So this following brief, brief analysis is still totally on Boks', even though he probably did not have much to do with operations for the last two months.
For the past 12 months ending May 31, 2009, the live save rate for dogs and cats was 58.6%, but for cats alone it was only 39.9%
Over 60% of all cats that came in were killed. Last year the live save rate for cats was 43.7%.
Compare this with New York City. NYC impounded far more cats than LA Animal Services during the past 12 months (28,704 for NYC versus 23,709 for LA City), yet saved 59% compared to LA's 39.9%. New York City saved 16,587 cats, while LA saved 9,457. Why? NYC had less than half LA's budget when I last checked 18 months ago.
During the past 12 months, there were 3,059 more cats impounded in LA compared to the year before, but killing increased by 3,138, meaning that more than 100% of the new cats were killed. The system couldn't handle the increase and killed all of the new larger marginal total, and then some. Performance was FAR WORSE than last year.
Partly this is due to the economy and to foreclosures, but also it is due to the larger number of new facilities. More animals are being turned in because it is easier, and the increased staff has not been able to cope. I don't know if field intake numbers have expanded or not; these figures are not published.
But you can't just blame the economy. LAAS has failed catastrophically compared to the year before, and is a miserable failure compared to NYC. The expanded LAAS under Ed Boks has FAILED Los Angeles during the past year.
This is why Boks Five year plan accepts failure because Animal Services, under Boks, has gone backwards.
New York City has pulled well ahead of Los Angeles with less than half LA's budget.
New York statistics: http://www.nycacc.org/stats.htm
LAAS statistics: http://laanimalservices.org/about_stats_dept.htm
Why is Boks even an issue anymore? Who is he to even be talking about five-year plans when he resigned in disgrace, hounded from his overpaid job by a fed-up City Council and a 130K sexual harassment judgment?
He's not a player, he's not an elder statesman, he's a joke. He conned his way into the job because Villaraigosa thought he had a rich friend who could bankroll his run for governor. Now even Villaraigosa has realized that BS without accomplishments has eliminated his chances. Why hasn't Boks? And why is anyone even dignifying his Bushian attempts to create an after-the-fact legacy that's supported only by the accomplishment of letting more and more healthy, adoptable animals die while he spent his workdays and our money fulminating against his critics, drinking and driving, and endlessly (hopefully fruitlessly) looking for women with giant implants to nail?
He's a joke and an embarrassment, and he's gone for very good reasons. Our larger problem is that the leadership at LAAS is still dominated by people who care, not about animals, but about power and intimidation.
Boks is over, nothing he says is worth two cents, but Linda Barth is still there. How are we going to make a change that genuinely helps animals?
Post a Comment