SUMMARY
The 2011–2012 Ventura County Grand Jury (Jury or Grand Jury) opened an inquiry into the policies, procedures, operations, and practices of the Ventura County Animal Services Department (Department). This inquiry was conducted on the basis of newspaper articles discussing activities of the Department and various citizen complaints directed at perceived practice and policy deficiencies of the Department.

The Grand Jury interviewed numerous persons with respect to the various subjects of the inquiry. The Grand Jury examined the practices and written policies of the Department as well as Department records and records of its suppliers and contractors. The Grand Jury visited Department facilities to observe and inspect the premises to ascertain the coherence of written policy to practice.

The Jury found that the Department has had, since 2010, excellent and well- thought-out “Strategic Plans-Mission Statements.” The Department has made substantial improvement under its post-May 2008 management by pursuing those plans. Moreover, the Department’s Strategic Goals reviews have pinpointed many of the critical problems underlying its operational difficulties. It is apparent to the Grand Jury that the Department has moved to address these problems and that continuing efforts are underway to further alleviate them. However, the Grand Jury also concluded that some of the noted difficulties appear to persist in some form and, as a practical matter, seem intractable. In addition, the Grand Jury found new difficulties which are in need of continuing management attention.

The Grand Jury discovered that a central factor in many of the Department’s perceived difficulties is the fact that the Department operates a service—whose principal mandated mission is the control of rabies and the health and safety of the public vis a vis the animal population of Ventura County (County). This mandated service and the Department’s collateral services require continuous interaction with a public that is active in advocacy for the preservation of animal life as well as for the humane treatment of the animals. This situation has created tension and a degree of separation between elements of the public and the Department. To an indeterminable degree, this tension has interfered with the Department’s ability to efficiently perform its mission.

From its inquiries and observations the Jury concluded that, despite difficulties observed in the Department’s performance of their mission, personnel are dedicated, compassionate, and caring toward their charges. Objective evidence of this compassion and care is displayed in observed “empathy fatigue” on the part of Department employees in the euthanizing chain and in the efforts of management to expand its adoption outreach programs.

The principal issue leading to tension between public advocates and the Department is the continuing effort of a segment of the “animal rescue” public to require the County to declare its shelter (Shelter) a “No Kill” Shelter. The Department has publically expressed sympathy with a “No Kill” philosophy and appears to be working toward that status. However, after careful consideration and inquiry, the Grand Jury has concluded that as a practical matter—considering the physical plant and budgetary outlays required to effect a “No Kill” County Shelter—the accomplishment of a “No Kill” Shelter goal is problematic.

Public “No Kill” advocacy pressure and the practical requirement to euthanize animals in Department care has resulted in observed low Department morale and “empathy fatigue.” Moreover, Department management has apparently succumbed to a “siege mentality” in its communication with the public and in its intra-governmental relationships. This mentality has been detrimental to the Department’s mission, image and effectiveness.

With respect to Department euthanasia practice, the Grand Jury found that despite a current increasing intake of dogs, the rate of dogs euthanized by the Department has decreased since 2008. This reflects other findings concerning Department activities; foremost, the Department’s enlistment of rescue groups to partner adoption offerings to the public and its own Shelter emphasis on adoption.

The Jury considered several factors that impact the rates of euthanasia for dogs, cats, and other animals. Among these are “holding times”—mandated by the State (seventy-two hours), versus Department established holding periods (five business days) and, of course, the Shelter’s limited holding capacity. Moreover, there are added time restrictions on adoptions of some dog classifications due to the Department’s “unique” County Shelter’s home inspections policy, e.g., “pit bulls.”

Although the Grand Jury understands the present necessity to outsource the spaying and neutering functions and the emergency off-hours medical trauma function—given the limited availability of the single County Veterinarian—the Grand Jury found that the cost to the Department for these outsourced functions is significant. Accordingly, the Grand Jury recommends that the County Executive Office (CEO) conduct a study to determine the economic feasibility of returning outsourced Shelter work to the Department and hiring a second County Veterinarian. To provide better service to the public, the Grand Jury is of the opinion that bringing these functions in-house with adequate medical personnel, would improve medical services, and result in more efficient use of medical personnel and existing medical facilities.

In addition, the following are a few of the other Grand Jury recommendations for the Department:
• make inoculation of all incoming dogs with the Bordetella vaccine a permanent policy
• expedite construction of the planned and budgeted intake facility
• exercise more direct control and require more accountability of the medical section with respect to hours of work, overtime, vehicle usage and other non-medical policies and practices
• institute biannual mandatory Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counter stress technique training for all personnel involved in the euthanizing process, including administrative “list makers”
Prior to the Jury undertaking its inquiry, some Jury-listed recommendations were in process at the Department’s initiative. The Grand Jury recommends that these Department actions be expedited.

Go to the Grand Jury website to review the entire report http://grandjury.countyofventura.org