Transitioning to No-Kill : The SF/SPCA Path to No-Kill

Giving Up The Animal Control Contract: An Interview With Richard Avanzino

Q. Rich, when did you first consider giving up The SF/SPCA’s animal control contract?

A. Believe it or not, the third day after I was hired. It wasn’t that I had a flash of genius: the Board of Directors focused my attention on this issue because every single year at contract negotiation time, the Society was in a battle with the City over funding. And it appeared that this battle would never end (and it didn’t). We were absolutely adamant that we would not compromise the quality of humane treatment and care for the animals entrusted to us and yet the City wasn’t providing us with enough money to adequately do the job. Increasingly, we had to make up the difference with charitable dollars. Giving up the contract seemed like the best option for the long term. In 1978, we said in our magazine, "As a humane society, our obligation is to insist that the City recognize its responsibility to allocate enough funds for the humane and proper care of its animals. That obligation exists for us, with or without the contract." For our next long-range plan, the Board asked me to give them a phase out plan for getting out of animal control and an operational model for life without the contract.

Q. In addition to funding disagreements, were there other considerations?

A. Yes. As I said, being tied to the contract detracted from our ability to serve the animals. By receiving government money, we were at the behest of bureaucrats who wanted to establish a type of service that was very different from our own organizational vision. We wanted to define our own destiny and set our own standard for helping animals in need. Enforcing pooper scooper laws and killing animals were definitely not a part of our organizational agenda.

Q. When did you tell the City you wanted out?

A. In 1984, as part of our annual contract negotiations, we insisted that the City develop an official prototype on how it would perform animal control as a municipal function. We wanted to put the City on notice that we weren’t planning to contract forever.

Q. And did the City put a prototype together?

A. In a nutshell-- no. It took them three years to develop a prototype and a transition plan. Two years later, we signed a contract to perform animal control for 1988-89 and gave official notice that we would not renew our contract the following year.

Q. So now you’re at crunch time. Were you and the Board nervous?

A. Absolutely. This was a huge deal. We had been "the pound" for 101 years and now we’re looking at going over a cliff into uncharted waters. A month before we gave our final notice, the Board convened a retreat to discuss our options for the last time. We looked at the risks and benefits of the separation for the animals, the organization and the community and we identified a lot of fears and concerns. We worried about the animal’s care, negative press, a feeling among our membership that we were abandoning the animals, and similar concerns among the staff. And we worried about the kind of job the City would do and how the community at large would respond. We expected the worst but not one of those worries actually came to pass.

Q. Did you work in advance to prepare your membership for the separation?

A. Definitely. Way back in 1978 we wrote a three page-article in our magazine titled A Tradition In Question. In it, we explained the dilemma we were in with City and laid out a rationale for giving up the contract. Over the years, we kept our membership apprised of this tenuous situation through a variety of mailings. When we were really nearing the end point, we did a six-page piece in the magazine that laid out every single issue and argument about the contract. And the day after we gave final notice to the City, we sent a personalized letter to every single Society member. Preparing our members for the separation was invaluable for maintaining their support. We received fewer than ten letters from our contributors telling us not to separate.

Q. Weren’t you scared about the financial ramifications of giving up the contract?

A. At the time we gave up the contract, it was providing us with 1.8 million dollars annually. Our total budget was about five million dollars. Obviously, we were walking away from a significant chunk of our revenue stream. It’s interesting to note, we were subsidizing the contract with more than one million of our charitable dollars. But clearly, there was concern about our economic future. We expected to have a 1.2 million shortfall the first year and continue on in deficit spending at a lesser rate over the next four years. The fact is, after our first year in which we had to use about $30,000 of our reserves, we reached a budget equilibrium and never looked back. History proves the financial wisdom of this decision. Today, the Society’s budget, combined with animal control, totals nearly 16 million dollars, providing the animals with almost ten times more money than they had in 1989.

Q. Obviously, then, your members were forthcoming with more dollars……

A. Yes they were. I never believed our members wanted to use their dollars to pay for government services or support the massive killing of animals. I did believe our members and the community would support a safety net for the animals and generously pay for expanded services for animal care. Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but in my entire tenure, I never talked to our members about our animal control work, only our philanthropic work. I believe this strategy created a constituency that gave generously to our charitable work and allowed for a successful separation from animal control.

Q. What do you think were the major factors in your successful separation?

A. Key points were that the move was carefully planned and set up over an adequate period of time. But I think any organization considering a separation should really base their decision on what they believe is in the best interest of the animals. That was ultimately what caused our decision and making the change enabled us to be in sync with our mission. We were founded to protect our communities animals and provide for their well being, not to perform animal control or kill cats and dogs. The killing function is a government responsibility and passing it off to a humane organization through a contract is a disconnect. For 101 years, the reputation of The SF/SPCA was, "that’s the place where animals are killed". That was not the purpose of our organization. You can’t be the animal’s best friends and be their principal killer.

Q. Do you think your giving up the animal control contract in 1989 had a broader significance?

A. I actually do. Before we did it, everyone thought we were bluffing. No one believed we would actually turn our backs on nearly two million dollars per year, abandon a 101 year history or give up the advantages that come with being a government contractor. But we did it, and I think it changed the dynamic around the country, giving more leverage to those who continue to contract. In other words, when a contracting agency voices their upset and concern today, I believe the politicians take them much more seriously and know that if push comes to shove, they will walk away. In addition, the success of The SF/SPCA after the separation clearly got noticed by animal welfare groups around the country .This is evidenced by all the organizations that have subsequently given up their own contracts including the ASPCA in New York.

(Note: The BC SPCA is still actively pursuing millions of dollars worth of animal control contracts in BC)