HIHS attempts to promote itself as a positive influence within the community. A lack of dedicated staffing and resources limits proactive community involvement. The two Community Programs Coordinators oversee this area (both of these positions were vacant during the on-site study). These workers are responsible for "developing and managing volunteer and community outreach programs, including humane education, special events and fund raisers."

Their essential duties and functions include:

• Recruit volunteers to staff shelters, and community and special events.
• Interview all prospective volunteers to identify and assess their skills, talents, desires, etc.
• Orient new volunteers to their purpose and specific tasks/duties.
• Establish and maintain a supportive working relationship with the shelter manager(s) and humane officers.
• Create and maintain volunteer schedules based upon the needs of the staff and availability of volunteers.
• Maintain current volunteer files.
• Work with the other Community Programs Coordinator to create and maintain a volunteer procedures manual.
• Oversee community outreach programs such as humane education in schools; spay/neuter compliance follow-up phone calls; new adopters follow-up phone calls; Foster Family Program; Pet of the Week Program; Mobile Adoptions Program; Pet Friendly Rental Network.
• Help to maintain a high profile for community programs through the use of media including newspaper, radio, television and other means as appropriate.

HIHS occasionally offers public service announcements regarding responsible pet ownership or care. Literature is also distributed to the public on agency services (shelter and field) and programs. If any issue involves the agency, then the Executive Director communicates with the media.

The agency believes that it has developed a positive relationship with the media, and that it has used this resource as a way to communicate needs and concerns to the general public. As of late, this contact has been reactive, as HIHS has had to "defend" itself against local criticism.

The agency is working to improve community relations; HIHS currently participates in community speaking engagements and school presentations. Participation is limited, since HIHS presently offers no staff members dedicated to this area. The agency coordinates several fundraising events throughout the year, in addition to shelter tours, microchipping and adoption events, and juvenile and adult presentations. Staff members are responsible for contacting groups and soliciting educational programs. HIHS attempts to accommodate all requests, however the problems with under-staffing makes it difficult to coordinate such events without placing additional burdens on other employees.

The Study Team was not presented with the number of education programs offered in the 2000-2001 Fiscal Year.

HIHS currently offers a structured volunteer program. Volunteers compliment the HIHS workforce by donating labor and time to the care, feeding, grooming, and exercising of animals, in addition to assisting the HIHS shelter staff with day-to-day shelter responsibilities. The Study Team was advised that the agency currently has 5-6 active volunteers in Kona and 8-10 active volunteers in Keaau (no information regarding Waimea assistance was provided). HIHS also utilizes community service workers. One HIHS volunteer oversees the organization and administration of the Spay/Neuter Community Assistance Program and is responsible for collecting licensing monies and tracking license sales. This individual alone donates hundreds of volunteer hours annually on behalf of HIHS.

Adoptable animals are promoted through local media groups. Although the agency has yet to develop its own Internet web site, HIHS partners with the Animal Rescue Coalition of Hawaii to "showcase" adoptable animals and offer information on lost and found pets.

The organization interacts with several agencies; the local police department, the Department of Natural Land Management, the National Park Service, County departments and agencies, local veterinarians, breed rescue groups and other community animal welfare organizations. Although some differences in philosophies have surfaced, HIHS attempts to maintain a positive, working relationship with all outside interests (apparent conflict does exist between the HIHS and another organization, however). The agency provides written quarterly reports to the Mayor, County Council and Chief of Police. The Executive Director or the Director of Operations act as the liaison to interface with other state and local government entities. The Executive Director described the current state of HIHS interagency relationships as "improving."

Several issues relayed to the Study Team are covered in other areas of this report. In addition, the Study Team was asked to address the following concerns:

Several citizens interviewed by the Study Team felt the need to establish an Advisory Board. Such a Board would act only in an "advisory" capacity, however governments are typically influenced by their decisions. Advisory Boards commonly establish goals or objectives and identify specific Board responsibilities.

The Study Team believes that Advisory Boards can make a valuable contribution to HIHS if it functions as a structured group with mutually agreeable goals and objectives. While it is understood that differences in philosophies will sometimes surface, Board members should place personal agendas aside and concentrate on improving the quality of animal services within the delivery area. Critical policy changes or drastic shifts in operations should be reviewed by the Board before action is taken. It is important that the Board, HIHS, and the community maintain an open channel of communication to discourage mistrust and misrepresentation. The Study Team believes that a new Board should be established to include:

1. A licensed veterinarian who resides within the service area.

2. A representative from County government.

3. A representative from the Police Department.

4. A representative from the Contract Administrator (Finance Department).

5. A member of a recognized humane organization within the service area.

6. A member from an animal rights group within the service area.

7. An at-large member from within Hawaii County.

A member from the contractor (HIHS) would also act as a liaison to the Board (not a voting member).

All prospective Board candidates should be screened thoroughly for any conflict of interest they may have with Animal Control prior to being appointed to the Advisory Board. New Board members should be provided a training manual and/or instructions on the purpose of the Advisory Board and Board member responsibilities. By-laws should be written, including the addition of a "conflict of interest" policy statement. The County Council should also appoint all Advisory Board members. Meetings should be structured under Robert's Rules of Order.

The following excerpt appears in the International City Manager Association’s (ICMA) Management Information Report on "Local Animal Control Management," Volume 25, Number 9, September 1993:

An excellent method of administering a community animal care and control program is to establish by legislation an oversight commission with specific duties and powers. An animal control commission can do most of the research and legwork involved in developing and monitoring animal control laws and services. It increases public accountability and governmental efficiency.

The commission should be set up as an integral part of the local government and consist of a representative of the health department; the chief of police (or the chief’s representative); a veterinarian; representatives of local humane organizations; and additional citizen members, one of whom should have relevant legal expertise. All appointments to the commission should be made by the local government authority, and the members should appoint their own chairperson.

Duties assigned to the animal control commission usually include:

• Making recommendations on rules and regulations for the care and control of animals and facilities covered by the ordinance.
• Reviewing budgets and contracts for all animal control work.
• Conducting public hearings when necessary to determine whether any individual or establishment is in violation of the ordinance.
• Hearing appeals of persons whose permits or licenses have been revoked by the licensing authority.
• Hearing complaints about the professional conduct of animal control personnel or the local government itself.
• Mediating conflicts between the local government and a contracting humane organization over reimbursement for animal control services or other problems.
• In some municipalities, the animal control commission is distinct from another entity often called an animal matters hearing board. Such a board, which may or may not report to the animal control commission, is responsible for hearings and appeals related to dangerous dogs, permit revocations, and other matters. (End of excerpt)

Citizen Complaints

In an effort to ensure that all citizen complaints are investigated expeditiously and solicit a response, it is suggested that the County of Hawaii introduce a process to review citizen complaints in an "unbiased" fashion. The Study Team would suggest that HIHS and the new Advisory Board develop a procedure in which to investigate citizen complaints regarding the HIHS staff or service-related criticism. The purpose of this procedure is to build trust among government, the contractor and the community.

Complaints regarding staff conduct, lack of service, operational issues, etc., should be made in writing and submitted to the Advisory Board Chairperson (under no circumstances should personnel issues be discussed in an open public forum; doing so may place the Board in an uncomfortable position and expose itself to possible litigation). Allegations should be based on facts (not rumors or "3^rd-hand" information), and witnesses to these events must be willing to support the compliant with detailed testimony and recollections of the event.

The complaint then should be investigated by the Executive Director. If the matter involves the Director, then this worker’s supervisor should examine the complaint. Of course, any allegation regarding a potential criminal act should be investigated by local law enforcement officials. All complaints should be examined thoroughly and disposed of within a given time-frame.

The final disposition of such complaints should be delivered by the Advisory Board Chairperson to the complainant and not discussed within an open public forum.

Contract Administration

For the first time in any NACA evaluation, the administration of a field and/or shelter contract was found to be entrusted to the Department of Finance. In NACA‘s previous experiences, contract administration has been delegated to a Police or Sheriff’s Department, Health Department or City or County Administrator.

While the Study Team does not dispute the commitment or efforts of the Director of Finance or his staff regarding the contract’s administration, it is apparent that Finance Department personnel do not possess the level of Animal Control knowledge or expertise necessary to effectively oversee HIHS operational issues and address citizen complaints. It appears that the administration of the contract (which was previously overseen by the Police Department) was awarded to the Finance Department by "default," as no other County department expressed any desire to accept that responsibility.

Throughout the United States, citizens have repeatedly expressed concerns related to proper contract administration to ensure a maximum return on their taxpaying dollars. The technical administration of an Animal Control contract is an important activity. It is absolutely essential that those entrusted with this responsibility must ensure that government, and taxpayers, receive the "biggest bang for their buck." The contract administrator should possess some specialized knowledge of the work the contractor will perform, including a familiarity of field and shelter operations, and current trends and innovations in Animal Control/Care work.

The following excerpt appears in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy’s "A Guide to Best Practices for Contract Administration", October 1994:

Contract Administration involves those activities performed by government officials after a contract has been awarded to determine how well the government and the contractor performed to meet the requirements of the contract. It encompasses all dealings between the government and the contractor from the time the contract is awarded until the work has been completed and accepted or the contract terminated, payment has been made, and disputes have been resolved. As such, contract administration constitutes that primary part of the procurement process that assures the government gets what it paid for.

In contract administration, the focus is on obtaining supplies and services, of requisite quality, on time, and within budget. While the legal requirements of the contract are determinative of the proper course of action of government officials in administering a contract, the exercise of skill and judgment is often required in order to protect effectively the public interest.

The specific nature and extent of contract administration varies from contract to contract. It can range from the minimum acceptance of a delivery and payment to the contractor to extensive involvement by program, audit and procurement officials throughout the contract term. Factors influencing the degree of contract administration include the nature of the work, the type of contract, and the experience and commitment of the personnel involved. Contract administration starts with developing clear, concise performance based statements of work to the extent possible, and preparing a contract administration plan that cost effectively measures the contractor's performance and provides documentation to pay accordingly.

Post award orientation, either by conference, letter or some other form of communication, should be the beginning of the actual process of good contract administration. This communication process can be a useful tool that helps government and contractor achieve a clear and mutual understanding of the contract requirements, helps the contractor understand the roles and responsibilities of the government officials who will administer the contract, and reduces future problems. It is helpful to have a pre-meeting with applicable program and contracting officials prior to the post award orientation conference so that there is a clear understanding of their specific responsibilities and restrictions in administering the contract. Items that should be discussed at the pre-meeting include such things as the authority of government personnel who will administer the contract, quality control and testing, the specific contract deliverable requirements, special contract provisions, the government's procedures for monitoring and measuring performance, contractor billing, voucher approval, and payment procedures.

Where appropriate, an alternative dispute resolution technique known as "partnering" should be discussed with the contractor to help avoid future contract administration problems. Partnering is a technique to prevent disputes from occurring. It involves government and contractor management staff mutually developing a "plan for success," usually with the assistance of a neutral facilitator. The facilitator helps the parties establish a nonadversarial relationship, define mutual goals and identify the major obstacles to success for the project. Potential sources of conflict are identified, and the parties seek cooperative ways to resolve any disputes that may arise during contract performance. The process results in the parties developing a partnership charter, which serves as a roadmap for contract success. Many agencies have successfully used partnering on construction projects and are now beginning to apply these principles in the automated data processing/information resources management area.

Good contract administration assures that the end users are satisfied with the product or service being obtained under the contract. One way to accomplish customer satisfaction is to obtain input directly from the customers through the use of customer satisfaction surveys. These surveys help to improve contractor performance because the feedback can be used to notify the contractor when specified aspects of the contract are not being met. In addition, the contracting and program officials can use the information as a source of past performance information on subsequent contract awards. Customer satisfaction surveys also help to improve communications between the procurement, program, and contractor personnel. (End of excerpt)

While it is probably cost prohibitive to hire a Contract Administrator (with experience in Animal Control operations) to specifically oversee this contract, the County should consider reassigning the administration of the contract to an agency that may be a more "natural fit" and possesses some knowledge of public safety and health issues, such as the Health Department or Police Department. Of course, the transfer of such responsibilities should include additional financial and administrative support, and training for those involved in this process.

The Study Team was asked to comment regarding the possibility of Hawaii County dividing the contract service area among multiple contractors providing the same service. The current Agreement requires that one contractor offer service countywide.

The Study Team has previously dealt with contract separation of field and shelter services, not a division of the same service among multiple contractors (however, NACA is currently conducting another evaluation offering that exact service). Since the Study Team is recommending that field operations be transferred to the Police Department (as stated later in this chapter), such a move would already create 2 separate entities - one providing field service, the other providing sheltering services. Splitting contract responsibilities (among HIHS and the West Hawaii Humane Society) would also create these additional concerns:

• A separation of the same service would probably increase the level of confusion (and frustration) among citizens regarding jurisdictional and contract-related responsibilities, especially during the transfer of the field program.
• The current relationship between HIHS and the West Hawaii Humane Society may actually hinder any improvements in service.
• Contract administration would require additional oversight and efforts (fund distribution, appraising performance measures, responding to citizen complaints, etc.) on the part of the County.

The Study Team would not recommend a division of current contract responsibilities until such time as the new field program has been established. The issue of splitting shelter services may then be researched and reviewed by the new Advisory Board for any further action.

The Study Team received several complaints from citizens regarding the regulation of cats and feral cats. Several recommendations regarding the licensing and regulation of cats appear in other areas of this report. Within this section, the Study Team would like to address the topic of feral cats. The National Animal Control Association offers the following policy statement in regards to this issue:

POLICY STATEMENTAnimal Control/Care Officers should be empowered to remove all feral and unwanted cats from the community. A feral cat is defined as a cat that has been born in the wild or forsaken by the original owner for an extended period of time.BASIS FOR POLICYTo protect the public from cats living in the wild and to minimize the potential for a rabies outbreak.POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSIn order to protect owned cats, all local or state governments should pass laws requiring the vaccination and license of all cats in their community. These laws should also require that all owned cats be identified with a traceable license, microchip, or tattoo so as to identify them from feral cats.NACA recognizes that in some circumstances, Trap, Neuter, Vaccinate & Release programs may be effective and recommends that each agency assess the individual needs within their community and respond accordingly. (End of policy statement)

In contrary to NACA’s recommendation, the Wildlife Society, based in Bethesda, Maryland, offers the following policy statement entitled "Feral and Free-Ranging Domestic Cats":

Feral and free-ranging domestic cats are exotic species to North America. Exotic species are recognized as one of the most widespread and serious threats to the integrity of native wildlife populations and natural ecosystems. Exotic species present special challenges for wildlife managers because their negative impacts are poorly understood by the general public, many exotic species have become such an accepted component of the environment that many people regard them as "natural," some exotic species have advocacy groups that promote their continued presence, and few policies and laws deal directly with their control. Perhaps no issue has captured more of the challenges for contemporary wildlife management than the impacts of feral or free-ranging human companion or domestic animals. The domestic cat is the companion animal that recently has attracted the most attention for its impact on wildlife species.

Domestic cats originated from an ancestral wild species, the European and African wild cat (Felis silvestris). The domestic cat (Felis catus) is now considered a separate species. The estimated numbers of pet cats in urban and rural regions of the United States have grown from 30 million in 1970 to nearly 65 million 2000. Reliable estimates of the present total cat population are not available. Nationwide, approximately 30% of households have cats. In rural areas, approximately 60% of households have cats.

The impact of domestic cats on wildlife is difficult to quantify. However, a growing body of literature strongly suggests that domestic cats are a significant factor in the mortality of small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Because free-ranging cats often receive food from humans, they can reach population levels that may create areas of abnormally high predation rates on wildlife. When the wildlife prey is a threatened or endangered species, the result may be extirpation or extinction. Effects of cat predation are most pronounced in island settings (both actual islands and island of habitat), where prey populations are already low or stressed by other factors, or in natural areas where cat colonies are established. Competition with native predators, disease implications for wildlife populations, and pet owners' attitudes toward wildlife and wildlife management also are important issues.

Extensive popular debate over absolute numbers or types of prey taken is not productive. The number of cats is undeniably large. Even if conservative estimates of prey taken are considered, the number of prey animals killed is immense. Feeding cats does not deter them from killing wildlife as they do not always eat what they kill. Humans introduced cats to North America and they must be responsible for the control and removal of cats that prey on wildlife.

The policy of The Wildlife Society in regard to feral and free-ranging domestic cats is to:

• Strongly support and encourage the humane elimination of feral cat colonies.
• Support the passage and enforcement of local and state ordinances prohibiting the public feeding of feral cats, especially on public lands, and releasing of unwanted pet or feral cats into the wild.
• Strongly support educational programs and materials that call for all pet cats to be kept indoors, in outdoor enclosures, or on a leash.
• Support programs to educate and encourage pet owners to neuter or spay their cats, and encourage all pet adoption programs to require potential owners to spay or neuter their pet.
• Support the development and dissemination of sound, helpful information on what individual cat owners can do to minimize predation by free-ranging cats.
• Pledge to work with the conservation and animal welfare communities to educate the public about the negative impact of free-ranging and feral cats on native wildlife, including birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and endangered species.
• Support educational efforts to encourage the agricultural community to keep farm cat numbers at low, manageable levels and use alternative, environmentally safe rodent control methods.
• Encourage researchers to develop better information on the impacts of feral and free-ranging cats on native wildlife populations.
• Recognize that cats as pets have a long association with humans, and that responsible cat owners are to be encouraged to continue caring for the animals under their control.
• Oppose the passage of any local or state ordinances that legalize the maintenance of "managed" (trap/neuter/release) free-ranging cat colonies. (End of policy statement)

The Study Team does not deny the impact feral cats may have on native wildlife populations. It is suggested that the trap/neuter/release issue should be researched and reviewed by the new Advisory Board for further action.

The Study Team believes that current shelter hours do not favor today’s working households. Facility hours are listed as follows:

• Kailua-Kona - This facility is open to the public five days a week, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., and Wednesday 8:00 am to 6:00 pm.
• Keaau - This facility is open to the public six days a week, Monday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. The shelter is closed on Sunday.
• Waimea - This facility is open to the public five days a week, Tuesday through Saturday, 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. The shelter is closed on Sunday and Monday.

With these limited hours, many adoptable animals receive decreased "marketability." Once manpower levels increase, it is suggested that cleaning personnel begin work at an earlier time (such as 7:00 a.m.), and that animal holding areas open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. On Saturday, all shelters could open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 4:00 p.m. The shelters could remain closed on Sunday.

The Study Team would also suggest that HIHS poll shelter visitors as to their desired days and hours of operation.

The First Amendment to the Agreement requires that "the Contractor shall operate and properly maintain 3 animal shelter facilities, to include the County-owned Kailua-Kona pound. The term "properly maintain" shall be according to standards established by the National Animal Control Association, the Humane Society of the United States, or any other nationally recognized animal welfare and control organization acceptable to the County." The Agreement is not specific as to which entity would assume the cost associated with major facility upgrades or enhancements. While HIHS should be commended on its fundraising efforts directed to provide facility improvements, the Study Team does not believe that any major upgrade of the Kailua-Kona shelter should be the sole responsibility of HIHS. The facility is County-owned. It is ridiculous for taxpayers and government officials alike to assume that the cost of such improvements should be borne entirely by the contractor (and would become the property of the County at such time that the contractual relationship would end). In short, any major structural improvements should be funded, either wholly or in part, by County taxpayers.

Based on previous NACA evaluations and professional experiences, the Study Team has determined that most animal shelters offer a maximum range of 25-30 years of usefulness. There is little doubt that the current facility is in need of upgrading. The Study Team would recommend that the County, the new Animal Control Advisory Board and the contractor develop a long-term strategy that includes a new animal sheltering facility for this service area. In addition, consideration should also be given to adding an additional facility for southern County residents and an upgrade or new facility in the Waimea area.

The First Amendment to the Agreement states that"if the Contractor, at its sole discretion, opts to establish and carry out an adoption program, at least for the period July 1, 2001, to June 30, 2002, such a program shall not exclude potential adopters solely on the basis that the potential adopter is a bird or pig hunter. The Contractor’s failure to abide by this may constitute a breach of contract, and the County may proceed to cancel the contract, and/or may be entitled to any other remedy entitled by law."

The National Animal Control Association offers the following policy statement entitled "Adoptions":

A professional animal control agency is one that moves beyond enforcement to prevention. A successful adoption program focuses on quality placements in efforts to break the cycle of unwanted, surplus animals.

Adoption is the opportunity for shelters to make a difference in the life of an animal. The objective is not to "sell" the animal but to sell the new owner on the principle of proper pet management. The success of an adoption program will be determined by the quality of the adoption (e.g. animal's long term tenure in home, licensed, spayed/neutered, and vaccinated.)

Shelter adoptions should include some form of required sterilization, preferably prior to adoption. NACA supports the concept of early (8-16 weeks of age) spay/neutering. Alternatives may include enforceable contractual obligations which require sterilization within specified time periods following adoption. Incentives for sterilization may include reduced license fees, discounted sterilization costs, or prepayment of all or part of sterilization costs. Shelters should temperament test all animals to be considered for adoption to make sure they are suitably socialized. Potential adopters must demonstrate that they will be responsible pet owners. An adoption questionnaire may prove successful in determining the prospective adopter's past ownership history, their reason for adopting, and their ability to financially and emotionally provide for the animals basic and extended needs. Established periodic follow-ups should be made during the first year of the animal's placement to assist in problem solving and reinforce principles of proper pet care. (End of policy statement)

As you can see, NACA does not offer a specific statement regarding the issue of adopting animals to hunters. A poll of other national organizations (the ASPCA, HSUS and AHA) solicited the following response from the Humane Society of the United States:

Adopt animals only to individuals who intend to keep them as household companions. No dogs should be placed to serve primarily as guard dogs or hunting dogs, and no cats should be placed to function merely as barn cats or mousers. (End of excerpt)

While the Study Team sympathizes with HIHS regarding the moral dilemma of adopting out animals which may be exposed to possible injury, the Study Team believes that responsible pet owners should not be excluded from the adoption process.

However, the Study Team would caution the County of Hawaii in one regard. The adoption clause which appears in the First Amendment to the Agreement is not advisable. One very simple fact has been ignored in regards to this issue; once the legal impoundment time has ended, an impounded animal becomes property of HIHS and the County has no legal authority or right of ownership in determining an animal’s final disposition. Should the County begin to interfere in such matters, it could be construed that the County is legally, and financially, responsible for all impounded animals for their entire stay with the contractor.

The Study Team was asked to comment regarding a proposed County partnership with local humane organizations to obtain grant money (specifically from the Maddie’s Fund) for reducing animal euthanasia. The following information appears on the Maddie's Fund Internet website:

A revolutionary mission to create a no-kill nation by supporting courageous, creative and compassionate solutions that mobilize entire communities to achieve a single, vital goal while honoring core values and a life-protecting ethic and building a solid base of grass-roots philanthropy.

The purpose is simple: to end the killing of adoptable (healthy) dogs and cats. The plan is dynamic: to motivate communities to build broad-based alliances by financially supporting collaborative, comprehensive life-saving programs.

Maddie’s Fund was established in 1994 as the Duffield Family Foundation by Cheryl and Dave Duffield, PeopleSoft co-founder and Board Chairman. The foundation makes good on a promise the Duffields made to their cherished miniature schnauzer, Maddie, to repay all the joy and unconditional love she gave them by supporting animal welfare causes. Maddie died of cancer in March 1997, but her spirit lives on through the foundation recently renamed in her honor that intends to revolutionize the status and well-being of companion

animals.

Those philanthropic efforts received a significant boost in August 1998 when Maddie’s Fund (known as the Duffield Family Foundation at that time) announced its intention to spend more than $200 million to build a no-kill nation. To lead this remarkable program, the Board of Directors turned to Richard Avanzino, a man who over the course of 22 years transformed the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals into a premier, model animal welfare organization and an example for what Maddie’s Fund has

set out to do. Avanzino joined the foundation on January 1, 1999, as President.

"We are investing in collaborative, lifesaving programs, and the payback we expect is a radical reduction in shelter animal deaths," says Avanzino. Generally speaking, Maddie’s Fund will begin to achieve its no-kill goal by awarding multi-million dollar, multi-year grants to programs around the country that will have an immediate, direct and measurable impact on ending the killing of adoptable (healthy) dogs and cats within five years.

Maddie’s Fund defines adoptable (healthy) as dogs and cats older than eight weeks who are healthy and well-adjusted, even if the animal is elderly, disfigured, deformed or disabled.

According to Avanzino, "Successful projects are expected to place more shelter dogs and cats in loving homes and to decrease the number of unwanted pets through aggressive spay/neuter programs. We put a premium on bold, innovative and ambitious solutions that incorporate outside the box thinking and ideas."

Maddie’s Fund is most interested in groups that build coalitions in support of this goal. "Getting animal control agencies, animal shelters, animal rescue groups, volunteer foster organizations, and veterinarians talking and working together is extremely important to our long-term success," says Avanzino. In addition, grant-making efforts will focus on organizations that honor the foundation’s core values of honesty, integrity and mutual respect.

"We’re trying to set the tone of collaboration and cooperation - to promote cordial, professional relations among colleagues and public debate and discussions without personal attacks or recriminations." (End of excerpt)

The Study Team was provided information from the Animal Rescue Coalition of Hawaii (ARCH) regarding their grant proposal. ARCH intends to submit a proposal to the Maddie’s Fund for monies to finance a spay/neuter and education program, as well as reimburse any Hawaii County animal owner $20.00 for each animal that is sexually altered. Due to the fact that the County has a serious pet overpopulation problem, this proposal would prove to be a great benefit - not only to reducing the pet population but to the taxpayers as well. By reducing the number of animals produced on the island, the requests for field service and animal impoundments would decline in future years. This is not an instant "fix" for the County, but a gradual improvement.

The Study Team has some reservations regarding the proposed $20.00 payment for each animal altered. There may be some unscrupulous people who might begin collecting or stealing owned animals in an effort to collect the $20.00 payment. Hopefully, ARCH will implement a strategy that would deter such practices (one suggestion would be to require a picture identification of owners at the time of surgery or other method to prove ownership before payment is made).

ARCH should also retain an administrator for the program who has some knowledge of the Fund’s requirements. Monthly reports must also be generated in order to obtain uninterrupted funding. The Fund requires that there is "marked progress" in attaining the goals of the proposal to keep receiving financial support.

Grant monies cannot pay for buildings or be targeted specifically for a governmental agency. A group must be "no-kill" in order to apply for the grant. The Study Team sees this venture as a "win-win" situation for the County of Hawaii. By reducing the animal population, educating the citizens and decreasing the number of impounded animals, the County will realize a reduction in service costs and limit animal euthanasia.

It is the animal welfare community’s vision that all adoptable pets should not be destroyed. While the National Animal Control Association shares this vision, the disadvantages of operating a municipal animal shelter are clearly evident.

In most cases, municipally-funded animal shelters have an obligation to accept all animals, to include stray, owner surrendered, abandoned and seized. Whereas most no-kill facilities have the right to refuse an animal’s admission, publically-funded shelters cannot. For this reason, striving to be no-kill is a difficult goal to achieve.

The National Animal Control Association offers the following policy statement entitled, "Limited Access Shelters/Recuse Groups":

POLICY STATEMENT

Limited access shelters/rescue groups may serve a purpose within a community to provide a long term adoption prospects for a limited number of animals while meeting all state and local codes.

BASIS FOR POLICY

In order to attempt to find homes for as many animals as possible and reduce euthanasia rates, all organizations that shelter animals must work together to provide the greatest chance for adoption without prejudice towards organizations that are forced to euthanize animals.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

NACA recognizes a community cooperative approach to reducing pet overpopulation with all shelters and rescue groups working together to place all healthy, adoptable animals with families in their community. NACA further states that all localities must have a full service shelter that accepts all stray, unwanted, homeless, or feral animals regardless of prospective adoption potential and provides them with humane care and treatment including euthanasia if necessary. (End of statement)

The County of Hawaii has asked the National Animal Control Association to assess the problems associated with allowing a private contractor to offer Animal Control-related services to its citizens.

The following excerpt is taken from the International City Manager Association’s Management Information Report on "Local Animal Control Management," volume 25, number 9, September 1993:

The public administrators and elected officials of today are well versed in such terms as user fees, management information services, and survey research. And concepts like these apply to animal care and control programs as much as they do to other government programs.

Privatization is another popular concept for local government managers, especially as they work to improve government efficiency and effectiveness. In the field of animal control, however, it has become problematic for some governments.

Many counties and some cities privatize their animal control operations by contracting out those services to a local, usually nonprofit, humane organization. Contractual arrangements vary from locality to locality. Most often, however, the humane society is reimbursed by the government to provide basic animal control services, including animal pickup and sheltering. Other humane society services, such as education and spay/neuter promotion, may or may not be publicly funded.

Although many excellent animal control programs have long been privatized, problems have sometimes occurred when governments have failed to provide adequate funding for animal care and control services and relied on the local humane society to carry the load. Overburdened local humane societies have been forced to curb their most essential services - including educational programs and spay/neuter assistance programs - or shut down entirely. When this happens, local governments must make last-minute funding appropriations or, worse, attempt to handle animal control using untrained staff and a makeshift facility.

Cities and counties that contract out animal care and control services must recognize that animal control remains a governmental service, and they must adequately fund and carefully monitor contracting entities. Local governments should also consider handling animal care and control services themselves. "Cities and counties are finding out that they can do it themselves and do it right," says Pam Burney, environmental health director for North Richland Hills, Texas, and past president of the National Animal Control Association.

Humane groups and animal control commissions are excellent resources for governments that want to build proper facilities; train staff in humane, professional animal handling and care procedures; and run effective, efficient operations that reduce animal-related problems. There are numerous examples of excellent animal care and control programs run by public animal control departments, just as there are many excellent programs run by private organizations. What all have in common is adequate funding."

When using private organizations to provide animal control services, consider these points:

1. How much liability insurance does your contractor carry? Keep in mind that most act as an "agent" for the governmental entity, and thus you are still legally responsible for actions of the contractor.

2. What enforcement powers have you granted to your contractor? Is your contractor aggressive at enforcing your laws?

3. What type of audit procedures are you allowed to place upon your contractor to keep track of the taxpayer’s money?

4. Does your contractor offer minimum and continuing training standards for the entire contracting staff?

5. Does your contractor provide adequate sheltering facilities for the care and housing of impounded or surrendered animals?

6. Does your contractor maintain and provide proper equipment and vehicles to ensure animal and human safety?

7. Does your contractor promote a positive image within the community?

8. Does your contractor meet or exceed the requirements to qualify for the contract?

9. Under current state statutes, does your contractor qualify for other types of funding?

10. Now ask yourself one very important question: Does your contractor meet or exceed the same level of services you would expect from your own operation? (End of excerpt)

The question of whether or not it is advisable for a humane organization to contract with city and/or county government to do animal control work is open for debate. Many humane organizations perform contract animal control work which runs the gamut from kenneling for the city, to complete animal control work for an entire county. As long as the humane organization desires such work, and can perform it properly, this is fine.

Most humane organizations have a real struggle during their formative stages to raise sufficient funds to enable them to function effectively. One of the first desires is generally to own and operate an animal shelter. Such a project is costly to begin with and requires a continuous income to offset operational costs. Several humane organizations have turned to contracting with municipal government as a means of assuring such an income. There are several points justifying this course of action:

• Often a humane organization could not exist without some contractual income.
• A humane organization that operates a shelter can hardly avoid doing some, often a great deal, of animal control work anyway. So why not contract, do it all and receive payment?
• Many humane organizations have come into being simply because pound conditions in their area were intolerable. These organizations often have no choice but to take over the enforcement of animal ordinances.

In spite of these arguments in favor of contracting, there are also weighty arguments against this practice:

• The image of the nonprofit charitable agency supported by contributors may be seriously injured when the public realizes such an agency receives tax money. It may be quite true that the tax money received is insufficient to cover the costs of the activities engaged by the humane organization. However, many taxpayers will never believe this.
• Unquestionably, the "pound" image is not that for which a humane agency strives. There is no doubt that the public has prejudiced ideas regarding animal pounds. Contracting humane organizations must therefore continually stress the humane aspects of their work in order to project a favorable image.
• Law enforcement officers do not enjoy the praise and love of the general public. Operating a pound involves enforcing the animal ordinances. In many people’s minds that places the organization in a position of being "against" the animal. The role of the humane agency tries to assume is one of education, prosecuting only in cases of cruelty or flagrant neglect. Enforcing a "leash law" may not seem to the public to fall into these categories.

Typically, there are three common variations to an Animal Control contract:

• The Contractor will assume all of the Animal Control-related duties.
• The Contractor will assume all of the Animal Control-related duties, except the licensing program.
• The Contractor will assume animal sheltering duties but leave any of the Animal Control-related responsibilities with government.

Several of the concerns relayed to the Study Team has been in regards to the level of field service currently being offered to citizens. The Study Team shares these concerns. Field service inadequacies can be attributed largely to two specific areas - communications and officer deployment. Since Humane Officers are also responsible for shelter and office duties, officers typically spend only 4-5 hours performing field work. The current communication system is also in need of improvement. Complaint processing, field dispatching and an increased partnership with the Police Department are just some areas which require increased attention.

Although citizens have continually blamed HIHS for these service inadequacies, the County of Hawaii must also share in that blame. An ambiguous contract which fails to identify specific service responsibilities and performance incentives, a weak County code, a lack of program attention, along with inadequate Animal Control/Care knowledge regarding contract oversight, has contributed to the current level of field service delivery.

Over the past few years, the community has not seen a distinct improvement in Animal Control services. The County of Hawaii may be better served by pursuing other means of service delivery, including abandoning the current operation and building a new field program from the ground up. It is the recommendation of the Study Team that the County of Hawaii should consider the establishment of an Animal Control enforcement division within the Hawaii County Police Department or the Health Department. Shelter services could continue to be outsourced to a local humane organization.

Virtually every community has an Animal Control program in one form or another. Two types of agencies commonly provide Animal Control services: governmentally-operated agencies and contractual agencies such as non-profit humane societies and profit corporations. Governmentally-operated agencies are usually responsible to a police department or health department. Some governmentally operated Animal Control agencies have an advisory board that assists in giving general direction to managers and allows the community to have greater input into the activities of the program.

Whether operated publicly or privately, Animal Control personnel must recognize some basic concepts in order to be effective. People are going to have pets and those pets provide significant beneficial effects to their owners and families. Unfortunately, when pets are not properly cared for, they can be a source of irritation and threaten the health and safety of neighbors. Thus, the problem Animal Control personnel are dealing with is irresponsible pet ownership. The objective, therefore, is changing the behavior of irresponsible pet owners. The animals are not to blame and treating them as if they were is anti-productive. Likewise, Animal Control Officers who act like "super cops" and treat every violator like a felon do not lead to solving the problem. Animal Control personnel must tailor their interactions with pet owners to encourage responsible pet ownership.

Before any organization can be effective, it must identify goals and objectives. A common mistake made by officials is to take the position that their job is only to protect people and not animals. If this position is carried to the extent where the public perceives that animals are not being cared for properly, and the interests of impounded animals are being ignored, pet owners will be less likely to follow the officials’ direction and advice. Since it’s the behavior of pet owners that must be changed, Animal Control officials must consider the needs of animals in order to be effective.

To operate an effective program, your objectives should include:

• Investigate all complaints received by the agency before the end of each day and take appropriate action to prevent similar complaints or problems in the future.
• License all dogs and cats in the community.
• Operate an animal shelter that places emphasis on the needs of the animals, is disease free and presentable to the public.
• Make every effort to identify stray pets and return them to their owners.
• Reduce the number of unwanted or surplus animals born in the community.
• Properly train and equip all employees.
• Offer a education program that encompasses all areas of the community.

Regardless of the size of the community, successful programs have these characteristics:

• Local government support - both political and financial.
• A comprehensive Animal Control ordinance and the ability to enforce it.
• Adequate facilities for both field and shelter operations.
• A staff of field and shelter personnel that are professionally trained to quickly and humanely handle animals at minimum risk to themselves.
• An effective public education program.
• A working relationship with the veterinary community.

A good Animal Control program is a community responsibility and should be budgeted as any other program or service available to citizens. We all benefit from a comprehensive Animal Control program that reduces costs while eliminating many other problems. General public funds need to be allotted to finance the program as necessary. However, the total program can be partially self-funded if revenues from the following sources are set aside for this purpose:

• Income from license and permit fees.
• Impoundment fees charged to persons whose animals have been picked up.
• Boarding and redemption fees charged to owners who recover their pets.
• Citation fees.
• Fees from the quarantine of animals.
• Adoption fees.
• Private donations to the local government earmarked for the Animal Control program.

Many cities use the following formula to develop a budget for the first time:

• Population of the service area X $3.00 = Low-end budget.
• Population of the service area X $5.00 = High-end budget.

County of Hawaii - Step 1

The new Animal Control Advisory Board should develop a plan of action which would set a target date for the "takeover" of field operations. This would involve the hiring of personnel, including an experienced Animal Control administrator to oversee the program. The new administrator would also be able to work with the Animal Control Advisory Board in identifying specific service delivery tactics and hours of coverage.

The County may be best served by:

• Hiring a new Animal Control Program Manager.
• The new manager and Animal Control Advisory Board develop a plan (and target date) for the takeover of field operations.
• A comprehensive, effective Animal Control ordinance is developed by the Advisory Board and the new program manager.
• Policies and procedures for the new program are developed.
• Forms and records are developed.
• Funding sources are secured; personnel hired and equipment purchased.
• Field takeover occurs.

The Study Team advocates that Animal Control operations be managed under the Hawaii County Police Department, since the program’s related functions involve enforcement activities.

As you know, personnel is the greatest asset or liability of an Animal Control agency. Today’s Animal Control Officer needs to be proficient in a number of skills. Animal Control administrators should employ individuals that posses or have the ability to learn those skills. The utilization of job descriptions will aid in the selection of potential employees. The Study Team can offer several sample job descriptions, upon request.

In the judgement of the Study Team, several of the current HIHS field officers would be qualified (and probably eager) to transfer to the new program. The Study Team recommends that those employees be encouraged to apply for work in the new program.

Vehicles would also need to be purchased. Outside of wages, vehicle expense is the next greatest cost to any program. Vehicles are constantly in view of the public and they play a key role in the agency’s image. The Study Team would be able to offer a list of vendors who manufacture Field Service Delivery Vehicles.

Communications could be handled by the Hawaii County Police Department. Citizens should be able to call in animal-related complaints via a dedicated phone line(s) directly linked to the Police Department’s dispatch center. The increase in call loads, however, may require additional dispatch personnel. Many Animal Control agencies utilize the same dispatching services and base equipment as their police department.

All employees should be properly equipped and trained, and should wear professional Animal Control uniforms. The Study Team can provide a recommended list of equipment, areas of needed training and uniform vendors.

A policy and procedure manual should also be developed; here again, the Study Team can offer sample policies/procedures upon request.

The new administrator and field personnel could operate within the police department building or another designated area.

The County of Hawaii could continue to rely on a contractor for animal sheltering services. The County should enter into a new contractual arrangement with HIHS to secure shelter services. This contract could be based on the County’s funded portion of shelter operations or by paying a flat-rate fee per impounded animal.

The County should also offer increased oversight of shelter services. Sheltering is a very important part of Animal Control. It is the facility and landmark which projects the image of the organization and publicly displays the care given to living creatures. If the shelter is not maintained in a manner acceptable to the public, it will constantly be a source of ill will from the people the shelter serves.

It is impossible for government alone to control all pets within a community. If control is to be achieved, it must come from the voluntary efforts of the majority of the members of the community. Therefore, if any Animal Control agency expects the general public to support its ideals and goals, the public must have respect for that agency.

No program is complete without a well-planned public education program. A good public education program can serve several purposes:

• Make pet owners aware of their responsibility to meet their animals’ needs and to keep their animals under control.
• Sensitize people to the humane treatment of all animals, both wild and domestic.
• Let citizens know that the Animal Control program is there to assist with community pet problems.
• Inform people that animal laws will be enforced for everyone’s benefit.
• Teach children to be humane and responsible future pet owners.

While the Study Team realizes that the HIHS may shift their focus more to humane-related activities (after the takeover occurs), it is important for the County of Hawaii to offer its own educational program and develop a relationship with the pet-owning community that has been lacking for quite some time.

In the Study Team’s professional judgement, a takeover of field-related activities by the County of Hawaii would serve the best interests of the animals and taxpayers of this community. While the Study Team recognizes that pressures from outside interests are increasing, the County should not react too quickly in forcing this change. The Study Team recommends hiring a professional, Animal Control administrator to build the new program from the ground up. Then a progressive takeover of field operations could occur within the next budget year.

Both the new program manager and the Animal Control Advisory Board would then have an opportunity to elevate Hawaii County’s program as a leader of Animal Control departments in the United States.

Unattended dogs; barking dogs; loose dogs; residents being attacked.

West Hawaii needs to handle animals for Kau H.O.V.E. or Kau needs their own shelter.

Vicious dogs running loose holding neighbors hostage.

Leash law violations; A/C not enforcing laws for "dangerous and at-large animals."

Filthy conditions at Waimea shelter; staff shortage.

Lost dog; shelter no help trying to locate owner.

Horrible shelter conditions at Waimea shelter.

Killing all the cats as soon as they arrive at shelter.

Dissatisfied with HIHS administration; lack of training for A/C; poor procedures.

Need to enforce leash laws; too many dogs (especially aggressive) running loose.

Letter to Editor: Unattended dogs; barking dogs; loose dogs; residents being attacked.

Need to "tighten" leash laws; need to enforce vicious dog laws.

Dog owner not picking up after his dog; HIHS did not show for court hearing over this matter.

Cyclist attacked by dogs running loose.

Dogs running loose; barking dogs; dogs chasing vehicles; need Enforcement!

Terrible shelter conditions at Waimea shelter; most animals had no food or water; filthy cages.

Says cats are being euthanised immediately upon arrival at shelter.

Do not renew HIHS’s contract when it expires. Hire the West Hawaii Humane Society.

Public Meeting, June 6^th

Problem with HIHS’s lack of field enforcement. Filed complaint about dog abuse issue.

Barking dog complaint; neighbors have barking dogs and the P.D. won’t respond to complaint.

Why can’t Humane Officers enter upon private property to investigate cruelty/neglect complaints?; need public dog parks.

Citizens need to follow the laws - animals get punished in the end.

Visitor read statement of support for HIHS.

Should enact a law prohibiting the feeding of wild dogs and cats.

Visitor had conflict regarding cat adoptions.

ARCH representative; discussed ARCH programs and Maddie’s Fund.

You never know what the shelter is like unless you visit. They have lots of cats!

Long-term animal impoundment is not the answer.

Don’t agree with the concept of P.D. taking over the entire operation.

County won’t invest money in its own shelter.

What happened to the $30,000 left to HIHS for a cattery?

Contract needs to be split and P.D. needs to administer contract.

HIHS won’t work with anyone.

WHHS does not want cats regulated.

WHHS favors the use of the carbon monoxide chamber.

Terrible pet overpopulation problem on the island; need increased field and shelter services.

Waimea shelter hours are too short; need increased morning and evening hours.

Waimea shelter needs to be enclosed for climate control; too cold for animals.

Community needs more education.

Feral cat/dog population is a growing problem.

County should regulate cats.

State can control the number of animals coming in (perfect for control).

HIHS Board is remiss - needs to become more active.

Everyone needs to work together; develop a positive attitude.

Present management at HIHS needs to develop a more encompassing volunteer program.

HIHS disapproved all adoptions by hunters.

Most pig hunters take good care of their animals.

Community really doesn’t know what HIHS does (p/u dead animals & euthanize animals).

Need a low-cost, no-cost, or paid program for spay and neutering.

Need a mobile veterinary van and veterinarian.

Expand educational programs to encourage spay and neuter.

Need to address the inhumane tethering of animals.

Displeased about animals left in the wild.

Not enough community veterinarians to spay/neuter animals.

Citizens deny they have a problem of too many animals (won’t accept what’s going on).

Increased amount of frustration in regards to more people and animals conflicting.

Relationship with HIHS pretty good - positive attitude.

Comfortable with how HIHS handles Animal Control.

Suggests expanded hours/change of hours (need staffing when people are home).

HIHS needs to be more proactive.

HIHS understaffed and underfunded.

Need more funding for spay/neuter and education.

Need to funnel fines back to the program, not to the state.

Everyone wants the problems associated with the program fixed.

County should look at a long-term contract with built-in increases based on performance.

Need to streamline badging process or do away with it altogether.

Citizen complaints are basically passed on to HIHS for a response.

Need a model contract - Performance-based incentives; defined roles.

How practical is it for the Finance Department to administer the program?

Cats should be held as long as dogs.

Animal Control should be considered being placed under the Health Department or P.D.

HIHS must have the staff available to enforce the ordinances.

An ordinance is only as good as the County and HIHS allows it to be enforced.

Police Department does not want to get involved.

Community has a lack of confidence in HIHS.

Need a partnership with everyone (police/HIHS/prosecutor).

Need to set a date to perform training.

Partnership with the Police Department would work better than them just taking it over.

Home Rule is a challenge.

County needs to challenge the HIHS Board to increase their vision.

Length of contract should be extended.

On-call problems at shelter.

Lack of confidence in field program.

Should annually set a date for badging; develop curriculum and training materials.

Maybe add badging training to the police recruit classes?

Judge’s ignorance reflects the community’s ignorance.

HIHS needs certified cruelty investigators.

HIHS should retain copies of its own citations.

Feels that the Police Department has a good working relationship with HIHS.

Doesn’t want Police Department to take over Animal Control.

Never had enough (money and staff).

Citizens don’t understand the whole picture.

Generally, people don’t pay much attention to HIHS.

Four different executive directors since 1990.

Dedicated board and staff.

HIHS was overlooked by previous County administration.

Strengths - Dedication of staff and Board Members.

Weak - Response time; Waimea shelter needs expansion.

Citizens are not educated about spay/neuter advantages.

HIHS can’t keep everyone in the community happy.

Need to get the facility "in shape" to be able to keep them clean.

County Council is becoming more sympathetic to HIHS concerns.

Animal Control is a very low priority during County budget considerations.

Council is more apt to let HIHS out on a limb when complaints come in.

Need increased funding, more Humane Officers.

County could take over the enforcement aspect, HIHS continues to run shelter.

Need to convince the County that Animal Control is important (liability issues).

The Mayor and Department of Finance have been very supportive.

Contract issues - must reflect citizens needs for demands.

Must pay a decent wage.

More difficult to keep Kona employees.

Would like to keep shelter operations, have P.D. take over enforcement.

Budget needs to be addressed; do the best they can with what they have.

County should license and control cats; does not agree with trap/neuter/release.

Estimates that 500,000 to 1,000,000 cats on the island.

Should be limits on the number of animals per household.

Executive Director appears to work well with government officials.

The perfect humane society should be separate from A/C - government should handle that.

Mixed emotions from community; as enforcers they need to be nice - not the bad guy.

Would like the County to maintain its own facility.

Cats are the primary reason why birds are endangered.

HIHS has a dedicated staff - does what’s best for the animals.

HIHS doesn’t follow-up (regarding adoptions) with what happens to animals.

Legitimate complaints are often ignored by HIHS.

Should HIHS focus on sheltering to make sure its done right?

Staff spends too much time defending themselves to citizens and WHHS.

Public concerns - clean out kennels at times (kill animals).

Is the HIHS placing its exempt status in jeopardy by subsidizing A/C?

Likes the idea of P.D. handling enforcement; HIHS handling sheltering.

Bad press of Animal Control overshadows HIHS efforts.

Wants the best for animals and people - is HIHS spread too thin?

9.01 HIHS needs to increase its role and visibility within the community. The agency must cultivate and improve media relations by providing information relating to the positive aspects of the organization. The agency should take a more aggressive approach to public relations and "sell" the organization to the community on a continuing basis to increase support among taxpayers and improve its level of funding. Rating: 3

9.02 The agency should identify someone within the organization to coordinate educational services and speaking engagements (at the time of this study, both Community Program Coordinator positions were vacant). Such services should be promoted heavily within the community and initiated by HIHS. Rating: 3

9.03 HIHS employees (regardless of position or level) should be encouraged to participate in outreach programs. Rating: 3

9.04 The agency should develop and distribute information to the public relating to field and shelter services and ordinances. Rating: 3

9.05 An Animal Control Advisory Board should be established. The new Board should develop and implement its own goals and objectives. The Board should write its own by-laws, defining its purpose and specific goals. A "conflict of interest" statement should also be added to the Board’s by-laws. New Animal Control Advisory Board members should be provided training or instruction regarding their Board responsibilities. All roles and functions should be clearly defined. Rating: 3

9.06 HIHS and the new Advisory Board should develop a procedure in which to investigate citizen complaints/concerns regarding the HIHS staff or services. The purpose of this procedure is to build trust among the government and the community and to provide an impartial review of HIHS activities. Rating: 3

9.07 The County should consider reassigning the administration of the Animal Control contract to an agency that may be a more "natural fit" and possesses some knowledge of public safety and health issues, such as the Health Department or Police Department. Of course, the transfer of such responsibilities should include additional financial and administrative support, and training for those involved in this process. Rating: 3

9.08 The Study Team suggests that the feral cat trap/neuter/release issue should be researched and reviewed by the new Advisory Board for further action. No Rating Assigned

9.09 Once manpower levels increase, it is suggested that cleaning personnel begin work at an earlier time (such as 7:00 a.m.), and that animal holding areas open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 6:00 p.m. On Saturday, all shelters could open at 10:00 a.m. and close at 4:00 p.m. The shelters could remain closed on Sunday. Rating: 3

9.10 The Study Team would recommend that the County, the new Animal Control Advisory Board and the contractor develop a long-term strategy that includes a new animal sheltering facility for the Kailua-Kona service area. In addition, consideration should also be given to adding an additional facility for southern County residents and an upgrade or new facility in the Waimea area. Rating: 1

9.11 While the Study Team sympathizes with HIHS regarding the moral dilemma of adopting out animals which may be exposed to possible injury, the Study Team believes that responsible pet owners, to include pig hunters, should not be excluded from the adoption process. Rating: 1

9.12 In the Study Team’s opinion, the County of Hawaii may be better served by pursuing other means of field service delivery, including abandoning the current operation and building a new field program from the ground up. It is the recommendation of the Study Team that the County of Hawaii should consider the establishment of an Animal Control enforcement division within the Hawaii County Police Department or the Health Department. Shelter services could continue to be outsourced to a local humane organization. Information regarding the proposed "takeover" of field operations may be found in this chapter under "Starting an Effective Animal Control Program." Rating: 2

9.13 The Study Team would not recommend a division of current animal sheltering contract responsibilities until such time as the new field program has been established. The issue of splitting shelter services may then be researched and reviewed by the new Advisory Board for any further action. No Rating Assigned