khaleesi Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 I frequently come across people saying that the DAS pound in Canberra has a 95% rehoming rate, and that this is one of the best in the country. I have always believed this figure which is reported in the TAMS (Territory and Municipal Services) Annual reports and other official documents. A friend of mine recently pointed out thought that the key here is that it is a qualified figure. As the fine print in the TAMS annual report says, it is the percentage of dogs reclaimed or adopted/rescued divided by the number of dogs thought to be adoptable (not the total number of dogs!). However often this fine print, which in my opinion is very misleading, is not even mentioned. For example in an article from last year a TAMS spokeswoman is quoted as saying "DAS rangers care for a large number of dogs and have achieved one of the highest re-homing rates of any pound in the country, at around 95 per cent.'' http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/lost-and-pound-krieger-the-weimaraner-and-owner-reunited-20140301-33sx8.html Mr Stanhope also frequently cites this statistic, but as he admits himself - "unadoptable dogs" however they are identified, are conveniently excluded from the equation. http://www.hansard.act.gov.au/hansard/2013/week03/992.htm Total dogs impounded in 2012 = 1,491 (including a carryover of 35 dogs from 2011). Total dogs rehomed (includes reclaimed)= 1,245 Total dogs euthanized= 226 (including 66 "adoptable") Total dogs carried over till next year=20 Excluding the 20 dogs carried over to 2013 that still equals a rehome rate of about 85% if all dogs are taken into account? The DAS pound is wonderful. They have great staff, a volunteer program, work closely with rescue groups and are able to achieve fantastic outcomes. I just don't see why misleading statistics are used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Yeah, that's a really misleading way to portray their stats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 Using the same method our local RSPCA shelter would likely be the same, it has a no-kill policy for adoptable animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronja Posted August 27, 2014 Share Posted August 27, 2014 That does sound super dodgy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It's the same for most (if not all) pounds and shelters - the line is that they rehome all "adoptable" pets (or all "healthy and rehomeable" or "treatable") pets.. words to that effect. The trouble is that the definition of 'rehomeable', 'adoptable' and 'healthy' is opaque at best. Some places have a much lower "healthy" threshold. Is a dog with a skin infection healthy? What about a dog with luxating patellas? They're decisions that are made behind closed doors, and the definitions aren't transparent or available. Is a 13 year old "rehomeable"? I say so. Others may not (and I'd fervently disagree, but it's beside the point). What if it's got an ear infection? I'd say of course, treat the ear infection, and many people want to adopt older dogs. Some pounds may have an an unofficial rule or policy that dogs over a certain age aren't adoptable, or dogs with a particular health or behavioural issue aren't adoptable.. therefore they are removed from the figures and unless you interrogate them, the figures look brilliant. I'm not saying DAS isn't a great shelter - I've got no experience with them, and have no idea. I agree that those figures look pretty good, even with that reporting and filtering. But when a pound that does a great job and works wtih rescues, community, etc is up against the big guys who claim to adopt out ALL healthy and adoptable animals (when in reality that mean they euthanise an animal with a minor ailment that could be quickly and inexpensively fixed) - what hope have they got. It's an uphill battle. .. just my thoughts :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaleesi Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 I think the fluid definition of 'adoptable' is a real problem. However, if pounds and shelters made available their intake numbers and the outcomes it would be much easier to compare the performance of pounds/shelters across the country using a standard figure. A recent presentation at the Getting 2 Zero conference in 2013 did a great job trying to do some state by state comparisons. http://www.g2z.org.au/assets/pdf2013/DianaChua_VETS5017_G2Z.07.jr.pdf The DAS figure for the ACT pound is the only one that really stands out as being a complete outlier. If the true figure is around 85% then this is much more comparable to many other pounds around the country, but still towards the high end. As many other pounds around the country DAS has to deal with seized dogs, dogs that have been involved in attacks and so on. These would obviously not be rehomable. But to be able to have a reasonable comparison of statistics, these need to be clear and transparent. Otherwise how can we ever know if things are improving. They way TAMS calculates the figures for DAS they have been at 94-96% for years and years now. Meanwhile RSPCA ACT include all their statistics clearly in their annual reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Oh, I absolutely agree. I was actually at that conference too. But the problem is that pounds are reluctant to publish information with that level of detail, because it looks bad. Of course there are some dogs that shouldn't be adopted if they have serious behavioural issues that make them unadoptable, or if their health issues are so serious that putting them down is euthanasia in the true sense of the word. Ie, not because it's inconvenient to house them until they are adopted or release them to a rescue group to be rehomed, or because they may take longer than some other dogs to adopt. I totally agree with you, but I just don't think it's going to happen :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Gifts Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I actually think it is far more useful to everyone involved in animal welfare to provide clear and honest stats. How can things ever improve if we don't? You'd have to be an idiot to think every single dog that came in to a shelter or a pound was capable of finding a new home. You have injured dogs, ones with terminal health issues, as well as dangerous ones and ones with serious behavioural issues. It is like a hospital aiming to be a 'no death' facility. It simply isn't possible. But when they have clean stats on the number of rehomable animals that are pts then they have a bottom line to work against and improve. I'm far more impressed by honest and improving data than dodgy showing off stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 Yup, I totally agree with you. I guess the issue is that, that assumes that there is a desire to improve, and recognition that there is a problem. Many pounds would say that they DON'T pts adoptable animals, so there isn't a problem. They just make 'adoptable' a broad, undefinable category. It's like the word 'healthy' - it's subjective. How healthy is healthy enough to be considered 'adoptable'? Depends who's making teh decision, where, and when. Just because an organisation is in the animal welfare/management space, doesn't mean it has the same aims and views as people like you or I, who are involved in animal welfare from a different perspective. (That said, I'm involved both in shelter managemetn and a rescue group, so I get both sides) Also, many pounds are more interested than donations than euthanasia figures, and one threatens the other. Of course low euthanasia rates will attract donations from people who know and care about those things. They'd rather not give air time or open a can of worms, by providing more data than strictly necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I actually think it is far more useful to everyone involved in animal welfare to provide clear and honest stats. How can things ever improve if we don't? You'd have to be an idiot to think every single dog that came in to a shelter or a pound was capable of finding a new home. You have injured dogs, ones with terminal health issues, as well as dangerous ones and ones with serious behavioural issues. It is like a hospital aiming to be a 'no death' facility. It simply isn't possible. But when they have clean stats on the number of rehomable animals that are pts then they have a bottom line to work against and improve. I'm far more impressed by honest and improving data than dodgy showing off stuff. Yep and then you have the other stats that we need to know - how many that are put into new homes bounce back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 I actually think it is far more useful to everyone involved in animal welfare to provide clear and honest stats. How can things ever improve if we don't? You'd have to be an idiot to think every single dog that came in to a shelter or a pound was capable of finding a new home. You have injured dogs, ones with terminal health issues, as well as dangerous ones and ones with serious behavioural issues. It is like a hospital aiming to be a 'no death' facility. It simply isn't possible. But when they have clean stats on the number of rehomable animals that are pts then they have a bottom line to work against and improve. I'm far more impressed by honest and improving data than dodgy showing off stuff. Yep and then you have the other stats that we need to know - how many that are put into new homes bounce back? Yes and in the case of DAS how many were sent to the RSPCA and never heard of again. Bitches in whelp automatically go to the RSPCA and weeks later pups that look like the dog are advertised but not the mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keetamouse Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) I actually think it is far more useful to everyone involved in animal welfare to provide clear and honest stats. How can things ever improve if we don't? You'd have to be an idiot to think every single dog that came in to a shelter or a pound was capable of finding a new home. You have injured dogs, ones with terminal health issues, as well as dangerous ones and ones with serious behavioural issues. It is like a hospital aiming to be a 'no death' facility. It simply isn't possible. But when they have clean stats on the number of rehomable animals that are pts then they have a bottom line to work against and improve. I'm far more impressed by honest and improving data than dodgy showing off stuff. Yep and then you have the other stats that we need to know - how many that are put into new homes bounce back? Yes and in the case of DAS how many were sent to the RSPCA and never heard of again. Bitches in whelp automatically go to the RSPCA and weeks later pups that look like the dog are advertised but not the mother. Very few are sent to the RSPCA from DAS, it would possibly be very young pups/dogs that the RSPCA have sent to DAS because their quarantine pens are full and sometimes if the dog does not get sold/rescue it goes back to the RSPCA when pens are free. Has anyone looked at other pounds/shelters to see if their stats are "dodgy" or only DAS... Maree CPR Edited August 29, 2014 by keetamouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaleesi Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 It's very possible (and likely) that other pounds also have dodgy stats in some instances. The key is that most of them at least provide some breakdown of the statistics. In it's annual reports and other documents TAMS only shows two numbers: (1) total number of dogs impounded and (2) percentage rehomed successfully (for at least 7 years now, this has been sitting at 94-96%). It is only through trawling through Hansard documents or doing FOI requests it is possible to get any proper stats. With the figure sitting at 94-96% for the last 7 years, it is as if there has been no improvement whatsover - which I am sure there has given that the pound has taken several good steps to increase rehoming. As shown in the below presentation most if not all other pounds (and shelters) you can get a breakdown on # reclaimed, # rehomed, # euthanized etc. But for DAS pound it is notably absent! http://www.g2z.org.au/assets/pdf2013/DianaChua_VETS5017_G2Z.07.jr.pdf I think this is a pity because the DAS pound actually does some fantastic work in conjuction with the rescue groups. From the stats I have been able to find they are among the better ones! But the lack of transparency is some of the worst I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keetamouse Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It's very possible (and likely) that other pounds also have dodgy stats in some instances. The key is that most of them at least provide some breakdown of the statistics. In it's annual reports and other documents TAMS only shows two numbers: (1) total number of dogs impounded and (2) percentage rehomed successfully (for at least 7 years now, this has been sitting at 94-96%). It is only through trawling through Hansard documents or doing FOI requests it is possible to get any proper stats. With the figure sitting at 94-96% for the last 7 years, it is as if there has been no improvement whatsover - which I am sure there has given that the pound has taken several good steps to increase rehoming. As shown in the below presentation most if not all other pounds (and shelters) you can get a breakdown on # reclaimed, # rehomed, # euthanized etc. But for DAS pound it is notably absent! http://www.g2z.org.au/assets/pdf2013/DianaChua_VETS5017_G2Z.07.jr.pdf I think this is a pity because the DAS pound actually does some fantastic work in conjuction with the rescue groups. From the stats I have been able to find they are among the better ones! But the lack of transparency is some of the worst I have seen. Maybe you can ask them to improve the way they do things and ask for more transparency, it's the only way things will change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 It's very possible (and likely) that other pounds also have dodgy stats in some instances. The key is that most of them at least provide some breakdown of the statistics. In it's annual reports and other documents TAMS only shows two numbers: (1) total number of dogs impounded and (2) percentage rehomed successfully (for at least 7 years now, this has been sitting at 94-96%). It is only through trawling through Hansard documents or doing FOI requests it is possible to get any proper stats. With the figure sitting at 94-96% for the last 7 years, it is as if there has been no improvement whatsover - which I am sure there has given that the pound has taken several good steps to increase rehoming. As shown in the below presentation most if not all other pounds (and shelters) you can get a breakdown on # reclaimed, # rehomed, # euthanized etc. But for DAS pound it is notably absent! http://www.g2z.org.au/assets/pdf2013/DianaChua_VETS5017_G2Z.07.jr.pdf I think this is a pity because the DAS pound actually does some fantastic work in conjuction with the rescue groups. From the stats I have been able to find they are among the better ones! But the lack of transparency is some of the worst I have seen. Re the link. What does the column %rehomed after reclaimed mean? Does it mean the owner reclaimed their dogs? But that is covered in another column. Or the owner did not want the dogs back after acknowledging ownership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaleesi Posted August 29, 2014 Author Share Posted August 29, 2014 (edited) @keetamouse I have written to several local politicians, including Katy Gallagher, but haven't received any reply. I know Michael Linke said back in 2011 that he hoped the TAMS annual report would use a rehome rate based on all dogs as early as 2011. That still has not happened Hopefully with enough public pressure things might change? http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/pound-earns-praise-for-rehoming-dogs-20111005-1v746.html DAS have nothing to be ashamed of. Their work is great. @sarsaparilla the %rehomed after reclaimed is the percentage of ALL dogs rehomed to a new home (i.e. adopted/rescued) after excluding those dogs that just went back to their original owner. At least in the ACT just over 50% of dogs that come to either RSPCA ACT or DAS pound are just beloved pets that have gotten out of their yard and been picked up. These are usually reclaimed by their owner after just one or two days. So the %rehomed after reclaimed is the standard rehoming rate, excluding from the denominator these reclaimed dogs. Edited August 29, 2014 by khaleesi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarbedWire Posted August 29, 2014 Share Posted August 29, 2014 @keetamouse I have written to several local politicians, including Katy Gallagher, but haven't received any reply. I know Michael Linke said back in 2011 that he hoped the TAMS annual report would use a rehome rate based on all dogs as early as 2011. That still has not happened Hopefully with enough public pressure things might change? http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/pound-earns-praise-for-rehoming-dogs-20111005-1v746.html DAS have nothing to be ashamed of. Their work is great. @sarsaparilla the %rehomed after reclaimed is the percentage of ALL dogs rehomed to a new home (i.e. adopted/rescued) after excluding those dogs that just went back to their original owner. At least in the ACT just over 50% of dogs that come to either RSPCA ACT or DAS pound are just beloved pets that have gotten out of their yard and been picked up. These are usually reclaimed by their owner after just one or two days. So the %rehomed after reclaimed is the standard rehoming rate, excluding from the denominator these reclaimed dogs. Thankyou so that column heading means %rehomed after removing the reclaimed ones from the figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaleesi Posted August 30, 2014 Author Share Posted August 30, 2014 Exactly sarsparilla :) Sorry sometimes I get myself in a tangle and don't make much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keetamouse Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) * Edited August 30, 2014 by keetamouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 30, 2014 Share Posted August 30, 2014 There are many decisions and many assumptions made about dogs coming into pounds and rescue all based on stats which are dodgy or guesses. Until we collect the same data state wide we will never have a clear view of how what where or why by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now