AN END TO HAYDEN?

.
Currently the state is supposed to reimburse municipal shelters for the animals they kill. The more animals a shelter kills, the more money they make.

It goes like this:

If the state passes a bill that requires an action by a local government that costs money, the state is supposed to reimburse that entity. The Hayden Act mandated animals be kept four to six days allowing more time for adoption and owners to redeem the animals. This costs the shelters extra money which the state is supposed to pay. The state pays each shelter a fee for every animal it KILLS, not adopts.

Currently, the State Legislative Analyst (LA) recommends immediately repealing that part of Hayden that mandates the 4-6 day hold, thus eliminating it, and beginning a pilot project to reward shelters for the number they adopt.

The LA says the longer holding period has not led to more adoptions, costs money and therefore should be repealed.

Of course, after Hayden is repealed, a pet could be euthanized at will—as before. Then, some time down the line, there would be a pilot project to see if funds for adoption better supports the state’s intent to adopt more animals. Maybe a couple of years down the line the state would begin paying shelters for adopting more animals.

The LA does not consider of doing both: mandating the 4-6 day hold, and while phasing in state supported adoption fees.

How much does County and LAAS get paid now for killing animals?

Apparently the state is way behind reimbursing the shelters and recommends ending the mandatory hold period immediately to pay the old bills.

Get ready for a fight as this is for the 2008-2009 budget, which is voted on in June. (I think)

The Legislative Analyst's Statement:

URL: http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2008/general_govt/gen_anl08018.aspx

Chapter 752, Statutes of 1998 (SB 1785, Hayden), changed state policy regarding shelter care for stray and abandoned animals. Most notably, Chapter 752 (1) declared, “It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home,” and (2) lengthened the time (generally from three days to six) that shelters must care for animals before euthanizing them.

In 2008–09, local governments are expected to claim $23 million for this mandate. Almost all of the cost is for the food, medical care, and space needed to keep animals alive for the Direct Impact of Longer Holding Period.

Throughout the United States, there are many more animals in shelters than there are households looking to adopt pets. Partly because of this imbalance between supply and demand, roughly one–half of the animals entering shelters are euthanized. Chapter 752’s requirement that shelters keep animals alive longer increases the supply of animals in shelters on any specific day. It also gives animal rescue organizations more time to transfer animals to their facilities. This increased supply of adoptable animals (at shelters and rescue facilities) can give households greater choice in selecting a pet to adopt. It does not necessarily mean, however, that more households adopt pets. That is, the mandate does nothing to increase the demand for these animals.

{The stupid analyst does not take into account the longer period allows for a higher owner return rate. Also, it appears the LA is assuming that the demand for animals is fixed, which does not take into account the effects of good marketing. Marketing can increase the public's desire for a pet and also want to adopt them from the shelter rather than a breeder. The LA assumes that the same percentage of people will adopt from the shelter no matter how much more convenient, inexpensive or pleasurable the shelters make adoptions.}

Indirect Effect of Shelter Funding. To increase the number of pets adopted, more households need to adopt pets rather than buy them from stores or breeders. Especially over the last decade, as concern regarding the treatment of animals has grown, many shelters, animal rescue, and humane groups have taken significant steps towards promoting animal adoption.

Does the funding provided under Chapter 752 support these efforts? Our review finds no link between the funding provided under Chapter 752 and programs that encourage animal adoption. Specifically, under the mandate’s reimbursement methodology, shelters do not get more state funds if more households adopt animals. Rather, shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds. Shelters that are the most successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds.

This gap between Chapter 752’s policy goals and mandate reimbursements stems from the requirements of mandate law. Specifically, the California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of required activities—without regard to local success in achieving the desired outcomes.

Because the goals of Chapter 752 are not suited to implementation as a mandate, we recommend the Legislature repeal the elements of Chapter 752 that impose a mandate. We further recommend that the state pay the outstanding costs for this mandate over time. (Reduce Item 8885–295–0001 by $13 million and increase Item 8885–299–0001 by $3 million.)
Given mandate law’s focus on reimbursing local governments for activities, rather than the achievement of policy objectives, few state objectives are suited to implementation as mandates. This is particularly true when the state seeks to encourage local governments to make significant policy changes, such as in the case of Chapter 752.

Because there is no evidence that the longer holding period (or its mandate funding) furthers state policy objectives, we recommend the Legislature repeal this requirement of Chapter 752 (along with the other minor elements of the measure found to be a mandate). This action would eliminate the state’s obligation to reimburse local governments for their increased costs of caring for animals that they euthanize.

If the Legislature wishes to give shelters more incentives to promote animal adoptions, we recommend the Legislature try a different approach. For example, the Legislature could pilot an incentive program that gives funding to those shelters that increase the number of animals successfully adopted. (As a point of reference, based on information provided by the Department of Public Health, the state could give local government shelters $30 for every dog or cat adopted for a total annual cost of about $12 million.)

{The LA says the 2008-09 cost for the current Hayden mandate would be around $20 million. Why not give a $50 bonus for each animal adopted? The LA is only interested in cutting costs.}

Reduce Funding in Budget for Mandates by $13 Million. The Constitution generally requires the Legislature to (1) pay all outstanding bills for a mandate in the upcoming budget or (2) suspend or repeal the mandate. Repealing the Animal Adoption mandate, therefore, would allow the Legislature to remove funds for it from the budget bill. While the funds for this mandate were not identified specifically in the budget bill, we estimate it to be about $13 million. (This amount represents the outstanding costs for this mandate from 2005–06 and 2006–07.)

Summary of Budget Actions. We recommend the Legislature:
§ Repeal the requirements of Chapter 752 found to be a state–reimbursable mandate.

§ Reduce by $13 million the funds provided in the budget bill for this mandate to pay 2005–06 and 2006–07 mandate claims.
§ Increase by $3 million the funds provided in the budget to make a payment for the mandate backlog and prior year Animal Adoption claims.

I don’t think the LA has proven at all that longer holding has not resulted in more adoptions. He cites no study. Nor has he proven that no fewer animals are killed either in numbers or percentages than before Hayden.

He just states this is fact without providing any proof.

In LA adoptions are way up and killing way down compared with to Pre-Hayden. San Francisco killing is way down since Hayden. What affect if any Hayden has one way or the other is not proven. Prove it! Let's do both?