizing the frequency of its inspections, reducing the amount of writing required to complete the inspection reports, and eliminating redundant inspection forms. These issues are discussed below.
· The Program should focus its inspections on those types of facilities that pose the greatest potential risk of providing inhumane care to animals. Currently, the Program has a policy of inspecting animal shelters three times a year and all other types of facilities once a year. Pet shops, for example, that are visited by consumers every day, are inspected just as often as animal breeders whose facilities may not be subject to routine public scrutiny.
The Program also licenses and inspects grooming facilities even though these facilities are not specifically addressed in the Animal Protection Act.
· The Program should also take steps to reduce the amount of time its inspectors spend preparing the inspection reports.
An on-site observation of two field inspections found that it took longer to prepare the reports than it took to conduct the inspections even though no significant violations were found.
The amount of time spent preparing inspection reports should be reduced.
In addition to completing a checklist indicating a facility's compliance or noncompliance with specific requirements, the inspectors also write out a description of what they found regarding each item, including those with which the facility was in compliance. The inspectors also write out descriptive information about the facility that is identical to information contained on prior reports (such as the size of the facility).
In addition to completing a checklist indicating a facility’s compliance or noncompliance with specific requirements, the inspectors also write out a description of what they found regarding each item, including those with which the facility was in compliance. The inspectors also write out descriptive information about the facility that is identical to information contained on prior reports (such as the size of the facility).
Program personnel have indicated that the narrative information is required in case disciplinary action is taken against the facility and to develop an inspection history of the facility. Copies of inspection reports are purged every two years, however, preventing the compilation of any type of long-term data.
· The Program should also revise its procedures so that inspectors are not required to prepare separate inspection reports for facilities that are licensed as both a pet dealer and a bird dealer. The Program should focus its inspections on those facilities that pose the greatest potential risk and take steps to reduce the amount of time spent preparing inspection reports. The Program has indicated that it no longer requires its inspectors to prepare a detailed report when no violations are found and that it is revising the inspection form.
The Program agrees that it should more actively pursue facilities unlawfully operating without a license.
Currently, the Program does not aggressively pursue facilities that may be operating without a license. According to Program management, the Program does not have the resources necessary to pursue unlicensed dealers or operators. As a result, unlicensed facilities are identified only when an inspector notices an unfamiliar facility, when the Program receives a complaint about an unlicensed facility, or when an unlicensed facility applies for licensure.
To assess the prevalence of unlicensed facilities, the audit team conducted a cursory review of
The Program agrees that steps should be taken to reduce employee turnover.
In calendar years 1998 and 1999, the Program lost a total of seven inspectors. Of the 11 inspectors currently with the Program, eight have less than two years’ experience. According to Program management, the primary reason for the turnover is low pay. The most recent starting salary for inspectors is $19,076 (for Inspector I); the maximum salary is $34,020 (for Inspector II). It should be noted that in an internal Memorandum requesting additional positions, Division management attributed many of the Program’s current weaknesses to a lack of trained inspectors.
The Program has agreed that the dollar amount of the license fees should be revised so that, as required by state law, the license revenue approximates the cost of administering the Program.
In fiscal year 2000, the Program’s revenue from license fees totaled $117,160, an amount equal to only 25% of its $460,498 in expenses. Both the Bird Dealers’ Act and the Animal Protection Act, specify that the fees shall be set so that the revenue derived from licenses shall approximate the total cost of administering [the Program]. (See footnote 1 on the following page.) The Acts specify that the Commissioner may establish different fees for different types of licenses but the annual fee for any license may not exceed $200. The Program’s current license fees are shown below.
Exhibit 2
LICENSE FEES
Animal Shelter: $50
Pet Dealer/Bird Dealer:
up to $50,000 in sales: $50
$50,001 to $100,000 in sales: $100
over $100,000 in sales: $200
Kennel:
capacity for up to 50 animals: $50
capacity for 51 to 100 animals: $100
capacity for over 100 animals: $200
As indicated above, license fees are currently set at $50, $100, and $200 depending on the amount of revenue a facility generates or the number of cages a kennel uses. A review of licensed facilities revealed that 93% of the facilities purchased a $50 license, the least expensive available. It should be noted that the Program does not document the amount of revenue a pet dealer or bird dealer generates to determine if the dealer is paying the correct fee. The license fees should be revised so that the annual license revenue approximates the annual cost of operating the Program. Based on the current number of licensees (approximately 2,200), the revenue derived from license fees would approximate the cost of the Program if every licensee were charged a license fee of $200 (the maximum allowed under current law).
1 The Animal Protection Act specifies that the … revenue derived from licenses shall approximate the total direct cost of administering [the Program]. The Bird Dealer Licensing Act specifies that the ….… revenue derived from licenses shall approximate the total direct and indirect cost of administering [the Program.
bravenet.com