Boks' Numbers Manipulation? Part II

Part II Boks and Numbers

There are two issues with regard to Boks’ statistics in Phoenix, New York and LA. Neither would be illegal, but both would be deceptive.

The first allegation is that Boks just changed the Chameleon data or data categories to improve the kill/save numbers. I have no idea of how this could be done or what numbers would be changed.

There was the NY allegation that he directly changed the tracking software outcomes. Of course, this would require a thorough knowledge of Chameleon, which Ed has. He was in charge of what was called the Chameleon application rewrite" in Phoenix. What this was, I don’t know, but, if true, it means Boks is aware of all aspects of Chameleon.

The same charge was leveled against Boks here eight months ago. I challenged that allegation by saying if he were “cooking the books,” why didn’t he cook them so that he would look good? The July—October numbers were not looking good at all. Of course, I never thought then that maybe his numbers might have looked even worse.

The other issue is the save rate and semantics.

A commentor below said, “Until now no one has been looking at his raw numbers posted on the LAAS web site. But in his PR (and on his blog) he basically talks about "adoptable" animals. He's doing that now with "no adoptable animal was killed in March! We didn't kill any adoptable animals for Valentine's day event!" Obviously, they are getting sick and now they're dying in the shelter, more than ever before. They went from being adoptable, to unadoptable, to dead. At least he is better than LA County who just labels 80% as unadoptable instantly, and then kills them.

So the second charge is not that he is cooking the books, but that he is changing his definition of No-Kill to the kill definitions used by other shelters, where animals are determined to be adoptable or treatable. No kill happens when no adoptable or treatable animals are killed, even if he kills 70% of all animals that come in, like the County. These definitions are heavily dependent on protocols to determine healthy/unhealthy, treatable/untreatable, and adoptable or non-adoptable behavioral signs.

Boks is shifting from his original definition of no-kill, which was on his site and which he told everyone, that a shelter was no-kill only when the criteria used for killing were those that would be used by a compassionate owner or vet. The definition change obviously, was because his numbers were so bad, and he promised to make LA no-kill by 2008 or 2010.

Definition change of No-Kill from his original definition, to the new adoptable/treatable, allows him to say March was No-Kill even if 550 animals were killed.

He has already stated we are “so close to no-kill.” Soon, he will define no-kill as whatever LAAS is doing at the moment. He will declare victory and hopefully move on to another city, which after a month on the job, will have the fewest number of cats killed, EVER!!

This is how the County, who killed 28,000 cats, or 79%, said 90% of all adoptable cats were adopted or sent to rescue groups. Mayeda said they used standardized temperament tests for cats, even though none exist. She is a liar of the worst sort because her lies involve issues of life and death.

It seems the County is saying, if they were adopted, they were adoptable; if not, they were no adoptable. Ed appears to be following close behind. Perhaps Boks and Mayeda can call the entire city/county no-kill even while killing 75,000 animals a year. How can they live with themselves?

This is the second of a three part exposition of Boks and statistics.

No comments: