Please read the comment to my previous post written by a person who says the Charlottesville foster solution will never work in LA.
I have heard dozens of commenters, including Boks, say approximately this: What works elsewhere will not work in LA because LA is so much bigger. It is a loser attitude that has to be overcome. The solutions suggested by successful programs elsewhere should not be tossed aside because LA is not Podunk.
Rather, we should think, "How can we do this in LA?"
My detailed response to the commenter:
Your attitude is that of losing. Instead of can't do, you need a can do attitude.
If you read the Kogut quotes carefully, she said they DEVELOPED a foster program. Fosters beget fosters. Increased fosters led to increased adoptions. Saving kittens became a community project.
As to your numbers, Charlottesville had approximately 1,700 unweaned cats and dogs and a population of 140,000, while LA had 8,000 unweaned animals and a population of 4,000,000.
That is, Los Angeles had fewer than 5 times as many neonatals, but had 27 times the population.
Charlottesville saved almost as many neonatals as LA, 1,700 vs. 2055, but had only 4% of LA's population. No matter how you slice, dice it, or try to analyze their success away, fostering is working there and not here. Why?
Philly, I understand--and I am requesting complete stats now--went from 89% kill to 50% kill in 18 months!!! That is, a 37.5% decrease in kill rate in 18 months or about 25% per year. If this improvment continues, it will be a 50% decrease in two years. It took LA 5 years to accomplish the same thing and there has been no improvment at all under Boks.
Why? Apparently it was a massive mobilization of community rescue partners. Our New Hope program is failing, not improving.
Rather than just say we already have foster programs and New Hope programs, therefore we are doing the standard No-Kill things, we have to understand why our New Hope and foster programs are relative failures compared to Philly and Charlottesville.
You need to compare resources to handle the problem as well as the sheer raw numbers. LA has many, many times more resources that Charlottesville. The LA unweaned problem is small in proportion to the relative resources of the two cities.
Then you complain that the unweaned will survive until they become adoptable kittens and we are not adopting enough now. You assume this will always will be the case. If that is your assumption, of course you are stuck forever. FOREVER!
Kogut said adoptions went up in proportion to fosters, which makes sense. It became a community priority, an attitude that was developed and cultivated. It was not there before. Of course that attitude and committment would be hard to sustain, but it may last long enough for S/N and TNR programs to work.
Her point was you NEED TO DEVELOP SUCCESSFUL PROGRAMS FOR THE PROBLEMS OF YOUR AREA.
Please read carefully what she and others, who say it can be done, propose; think about what they say, and then generate helpful objections.
Now here is Boks’ dilemma: The existing LAAS staff when he became GM would have never been able to do this. They didn't care enough, they were lazy in comparison, and the losers could not be fired.
Since we haven't had a GM report in 6-1/2 months, we do not know how many of the 178 budgeted new employees were added. We do not know whether Boks has hired even one of the needed go-getters. This is his job, to find and develop talent.
We know a massive foster program provably works elsewhere. Why not concentrate on developing a foster program? If we save an additional 4,000 unweaned animals, we cut the overall euth rate by 20%.
Rather than having continuous Boks' sideshows, why not put all of his hitherto PR efforts into developing a foster program using the old employees who do have a lot of energy and do care, along with a few, new go-getters?
As it is, his emphasis appears to be on TNR and S/N. These are long term solutions that do not save animals NOW.
Until we get another 8 vets and the S/N clinics open and TNR becomes a city supported policy, it is a long, long term solution.
A secondary consideration is that LAAS is not one big shelter. It is or will be seven smaller shelters. As Winograd says and Kogut proves by example, it is the shelter manager who makes all the difference. Ed needs finding seven dynamite shelter managers his first priority.