I have already received a few comments from mathematicaly challenged readers that they don't understand the below analysis. Don't worry. I am not saying anything that anyone in the administration would consider important.
The April number are in and they tell a confusing story.
The Daily News today published an article by Dana Bartholomew blaming the increase in killing on foreclosures. This is probably not true. One of our analysts is working on shelter by shelter correlation of impounds per foreclosures in that shelter area.
However, homes sales have also increased, meaning more people moving in from other housing, which means they could take their animals, and there are also increased numbers of people moving in from apartments, which means they can adopt animals. This may well be the case because adoptions are up 29%.
Even if there is an increase due to foreclosures, it is difficult to measure because you’d have to know the number of animals per foreclosed home and whether the move caused the owner to abandon or turn in the animals or not. Not every person that moves turns in an animal unless they move to rental property where pets are not allowed.
This is beside the point. The real point is what you do with the impounds. If the shelters were operating at capacity before the increase, one would expect a poor outcome for the increased number of animals. This has not happened. This suggests Animal Services may not have been operating at full capacity in the past, including the past two years under Ed--until now.
Impounds increased 20% from 11,785 to 14,138, for a total increase of 2,355. This may be due to foreclosures or not. It can also be due to the number of animals refused last year by Animal Services in order to improve its kill numbers. That refusal is coming around to bite Boks in the butt.
On the other hand, killing increased from 2,786 to 3,650, or 864 animals. This is an increase in killing of 31%.
BUT, the live save rate of the additional impounded animals was 63%, only a slight decrease from last year, which means Animal Services handled the increased numbers fairly well.
That is, even as impounds increased, rather than killing a larger number of the impounded animals which might be expected, the killing ratio of the increased impounds was only 37%.
Adoptions rose 29%, from 4,433 to 5,717, an increase of 1,284 animals. That is, 55% of the increased impounds were adopted out.
The died in shelter rate also dropped 69% from 283 to 88, or 195 fewer died in shelter. Returned to owners is up 7% and rescues were up2%.
Any way you cut it, the LAAS numbers have improved—except for killing.
The increase in euthanasia wiped out the overall improvement in live save rate, which dropped from 69% to 66%.
The increase in adoptions could be because a larger percentage of impounds may be of more friendly, socialized animals. Who knows?
It seems that all of LAAS numbers are up, likely due to increased shelter size, which made owner turn-ins easier and also increased the capacity to hold more abandoned animals.
Ed’s talking about how close LA is coming to No-Kill probably increased the impound rate even further. Ed needs to shut up about this any only tell the mayor (and me, so that I don't attack him so ofter).
Overall, I think LAAS has handled the increased impounds fairly well.
On the other hand, the expanded shelter space may have increased holding numbers and duration of holds which may negatively impact live saves at the end of the year as the increased inventory has to be killed sometime during the year, ending up with worse numbers than last year.
That is, the present good looking numbers may be artificial and temporary.
The Animal Services' save rate is still not as good as that reported by Philadelphia (70% for the first quarter), and about which Winogard complained as being a needlessly high.