Stray Stats 

The Data

To help us embark on the creation of this application we needed professionals that could review our data and compile it in a way that trends could be easily interpreted.  Hiring consultants to undertake such a large project would be time consuming and costly, so we looked to Washington University for assistance.  The University offered a program through the Taylor Community Consulting Program that could provide us with that assistance.  Student consulting teams help participating nonprofit organizations perform more effectively by providing short-term, pro bono business counseling and expertise.  Many nonprofits compete, often unsuccessfully year-after-year, to be awarded the opportunity to work with these students, some of the future's brightest minds in the business world.  The APA presented two challenges to the MBA graduate students and faculty and was ecstatic to be awarded both.

At the start of the project the APA provided the students with all of its intake statistics dating back to 2005.  This year was chosen as our marker because it represented the first year the shelter was completely computerized and the information would be easy to extract.*  This information was used to create the base structure of a spreadsheet that would chart animal intakes by a number of categories, such as zip code.  Once the structure was completed the APA approached the Humane Society of Missouri and St. Louis County Animal Care and Control, explained the idea behind the project and requested their intake statistics for input into our new database.  What resulted was a complex spreadsheet with multiple options for showing a variety of data.  The application  made it easy to enter data, it had longevity, and it presented simple and easy to understand graphs to track the trends of animal movement in St. Louis.

The first and most glaring statistic identified from this database was the large increase in animals from city zip codes that started entering both the Humane Society of Missouri and the APA in June of 2010.  It was higher than previous years and was showing a trend of continuing at that rising level.  We also identified that this was the same month that the City of St. Louis ceased providing animal control services.  At this time we sent a letter to the Mayor’s office to alert him of the findings and relay our concerns about the trends we were seeing and the danger this could pose.  We received no response.

We continued to enter our collective data into the database each month.  By the start of 2011, it became clear that there was a serious problem that needed to be addressed.  The number of animals entering our shelters from the city, both stray and owner-relinquished, and the number of phone calls our agencies had received regarding city animal control issues made it clear that there was a larger problem arising.  We then sent our most recent letter to the Mayor addressing these concerns.

Each animal shelter in the St. Louis area assists animals from very different backgrounds.  No one agency can successfully absorb and adopt all of the street dogs, owner-surrendered pets, puppy mill and hoarding survivors.   What the information gathered from this project shows is that the best course of action is to clearly define to the public each agency’s role in animal welfare so the appropriate solutions are found.  Each agency performs a specific and needed service and it is unrealistic to think that one agency’s mission is more important than another’s.  It is also unwise to think that publicly focusing on the philosophical and policy differences between the agencies helps in any way in reducing the amount of pets entering our facilities.  The results will prove to be the opposite: a confused public and a distrust of the very agencies that are needed to provide care for these animals.

The Future

We also hope that the City of St. Louis will not abrogate its moral, ethical and legal responsibilities to safeguard the safety and welfare of its citizens and their pets.   The nonprofit agencies are doing the best they can to handle the influx of animals, but even more lives would be saved if the city provided the services they are required to provide.  Nearly 50,000 animals enter into the shelter systems in St. Louis every year, and nearly 23,000 animals are put to sleep.  No one agency has the ability to care for this excess of homeless pets nor have any offered a reasonable solution on where these pets should go.  Solutions for reducing this number must be based on accurate data, and strategies must be put in place based on that learned information.  Every shelter has the same goal of reducing the amount of euthanasia that occurs, but the city’s solution of simply not providing required services increases the amount of euthanasia the other shelters have to perform.  Is that really no-kill?