HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-001-18Clarftwn
CAO
Report
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact the Accessibility
Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Report To: General Government Committee
Date of Meeting: January 22, 2018
Report Number: CAO -001-18 Resolution:
File Number: By-law Number:
Report Subject: Service Review - Animal Shelter Services
Recommendations:
1. That Report CAO -001-18 be received;
2. That Council endorse the action items set out in sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this Report; and
3. That staff continue to consider opportunities for continuous improvement which may
include implementing further recommendations set out in the consultant's Service
Delivery Review of Animal Shelter Services.
Municipality of Clarington
Report CAO -001-18
Report Overview
Page 2
Through Report CAO -002-17, Council approved a service delivery review approach.
Services to be reviewed are chosen by the Audit Committee based on a set of criteria
defined in the Report. This Report presents the results of the independent Animal Shelter
Services Review and recommends actions to improve service delivery.
1. Background
1.1 One of Council's strategic priorities in the 2015-2018 Strategic Plan is "Demonstrate
Good Governance and Value for the Tax Dollar". In March 2017, Council accepted the
Service Delivery Review Approach as described in Report CAO -002-17. The Audit
Committee chose Animal Shelter Services as the first service to be reviewed.
1.2 Through a Request For Proposal (RFP) process WSCS Consulting Services (Tammy
Wolters) was selected to undertake the review. Ms. Wolters has considerable experience
with service level reviews, a strong financial background and extensive municipal
experience. On August 10, 2017 the service level review was initiated. The report was
completed later than the original scheduled date due to a number of factors including a
decision to undertake a customer survey.
1.3 Animal Shelter Services has undergone some significant changes over the past few
years. In 2015, animal licences ceased to be sold door-to-door. Through an RFP, animal
licence sales were awarded to Docupet, an online provider. Animal licences have
declined over this transition, but there have been some marketing initiatives by Docupet
to promote animal licences sales. There have also been some changes in realigning
enforcement services to introduce efficiencies in enforcement. As part of the 2015-2017
CUPE Local 74 contract negotiations, the By-law, Parking and Animal Enforcement
Officers are now classed as Municipal Law Enforcement Officers I or II (MLEO I) and
MLEO II. Incumbent Parking Enforcement Officers were reclassified as MLEO I's, and
incumbent Animal Services Officers remained in the same classification. The combining
of enforcement units allows a more streamlined and efficient process for enforcement,
especially if multiple issues occur at the same location or in close proximity to each other.
As noted in the consultant's report, this transition has been challenging for the Animal
Services Officer staff.
1.4 A steering committee was formed to coordinate the service delivery review process. This
steering committee members were the Chief Administrative Officer, Manager of Internal
Audit, the Clerk, Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement and Acting Animal Services
Manager. The process required a significant amount of resources including the time and
commitment of the steering committee members and most importantly the Animal
Services staff.
Municipality of Clarington
Resort CAO -001-18 Paae 3
2. Service Delivery Review Recommendations
2.1 The Service Delivery Review of Animal Shelter Services dated January 12, 2018 is
attached to this Report. In it, the consultant has made 17 recommendations. While the
review was focused on the Animal Shelter Services such as adoptions, feeding, cleaning
and education, these services do not stand alone. Therefore, some of the
recommendations contained in the consultant's report address animal licencing and
enforcement as they affect the efficiency of the Animal Shelter Services.
2.2 Several recommendations require further investment of time and resources to investigate.
As a result, not all recommendations can be implemented immediately.
2.3 Based on the consultant's report and discussion amongst steering committee members,
the following actions are considered priority and will be implemented:
(a) Recommendation 8 —"Move the Animal Services Officers to Municipal Law
Enforcement offices and standardize the roles but allow for the specialty skill sets as
a transition". This recommendation validates the work previously initiated and builds
on the separation of enforcement and animal care functions. This recommendation
will be put into effect immediately. Completing the transition will clarify the roles of
the Animal Service Officers in enforcement and the Animal Care Attendants in care
and maintenance of the animal shelter. The specialty skill set of the Animal Service
Officers will assist with the transition to a full service enforcement team.
(b) Recommendations 4 and 5, which apply to the patrolling of parks for Animal By -Law
issues, will be transferred and incorporated into the Municipal Law Enforcement
Division activates to achieve efficiencies.
(c) Recommendation 7 to reclassify the Animal Services Manager is logical and
reasonable given that the role will be more narrowly focussed with fewer staff.
Given the transfer of the Animal Services Officers to Municipal Law Enforcement,
this role will be reclassified to an Animal Shelter Supervisor and will report to the
Manager Municipal Law Enforcement.
(d) The service activity and service hours analysis demonstrated that other
improvements could be achieved by modifying the hours for adaptions and other
customer driven services. Reducing the hours of adoption when they are more likely
to be demanded will free up Animal Care Attendants to do the routine cleaning and
feeding without interruption. This would be possible as the enforcement duties will
be performed by staff from the Municipal Law Enforcement offices. A review of
services will be undertaken with services hours modified as deemed appropriate.
(e) Several of the recommendations look to improve the efficiency of processes at the
Animal Shelter. Improvements to technology and expanding on the use of
technology in daily processes can result in savings in the time needed for regular
activities. This would result in streamlining the process on record keeping as well as
having a better understanding of the cost and tracking of activities. Animal Services
Municipality of Clarington
Report CAO -001-18 Page 4
staff will investigate if the current software and hardware systems can be better used
to improve processes and maximize efficiency or if better alternative
software/hardware should be deployed.
(f) It is clear through this review that the Animal Shelter is valued by the community.
The shelter receives many donations of supplies from the public as well as monetary
donations. Finance staff, in cooperation with Communications and Clerk's staff, will
investigate the establishment of an online donation program as per
Recommendation 15.
(g) As per Recommendation 3, Animal Services staff will work with Communications
staff to undertake customer surveys on a regular and transactional basis. This will
provide valuable information on an ongoing basis.
2.4 The remaining recommendations, while relevant and worthwhile, will be considered for
implementation at a later date.
(a) Recommendation 1 — "Explore partnership opportunities with neighbouring
municipalities". This will be formally investigated before construction of a new facility
is contemplated. The current Animal Shelter facility has a limited life. Due to future
highway development the current site is not viable. The Development Charges
Background Study and the Land Acquisition Strategy (2017) have scheduled a
replacement site to be determined for the Animal Shelter. At this point, the timing of
new location has been pushed to 2022-2027. This allows for the Municipality of
Clarington to fully explore partnership opportunities for Animal Shelter Services.
(b) Recommendation 9 - "Utilize the savings from the re-classifying to implement a
volunteer program". Animal Services in the past has worked on developing a
volunteer program, however, there have been some challenges with sustaining the
program, managing training and retaining the volunteers.
(c) Recommendation 11 - "Review the licensing program". A study will be conducted on
the Animal Services fees and licences, factoring in the true cost of services such as
adoption.
(d) Recommendation 13 - "Develop a communication and outreach strategy". In the
past, Animal Services did have an outreach program. Due to increasing demands
over the years, the program has lapsed. Once developed, the program would be
delivered to various groups throughout the Municipality with a view to reducing the
need to Animal Shelter services through more responsible pet ownership.
2.5 In the fall of 2017, Communications staff undertook to streamline and better promote the
Municipality's complaint process on the Municipal website, as was identified through
Recommendation 6 of the consultant's report.
2.6 The key to knowing the effectiveness of a service is having benchmarks or performance
indicators to measure the performance from year to year. Through the process of the
Municipality of Clarington
Resort CAO -001-18
Paae 5
service review there were several viable indicators suggested. Through a study of goals
and desired outcomes, the relevant performance measures can be determined.
3. Concurrence
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Clerk and the Manager of Internal Audit
who concur with the recommendations.
4. Conclusion
This service delivery review proved to be very informative with many recommendations
being relatively easy to implement, with minimal or no actual cost, and which staff believe
will improve business processes and services. Recognizing that not all recommendations
can be implemented at once and that success will come through commitment and careful
implementation, it is respectfully recommended that Council endorse the action plan for
implementation of the Animal Shelter Service Delivery study recommendations as
detailed in this Report.
5. Strategic Plan Application
The recommendations contained in this report conform to Council's strategic priority to
"Demonstrate Good Governance and Value for the Tax Dollar".
Submitted by:
Andrew C. Allison, B. Comm, LL.B
CAO
Staff Contact: Catherine Carr, Manager of Internal Audit, 905-623-3379 ext 2606 or
ccarr@clarington.net
There are no interested parties to be notified of Council's decision.
January 12, 2018
Animal Shelter Services
I�
If this information is required in an alternate accessible format, please contact
the Accessibility Coordinator at 905-623-3379 ext. 2131.
Contents
Executive Summary.................................................................................................. 2
ProjectObjective...................................................................................................... 4
ProjectScope............................................................................................................ 5
Methodology............................................................................................................ 6
Opportunities and Recommendations................................................................... 10
Background............................................................................................................. 12
Demographics......................................................................................................... 14
Benchmarking — Why Compare to Other Communities? ...................................... 15
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) ................................. 16
KeyFindings............................................................................................................ 20
Recommendations/Opportunities......................................................................... 66
Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 68
Acknowledgement................................................................................................. 68
Appendix A: Community Survey Results................................................................ 69
Appendix B: Staff Checksheet results..................................................................... 98
Service Delivery Review
Page 1
Service Delivery Review
Animal Shelter Services
Executive Summary
The Municipality of Clarington (the Municipality) is a vibrant
community located at the eastern edge of the Greater
Toronto Area, one of eight municipalities in Durham Region.
Its population of 95,000 is expected to continue to grow due
to its proximity to the 401/407 and the desire for people to
escape the city. It is a large Municipality, covering an area of
approximately 612 square kilometres with four major urban
centres and 13 hamlets. That and the blend of urban and
rural mix is both attractive and challenging for the
Municipality to serve. Expectations of those moving from
the city are high in terms of breadth of service and response
time while those living in the rural areas resist intervention
through traditional municipal by-laws.
' March 6 2017 — CA0002-17 — Service Delivery Review Approach -
Report to General Government Committee
Service Delivery Review
As the Municipality grows, it needs to be able to meet the
changing demands that growth brings and improve existing
services. To this end, Clarington has committed to undertake
Service Delivery Reviews (SDR) of some or all of its 145
identified services' over the next few years. The criteria for
the selection of services to review range from those that
have had challenges meeting budget allocations, quality of
service concerns or requests from the service itself.
Animal Shelter Services was selected as the first review as it
has seen many changes over the past two years and is often
challenged to meet the diverse expectations of the
community every day. Its mandate is to ensure that animals
are not at -large and residents are able to enjoy their
surroundings, free of noise, and nuisance. The service
provides both care for animals brought to the shelter,
promoting adoption and transfer as well as enforcement of
the Responsible Pet Owners By-law. To some extent, these
Page 2
services require different skill sets and approaches which has
led to some organizational changes, including the separation
of the roles of Animal Services Attendant and Municipal
Enforcement Officer. The transition has been challenging
and the resources to manage the shelter have been
stretched. It is important to note that the Municipality
embarked on changes for Animal Shelter Services and
enforcement over the past two years. It was recognized that
structural changes were necessary and some of those
changes were implemented. This report supports those
initiatives.
This review is intended to assess the service and provide
recommendations for consideration.
Service Delivery Review
Page 3
Project Objective
WSCS Consulting Inc. was engaged to undertake
a service delivery review in order to assist the
Municipality in assessing its Animal Shelter
Services. The objective of this review was to
provide an objective view of services, explore
opportunities for alternatives and make
recommendations for improvements. The key
focus is to determine if the municipality has
opportunities to:
a. improve service and outcomes;
b. meet new or increased demand from
customers for services;
c. improve service delivery mechanisms and
processes;
d. maintain existing service levels in the
face of competing priorities or
decreasing revenues;
e. reduce costs; and/or improve revenues.
The approach that Clarington chose to utilize
was outlined in the guide to service delivery
reviews released by the Ontario municipal
affairs and housing. The guide suggests
that 10 key questions should be addressed
Clarington -14 0 4y
Service Delivery Review
in SDRs as shown in Figure 1: 10 Service
Delivery Review Questions as follows:
1. Do we really need to continue to be in
the business/service?
2. What do citizens expect of the service
and what outcomes does council want for
the service?
3. How does current performance compare
to expected performance?
4. Do the activities logically lead to the
expected outcomes?
5. How is demand for the service being
managed?
6. What are the full costs and benefits of
the service?
7. How can benefits and outputs of the
service be increased?
8. How can the number and cost of inputs
be decreased?
9. What are the alternative ways of
delivering the service?
10. How can a service change best be
managed, implemented and
communicated?
Figure 1:10 Service Delivery Review Questions
Page 4
O
Do we REALLY need to be in this
business?
ZService?
0 +
What Expect of the
e? What outcomes
What outcomes does
Council want for the service?
i
How Does Current Performance
0
v
Compare to Expected
Performance?
04
m
Do the activities logically lead to the
expected outcomes?
O
How is the DEMAND for services
being managed?
0 ^
What are the full costs and
benefits the
l6
of service?
07
. •
How can benefits and outputs of
v
the service be increased?
Ojr-i
How can the number and costs
of inputs be decreased?
What are the alternative ways of
09
Q
delivering the service?
1 O
How can a service change best
lffffl�
be managed, implemented and
communicated?
Clarington -14 0 4y
Service Delivery Review
in SDRs as shown in Figure 1: 10 Service
Delivery Review Questions as follows:
1. Do we really need to continue to be in
the business/service?
2. What do citizens expect of the service
and what outcomes does council want for
the service?
3. How does current performance compare
to expected performance?
4. Do the activities logically lead to the
expected outcomes?
5. How is demand for the service being
managed?
6. What are the full costs and benefits of
the service?
7. How can benefits and outputs of the
service be increased?
8. How can the number and cost of inputs
be decreased?
9. What are the alternative ways of
delivering the service?
10. How can a service change best be
managed, implemented and
communicated?
Figure 1:10 Service Delivery Review Questions
Page 4
Project Scope
1. Project Initiation: Met with Clarington's SDR Animal
Services Steering Committee to clarify expectations,
refine lines of inquiry, and develop a subsequent work
program for the engagement.
2. Steering Committee: Meetings held to provide
updates and facilitated focus group sessions.
Individual interviews with members of the Steering
Committee was also undertaken.
3. Staff Consultations: Interviewed all Animal Shelter
staff, performed service walkthroughs and facilitated
focus group sessions.
4. Staff Workload Survey: Development and
administration of staff survey/checksheet to track
workload and activities from November 14 to 26, 2017.
5. Community Survey: Conducted an online survey from
November 6, 2017 to December 15, 2017. The survey
remained open until December 31, 2017.
6. Environmental Scan: Reviewed relevant
documentation; benchmarked Municipality services
against comparators to identify opportunities for
improved efficiencies and effectiveness.
Service Delivery Review
7. Review of Current Service Delivery Model: Developed
an inventory of services and processes provided by
Animal Shelter Services.
8. Opportunity Identification: Identified potential
opportunities to achieve the most efficient and
operationally effective approach to service delivery
and address the 10 key questions.
9. Final Report & Presentation: Developed and
presented an interim report to the Steering
Committee with key findings. Final report with
recommendations on the Municipality's service
delivery model scheduled for January 2018.
Page 5
Methodology
Our methodology shown in Figure 3:
Project Methodology included a
combination of documentation reviews,
consultations, focus groups, interviews,
system walkthroughs, benchmarking and
data analysis. This work was undertaken
over a five-month period commencing
August 2017 with interim findings to the
Steering Committee in November 2017.
The opportunities and recommendations
are expected to be presented to Committee
in January 2018. Figure 3: Project Schedule
shows the timing of each activity. In
summary, staff and management
consultations took place in August and
September 2017 followed by focus groups
and system walkthroughs in October and
November. We administered the
Community Survey in November as well as
Service Delivery Review
Project
Initiation
First
Principles
Meeting
AUG -SEPT 2017 SEPT -4CT 2017 NOV 2017 DEC 2017 -JAN 2018
Figure 2: Project Methodology
the staff workload survey through the
utilization of checksheets. Interim results were presented to
the Steering Committee in November with the draft report in
December. Following some input from the committee, we
updated this report.
Page 6
Service Delivery Review
Project Schedule
Clarington Animal Shelter Services-
Service Delivery Review
August September
October November
December January
Key Meetings
0 10th
0 24th 0 13th
steering and
Steering Corlrlltfd Steefing Comr de
Commlamy
ano Focus Croups; and Focus Croups
nrtNsnry i
i ;
; i
Key Milestones
A 24th r 131h A 5th
Staff Checkshekt Co+n�*�unr tiurvey i Final Rcr�r
C1d
20th
enm Reput '
Supfrvi,nr Staff
'A
--- -----------
I interviews
_______—
-----r---------- -------- ._ _------------*--------_interviews
i
i
Focus Groups
--- -- i--- ---- - ----- - -
- - .
I Staff Check -sheet
Survey
'
i
I
---- -- ---- -4- - --- - ___ - -- i -
-- - -- --- -- - -----
;
i
i_---____._. ______________________
Current Slate Ana"s m
._ 4
■ Consultation Focus Groups ■ Documenation... ■ Current State.
Figure 3: Project Schedule
I
i
i
Community Survey
i
I
__--------- r --------- ________
.. ___..._.. ..__........ __..____r ___- .------ .__________ r ---------
It Opportunities Analysis
i
Future State,.. Surveys ■ Reporting
Page 7
Key t0 Success
I* ..................... r+
f
` ....................
•
Service Delivery Review
+,.................
•
•
.................... I*
t;
i
...................
d%.+10+1- its+0-t0
Key to success include: A: Improve Service and Outcomes, B: Improve Processes, C: Maintain Services, D: Meet New and Increased
Demand, E: Reduce Cost and F: Improve Revenues
Page 8
0
0
etter customer
ocussed services &
lelivery
utcome: Improved Customer
3tisfaction, Reduced Costs
C
0
E
F
Improve Service Delivery Greater Economy,
Mechanisms through
Greater operational
integration
Outcome: "Better
decision Making and
Adh management"
Improved processes,
efficiencyand
productivity
Outcome: Reduced Waste and
Improved controls = Good
Management
Meet New or Increased
Demand from Customers
Outcome: Economic Development,
Immigration, Growth
Alternative Service
Delivery Models
❑utcome: "Reduced Costs and
Improved Services"
Increased Revenues
Outcome: Fiscal Sustainability,
Flexibility and reduced vulnerability
Service Delivery Review
Opportunities and Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Explore partnership opportunities with neighbouring municipalities.
Recommendation 2: Undertake a strategic planning session to fully explore the goals and outcomes as
well as performance indicators to assess client expectations.
Recommendation 3: Undertake a client survey on a regular and transactional basis.
Recommendation 4: As part of the strategic planning process, update activities and review the need
for patrolling parks.
Recommendation 5: Transfer this responsibility to all municipal law enforcement officers and set up
municipal patrol areas.
Recommendation 6: Advertise the municipality's complaint line/email/services at various locations to
allow citizens to easily report infractions via mobile.
Recommendation 7: Reclassify the Animal Services Manager to a supervisor reporting to the Manager
of Municipal Law Enforcement.
Recommendation 8: Move the Animal Services Officers to municipal law enforcement offices and
standardize the roles but allow for specialty skill sets as a transition.
Recommendation 9: Utilize the savings from the reclassification of the manager position to implement
a volunteer program.
Page 10
Service Delivery Review
Recommendation 10: Undertake a fee study to determine the true cost of adoption and licensing and
a policy on the amount of subsidization.
Recommendation 11: Review the licensing program and at minimum, introduce automated renewals
and welcome packages.
Recommendation 12: Review and expand the use of technology to improve processes, record keeping
and workload management in the Animal Shelter as well as investigate mobile technology for the
Animal Services Officers (By-law).
Recommendation 13: Develop a communication and outreach strategy in line with the strategic plan
on a regional basis.
Recommendation 14: Improve client relationship management through tracking and service quality
standards.
Recommendation 15: Develop a donation campaign with online, automated receipts. Track all
donations and determine the true cost of operations.
Recommendation 16: Implement activity based costing, tracking of animal care, medications and
performance measures/standards.
Recommendation 17: Develop a change management program.
Page 11
Background
Situated on beautiful Lake Ontario, the Municipality of
Clarington (the Municipality) is a lower -tier municipality in
Durham Region which has picturesque harbours at the
eastern border of the GTA. The municipality has a mix of
urban and rural and is large (611.40 square kilometres)
which creates challenges for service provision.
The municipality prides itself with the "small Municipality
feel" but in fact, the Municipality is not "small" in relative
terms to most municipalities in Ontario. It represents
0.684% of the province's population and there are 386
(93%) lower/single tier municipalities in Ontario that are
smaller. However, it's population of 92,0132, has
experienced significant growth at 8.8% since 2011. This is
well above Durham Region's (the Region) growth rate of
6.2% and the 4.6% growth rate across Ontario. Like many
municipalities outside the GTA, the Municipality is aging but
not at the same rate as the province. Its median age is 38.9
years which is 2.1 years less that Ontario's median age of 41
years. Being a relatively young municipality with growing
families, will create demands for a wide range of services and
programs while facing budgetary pressure and fiscal
constraint.
2 2016 Census, Statistics Canada
Service Delivery Review
5 n �
g �14D.N
7
351117
Figure 4: Map of Municipality of Clarington, Source: 2016 census
The key focus of the SDR is to determine if the Municipality
has opportunities to:
a. Improve service and outcomes;
b. Meet new or increased demand from customers
for services;
c. Improve service delivery mechanisms and
processes;
Page 12
fl
ILw•`-
�� 8
- 5� t 4 .c
�
't
M1 m,,••
A x
Service Delivery Review
5 n �
g �14D.N
7
351117
Figure 4: Map of Municipality of Clarington, Source: 2016 census
The key focus of the SDR is to determine if the Municipality
has opportunities to:
a. Improve service and outcomes;
b. Meet new or increased demand from customers
for services;
c. Improve service delivery mechanisms and
processes;
Page 12
d. Maintain existing service levels in the face of
competing priorities or decreasing revenues;
e. Reduce costs; and/or
f. Improve revenues.
Our review revealed that the Municipality has many
opportunities to improve animal shelter services, better
manage its service demand and positively impact the
community.
The recommendations are a combination of service,
technological solutions and process improvements. There
Service Delivery Review
are also opportunities to improve interdepartmental
cooperation to ensure that duplication of effort is not
evident.
However, it is very important that the reader understand
that, because of the lack of pure data, particularly time spent
on processes, that the numbers in the report in terms of cost
and savings are to be viewed as estimates. The most
important conclusion and recommendations surround the
processes and mechanisms to improve services.
Page 13
Service Delivery Review
Demographics
The Municipality has seen significant growth (8.8%) between 2011 and 2016 in comparison the rest of Durham Region.
Clarington is slightly younger than its regional counterparts which indicates that the likelihood of animal services requirements
will increase.
8
m
b
1=
e
9
8
6
4
x
0
Clarington (M1lunicipali]p _: _ - Durham (Regional municipality)) Ontario _. .._..
g Jmphy
Clarington (Municipality) — Neighbouring census subdivisions, population change, 2011 to 2016
Census subdivision (CSD) name
CSD type
2016
Population
2011
Population
% change
Clarington
MU
92,013
84,548
8.8%
Port Hope
MU
16,753
16,214
3.3%
Cavan Monaghan
TP
8,829
8,601
2.7%
Kawartha Lakes
CY
75,423
73,219
3.0%
Oshawa
CY
159,458
149,607
6.6%
Scugog
TP
21,617
21,569
0.2%
T 00,000
86,000
� 50,000
c
o_
� 4D,000
7
C6
IF
20,000
0
2016 2011
Census year
Provincial population rank
28 of 552
National papulation rank
60 of 4870
Page 14
Benchmarking — Why Compare to Other Communities?
For the purposes of the project, comparator
communities were selected as municipal comparators
based on population growth, urban/rural characteristics,
and animal shelters.
The primary purpose of benchmarking and comparative
analysis is to understand the performance of comparator
municipalities and to identify opportunities to change
how the Municipality's organization is aligned to deliver
municipal services.
Communities with similar financial
benchmarks/service levels — insight into operating
efficiencies
Communities with different financial
benchmarks/service levels — opportunities to
change existing organizational structure/processes
to reflect common service levels
Clarington
Pickering
Oshawa
Whitby
Ajax
Caledon
Thunder Bay
33,384
92,013
31,630 91,771
64,883
159,458
44,195
128,377
38,105
119,677
22,021
50,388
66.502
107,909
ctenngtwr
9shawa
Wh*y
f
[aledm
Thundtr Bay
Service Delivery Review
CLARINGTON COMPARATORS
Population. Ilouscltolds be Scrvicc Arca
E ti—s holds ! Fopulnvon M &t—, -
RATIONALE
Clarwgton Cam parators
with populatlons
between 60'00 and
"1000 that have anlLl
5helte�
611.4 I It is imperative to understand that comparators
231.55 must be taken as information and not an indicator
145.64
of effectiveness. Financial performance has both
146.66
benefits and risks as the underlying assumptions
67
and variables must be taken into account when
688.16
analyzing results. We have used these and other
328.36
b In k th h t th ++ 'll t t
opportunities for improvement or alternative delivery mechanisms
one animal shelter facility.
enc mar s roug ou e repor o i us ra K --
It
It is important to note, however, that Whitby and Ajax share
Page 15
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats (SWOT)
SWOT analysis - SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats. A SWOT analysis identifies
strengths and weaknesses within an organization, in this
case, the Municipality, and outside opportunities and
threats. The most important parts of a SWOT analysis specify
the actions that correspond to the elements that are
identified. By using the results of the analysis to improve the
situation of the Municipality, one can reduce the likelihood of
developments that negatively affect the business while
improving performance. The two most critical outcomes of a
SWOT are as follows:
Important threats coupled with the municipality's
weaknesses typically put the future at risk, and the SWOT
analysis identifies these threats. The analysis pairs external
threats with internal weaknesses to highlight the potential
opportunities and the threats that could impede on its
success. We undertook SWOT sessions with the Steering
Committee and staff, both of whom identified that the
building condition and its location were a threat. This
creates opportunities for alternatives.
Service Delivery Review
Improving Performance, Identifying Opportunities
The SWOT analysis provides the Municipality with actions
that should be considered to improve the performance and
new opportunities that could be explored. The analysis in
this report pairs the internal strengths with the external
opportunities. Taking advantage of an opportunity from a
position of strength helps ensure the success of the
corresponding venture. For example, some strengths
identified include customer focus and compassion for the
animals. Opportunities to improve their services include
additional training and utilization of social media which was
also highlighted by the community as a way to improve
service.
Strengths: characteristics of the organization, or
project team that give it an advantage over others
Weaknesses (or Limitations): are characteristics that
place the team at a disadvantage relative to others
Opportunities: external chances to improve
performance
Threats: external elements in the environment that
could cause trouble for the municipality or project
Based upon information gathered during focus groups and
documentation reviews, the municipality has many positive
strengths and opportunities that will render changes to
animal shelter services successful.
Page 16
SWOT Analysis — Staff
• Care and Compassion for the Animals & Public
• Care and Supportive Teamwork
• Knowledgeable and Experienced Staff
• Work with The Community
• Cleanliness of Shelter
• Compliance and Enforcement where needed
• Advice to the Public on handling situations
• Use of Other Resources
r7
• Technology
• Communications/Educational
Materials
• Social Media
•Joint Purchasing
• Utilization of Staff - Crossing Training
• Soft and Hard Skills Training
• Spay and Neuter Clinic
• Meeting with Other Shelters
• Tours for Children Donating Birthday Dollars
•Association Animal Shelter Administrators
W
Service Delivery Review
• Technology/Non-Integrated Software
• Staffing Concerns - Turnover,
Distribution of Work, Part Time, Roles
• Collective Agreements
• Staff Training
• Support from Management
• Negative Internal and External
Feedback
• Location Isolation
• No Tools/Finances for
Promotions/Shows
• No Finances To Get Medical Things
Done
• Website Design - Difficult to Find
Shelter Information
Lack of Involvement in Planning
Attachment to The Animals
�• Lack of Resources Impact Services
• Contracts and Job Security
■ Inconsistent HR Practices
• Building & New Building Funding
■ Merging with Another
Organization/Facility
• Urban And Rural Expectations
• Council's Expectation
• Lack Of Understanding of the Service
Page 17
Service Delivery Review
SWOT Analysis — Steering Committee
• Well established and Reputable Shelter
• Knowledgeable, Caring and Committed
Staff
• Fiscally & Economically Responsible
• Adoptions and Return Adoptions
• Cleanliness of Shelter
• Connected in the Industry
• Educational Aspect of Animals & Wildlife
• Low Euthanasia Rate
• Feral Pet y
• Spay and Neuter Program (cats)
• Skills to Provide Outreach Education
41,
• DocuPet
• Building Location
• Comparable Prices
• Co-op Students
• Donations
• Work with Rescue Groups
• Vet On-site and Support
• Animal Boarding
• Training
• Joint Ventures
• Relocation
• Comprehensive Software
• Seniors and Animal Companion Programs
• Licensing Model Changes
• Support Model
• Pest Removal
• Public Education Sessions/Communication
• Communication & Planning of
Outreach
• Lack of Long Term Strategy
• Animal Licensing Communication
• Multiple/Non-Integration Software
• Vet Partnership and Service
• Regulatory Enforcement
• Service Delivery Expectations
Large Service Area Coverage
• Staffing Concerns
• Rural/Urban Mix
• Pest Control (No Mandate
Building Condition/Future Location
• Spay and Neuter (Dogs)
• Pound Keeper
• Livestock Transfer
a Collective Agreement/HR Processes
• Lack of Funding/Not Self Sustaining
• Cost of New Building
• Service Expectations —City Transfers
+ Animal Rescue Groups
h • Animal Numbers
6 + License Sales - Low Licensing
��.A •People for Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
• 401 Interchange
+ Different Types of Animals
• Labour Laws
Page 18
Service Delivery Review
Process Improvement)Kit
R �
Including Staffing Capacity .�
Leaderships t---- ------
Organization
Communicaitons
r
Trainin
•
Page 19
Key Findings
The key findings of the service delivery review are as follows
■ Do sre REALLY need to br- zi, phis
01 1 business?
01- Do we REALLY need to be in this business?
Clarington's Animal Shelter Services mandate has been
described as "promoting a safe and healthy environment for
people and all animals and ensuring pets and stray animals
are not "at -large" in the community. Through a set of by-
laws and legislation, both the municipality and population at
large have outlined the minimum standards expected of the
public and residents. Some of the key legislation and
municipal by-laws include: Municipal Act, 2001, Dog Owner's
Liability Act (DOLA), Pounds Act, Exotic Animal By-law,
Kennel Bylaw and the Responsible Pet Owners By-law.
Through these regulations, the municipality and other levels
of government have illustrated the need to manage animals
in a humane way while ensuring that all citizens live
comfortably and free from noise and nuisance.
3 Pounds, Shelters and Municipal Animal Control Ontario,
http://www.pawswithheart.com/Ontario%20Pounds/20and%20S
helters.htm
Service Delivery Review
What are the alternative ways of
09 delivering the service?
09- What are the alternative ways of delivering the service?
While the community survey did not receive a large number
of responses, 61% of respondents indicated that the shelter
and its services were essential.
However, the municipality has alternative ways in which to
deliver some services, particularly in terms of sheltering. Out
of the 386 pounds and shelters listed on the Ontario
Pounds/Shelter site3, only 44% of municipalities utilize a
municipal shelter, many of which are shared between
several municipalities or are regional. The remaining
shelters are managed by the OSPCA/Humane Societies or
private/not-for- profits. Research indicates, that while many
municipalities have outsourced these services, the costs have
not necessarily been lower than municipal shelters.
For example, in 2013 Chatham -Kent analyzed the service
which was outsourced to many shelters. The cost per capita
ranged from $2.58 with private shelters to $6.45 ($6.98 in
2017 dollars) for the OSPCA.
Page 20
Municipality
Exp $/capita
Exp $/household
Clarington
$6.57
$18.12
Pickering
$5.30
$15.39
Oshawa
$3.70
$9.08
Whitby
$5.51
$16.00
Ajax
$2.90
$9.11
Caledon
$8.48
$25.61
Thunder Bay
$5.68
$12.16
AVERAGE
$5.11
$13.75
Animal Services
Budgeted Expenses per Capita and
Household 2017
30
25
20 18.12
15.39
15
1n 9,08
6.57
1531
5 3.7
0
Clarington Oshawa
16
5.511
Pickering Whitby
Figure 5: 2017 Budgeted Expenses per capita and household -
comparator municipalities (Note: Clarington Budget adjusted to
eliminate by-law activities)
4 https://www.muskokaregion.com/news-story/3635327-animal-
shelter-closing-public-meetings-on-future-shelter-scheduled-for-
2008
Ajax Thunder Bay
Caledon TOTALIAVERAGE
Service Delivery Review
Municipalities have also
been challenged when
outsourcing in some
cases. Since many of the
organizations, such as
the Humane Societies
are primarily funded by
donations and corporate
sponsorships, some
communities have been
faced with local closures
leaving them with few
alternatives. 4
IN Exp $Icapita 0 Exp$Ihousehold Private shelters have
also been utilized by
many municipalities at lower rates. However, the costs of
inspections and monitoring the contracts have not been
tracked. Therefore, the true costs are higher but unknown.
Comparator municipalities in Figure 5 show the average
expense per capita of $5.11, which is lower than the OSPCA.
Clarington is at the higher end at $6.57 but lower than the
OSPCA. However, as mentioned above, the expenses at each
municipality differ due to staff types and duties.
http://www.Penn live.com/news/2017/07/devastating spca closi
ng leave.html
Page 21
25.61
12.16
9.11
848
5.68
1.
Ajax Thunder Bay
Caledon TOTALIAVERAGE
Service Delivery Review
Municipalities have also
been challenged when
outsourcing in some
cases. Since many of the
organizations, such as
the Humane Societies
are primarily funded by
donations and corporate
sponsorships, some
communities have been
faced with local closures
leaving them with few
alternatives. 4
IN Exp $Icapita 0 Exp$Ihousehold Private shelters have
also been utilized by
many municipalities at lower rates. However, the costs of
inspections and monitoring the contracts have not been
tracked. Therefore, the true costs are higher but unknown.
Comparator municipalities in Figure 5 show the average
expense per capita of $5.11, which is lower than the OSPCA.
Clarington is at the higher end at $6.57 but lower than the
OSPCA. However, as mentioned above, the expenses at each
municipality differ due to staff types and duties.
http://www.Penn live.com/news/2017/07/devastating spca closi
ng leave.html
Page 21
It is assumed that other municipalities do not have
enforcement as part of their animal services budget.
Therefore, Clarington's budget was adjusted to eliminate the
Animal Services Officer from the published budget ($0.82 per
capita) in order to provide comparable numbers for analysis.
It is important to note, that Whitby and Ajax currently share
their animal shelter services. Taken together, the average
cost per capita is $4.25 which is lower than Pickering and
Clarington but higher than Oshawa. Therefore, it would
appear that sharing facilities could result in lower costs per
capita with effective management practices.
Another consideration that must be taken into account in
terms of Clarington, is that its growth will likely mean
increased intake, customer complaints and enforcement
over time. When analyzing the animal shelter services, it has
become evident that the services resources are stretched to
meet the demands of the shelter and customer services.
While that is partly due to inefficient business practices, the
management of the shelter is challenging due to the hours of
operation.
The Animal Shelter's current location and building condition
are also considerations in assessing alternatives. It is located
beside the 401 and slated at the location of the new
interchange. Some believe that the location is a good one in
terms of ease of access while others indicated that it is
isolated from the rest of the Municipality. While the building
is in relatively good condition according to the engineer's
report, the opportunity to partner with other municipalities,
such as Oshawa, should be considered before investing in
the current building.
Service Delivery Review
Other options include relocation in a more centralized
location if the municipality was to build an alternate building.
Findings: The municipality needs to be in the
animal shelter services business
So, while our finding is that Clarington needs to be in the
business of animal shelter services, based upon the
information we were able to gather from comparators, there
is an opportunity to share resources and partner with others.
Partnering on animal shelter services has proved to be
beneficial in many areas including Uxbridge/Scugog.
Regional approaches have also been successful such as
Greater Sudbury, Owen Sound to name a few. We believe
that Clarington has the opportunity to improve its services,
reduce costs and address the issues of managing the shelter
by partnering with Oshawa and/or others across the Region.
Recommendation 1: Explore partnership
opportunities with neighbouring
municipalities.
Our analysis indicates that synergies in terms of multiple
municipalities and joint ventures with other organizations
have many benefits. For Clarington in particular, the shelter
is understaffed and it is difficult to manage the adoption
hours. The staff indicated that there is little time to train or
improve services as well as processes. Joint ventures can
lead to sharing of communications, documents, staffing and
facilities.
Page 22
Oa What Do Citizens Expect of the
r2 Service? What outcomes does
Council want for the service?
02- What do citizens expect of the service? What outcomes does
Council want for the service?
In its Strategic Plan, the Municipality focuses on 6 key
priorities:
1. Job Creation, Business Development and Expansion
2. Good Governance and Value for Tax Dollars
3. Manage Growth while Maintaining "Small Town Feel"
4. Enable Safe Efficient Traffic Flow and Active
Transportation
5. Promote Resident Engagement in the Community
6. Enhance Access to the Unique Natural Environment
In order to support the 6 priorities outlined in the Strategic
plan, it is imperative that any review have a long-term view.
Animal Shelter Services is a unique service in that its desired
outcomes are often not specifically measured. In light of the
strategic priorities, we suggest that the service enables these
priorities by ensuring that animals are provided with dignity
and safe environment off the streets of Clarington. As well,
by providing medical assistance, cleaning and housing while
waiting for a new home, the release of the animals ensures
5 Note: Survey Gizmo indicates typical response rates of survey
that are not targeted is 2%.
Service Delivery Review
that they are healthy and do not promote disease in the
community. Businesses and residents are more likely to
locate in municipalities that do not have animals on the
streets. Further, animals that are allowed to roam the
natural environment spaces creates fear and trepidation to
residents and tourists which would impact the access to
parks and trails.
Citizen's expectations are often difficult to determine. In
many cases, taxpayers indicate that they simply want lower
taxes. This is a general theme across all municipalities.
However, this is partly due to the fact that municipalities do
not necessarily demonstrate the value of a particular service
in terms of outcomes. Council expectations are often
reflected in the bylaws that it passes and the degree to which
enforcement is supported.
In an effort to gain an understanding of the citizen
expectations, the Steering Committee designed a community
survey to assess the degree to which Animal Shelter Services
are valued and how services are managed. The online and
paper based survey was administered by WSCS over the
period November 6, 2017 to December 15, 2017. At that
time, the Municipality received 100 responses representing
0.3%5 of Clarington's households of 33,384 6. This is not a
large number on which to base the silent majority, however,
it provided insight into the community's view of the
6 2016 Census, Statistics Canada
Page 23
municipalities Animal Shelter Services. The survey provided a
good cross section of age groups which responded by giving
the Municipality some interesting metrics for moving
forward. The survey results can be found at Appendix D to
this report.
PROTECT
what did the Community Say? ANIMALS
CLARINGTON'S
ANIMAL SHELTER IS
NEEDED
OVERALL
EXPERIENCE AT THE
SHELTER IS POSITIVE
BUTIMPROVEMENTS
IN CUSTOMER
SERVICE ARE
NEEDED
BUILDING IS IN NEED
OF REPAIR AND
INCREASED
CLEANLIESS
Figure 6: 2017 Community Survey Highlights
Service Delivery Review
WHAT WE HEARD
FROM THE COMMUNITY
9 . #
COMMUNICATION
USE MORE SOCIAL MEDIA,
CONTINUEOTHER METHODS
OF COMMUNICATION
STREAMLINING
LICENSING AND
ONLINE SERVICES
SHOULD BE THE
FOCUSFOR
IMPROVEMENTS
ONLINE SERVICES
WILL BE USED
Page 24
In an effort to develop expectations and outcomes, we
facilitated focus groups to develop a Logic Model as shown in
Figure to identify the key goals and outcomes the Animal
Shelter Services are attempting to achieve.
Service Delivery Review
The Logic Model; A Series of
"If -Then" Statements
ReSourcegl Activities Outputs Outcomes
Certain IF you have IF you can IF you have
resources access to accorrrplish dekvered the
are needed resources, these services as
l to run your THEN you activities planned
The Logic Model program can THEN you THEN there
accomplish wiri have will be
your delivered benefits for
activities the services clients,
Program Goal: overall aim or intended impact you planned communities,
systems or
Resources Activities Outputs FTh
com orgaNzVlons
The inputs The actions The benefits
CedlCQTed that the measurable TO clients, Chain of Outcomes
to or program products of a communities,
consumed takes to program's systems, or Project Goal:
by the achieve activities organizations
program desired
Actio 6 Outputs Short- Inter.- [.ong-
outcomes
Training Training Term Term Term
I- Ouire¢ch putreaels Outcomes Outcomes Outcomes
—
# of
=00 =04 7: Logic Model How? Why? So what?
Page 25
Service Delivery Review
As an example of a logic model, three goals have been identified for consideration by the Municipality following the focus group
discussions:
Goal 1: Continue to improve the quality of care provided to animals in the shelter.
Objectives
(Specific, Measurable, Achievable,
Relevant, and Time -bound)
1.1 Maintain accurate medical and
tracking records and provide
supportive medical care
1.2 Provide all cats and dogs that
are being cared for at the shelter
have standard vaccinations, a
microchip, grooming, flea
treatment and screening test
within 2 days
1.3 Provide quality care for animals
by ensuring proper feeding,
exercise and housing.
Activities
(what we do to
achieve
objectives/goals)
Medicating
Vaccination
Microchipping
• Providing Care
• Cleaning and
feeding
• Walking and
exercise
Inputs/Resources
(human, financial,
technology, etc...
resources needed for
activities)
Animal Care
Attendants
Technology
Animal Care
Attendants
Technology
Inventory
Animal Care
Attendants
Technology
Inventory
Outputs
(tangible and direct
products of activities that
lead to desired outcomes)
# of outbreaks
# of visits to the vet
# of returned animals
# of euthanized
# of vaccinations
# of microchipped
# of animals transferred
# of adoptions
Outcomes
(short, medium,
and long- term
desired results of
activities)
Complete records
Healthy animals
for adoption
No animals in the
shelter
Indicator/Data
Source
(indicators we
look for to
measure
implementation,
progress and
success)
Time to
adoption
Retention rates
Number of
animals in the
shelter
Page 26
Service Delivery Review
Goal 2: Create and maintain an efficient, model facility that is compliant and meets community
expectations for an animal shelter.
Objectives
Activities
Inputs/Resources
Outputs
Outcomes
Indicator/Data
Source
2.1 Create a model facility that
Facility cleaning
Financial
• $per square foot
High standard of
Condition
serves the municipality's needs
Building Analysis
• $ per animal
cleanliness
assessment
Facility planning
• #of visitors
Positive
satisfaction
Goal 3: Decrease the shelter's
intake of unwanted animals
3.1 Provide information and
Outreach
Site Manager
# of sessions
Adoption rate
resources for citizens to enable
Microchipping
Animal Care
# of animals adopted
Level of
increase
affordable sterilization of dogs and
By-law enforcement
Attendants
# of animals surrendered
awareness,
Number of
cats
Partnerships with
Bylaw officer
# of animals reunited
compliance with
animals in shelter
other shelters
Volunteers &
length of stays
bylaws, no
Students
animals at large
Vets
3.2 Improve the quality and
Adoptions
Attendant Care
# of adoptions
No repeat animals
Adoption
quantity of shelter adoptions
Counselling
Attendants
Retention rates
retention rate
3.3 Raise community awareness/
Outreach
Site Manager
# of licenses
No animals at
Rate of
consciousness with regard to the
Partnerships with
Animal Care
# of education sessions
large
complaints
causes and consequences of pet
other shelters
Attendants
# of calls/complaints
Fewer injured
Awareness
overpopulation and wildlife space
Issuing vouchers
Bylaw officer
# of partnerships
animals
Compliance rates
Communications
Proactive Education
Volunteers &
# of vouchers redeemed
Enforcement
Students
# of vouchers issued
Patrolling of parks
Vets
Complaints
Figure 8: Animal Services Logic Model
Page 27
Service Delivery Review
Findings: Citizens expectations and council desired outcomes have not been validated in terms of the
logic model.
Recommendation 2: Undertake a strategic planning session to fully explore the goals and outcomes as
well as performance indicators to assess client expectations.
Recommendation 3: Undertake a client survey on a regular and transactional basis.
Page 28
How Does Current Performance
03 Compare to Expected
Performance?
03- How does current performance compare to expected
performance?
Performance Metrics & Reporting
Performance
measurement and
reporting is extremely
important to ensure
that the Municipality is
going in the right
direction. The
Municipality does not
have a dashboard or
performance measures
in place for monitoring
of Animal Shelter
Services.
The Balanced Scorecard
One effective method is the utilization of a balanced
scorecard approach and performance measures. It helps
show the value and link to vision.
Service Delivery Review
Principle #1- The measurement system must be tied to the
vision of the Municipality. Clarington's vision is to "build a
sustainable, creative, caring community."
In particular, there should be some goals identified such as:
• Improve turnaround time of applications, information
• Improve client satisfaction for various elements such
as consistency, time to respond, time to decide,
understanding of processes
• Elimination of paper, copies and process steps.
• Reduced cost of providing services
• Reduced time for adoption/stay in shelter
• Growth
Principle #2 - The measures must be balanced (comprised of
financial and non-financial data).
Principle #3 - Measures must be a mix of process data and
outcome data taken over time.
The measurement system must reflect all programs and
activities the Municipality conducts, both internal and
external. It is not sufficient to measure just past results. It is
essential to also analyze what the processes are generating
on an on-going basis. Process data in time order provides a
'lagging' indicator of the organization's operational or output
efficiency, but can also serve as a 'leading' indicator -
providing a signal on whether policies and programs are
Page 29
contributing to the targeted outcomes and the intended
results. The service delivery review we undertook is the first
step in this direction. On an ongoing basis, processes need to
be analyzed and controlled.
Principle #4 - Measures must be within the Municipality's
sphere of influence.
The measures must reflect the activities undertaken by the
Municipality.
Principle #5 - Measures must be dynamic, relevant and
timely.
The measurement system should provide meaningful,
relevant, and timely information. Tracking performance
leads to increased knowledge and appreciation of the
operational environment. As the Municipality's knowledge
of the performance improves, each of the measures will
need to be revised or changed to incorporate this new
knowledge and understanding. Continual review of
performance indicators is essential to ensure you have
appropriate performance information to support decision-
making, especially in a changing environment. Dynamic
measures serve as indicators of current performance and
assist in the prediction of future performance.
Principle #6 - Measures must be interconnected (ie: always
reported collectively, never singly).
Service Delivery Review
The measurement system is essentially a report card on the
organization's operational performance, hence the balanced
scorecard. The causal links between outputs and outcomes
is explicitly displayed in logic models and strategy maps.
Those same causal linkages should be reflected in the
performance measures. If measures are analyzed
individually, the Municipality will lose the understanding and
appreciation of the interactions between programs and the
improvement potential that is inherent in improved
coordination.
Principle #7 - Senior Management is accountable for the
measures.
Senior management is ultimately responsible and
accountable for the Municipality's processes and practices.
Employees need to be held responsible for data input,
collection and the initial interpretation and analysis of the
performance information. This should be a responsibility of
the Supervisor, Animal Shelter Services proposed in this
report. However, the accountability for the performance of
the organization lies with the senior managers and, as such,
the Municipal Clerk must take responsibility and
demonstrate active leadership in supporting the
performance measurement practices by using the
performance information in their communications with staff
and in their decision-making.
Page 30
Principle #8 - Measures must be limited in number but still
provide a holistic view.
Many organizations develop detailed logic models and then
identify 2-3 performance measures for each output and
outcome in the model. By the end of the initiative, the team
has identified an unmanageable number of performance
indicators. Instead, key outputs should be selected that are
most vital - then select the outcomes that have the greatest
level of influence. Establish key measures that gauge the
efficiency in which outputs are generated and track the
progress in achieving the intended outcomes. Eg. Number
of client interactions, intakes, transfers, adoptions, reduction
in paper/time.
Service Delivery Review
Principle #9 - Measures must be communicated and
documented.
Employees throughout the municipality should be able to
study the measures for themselves to determine how Animal
Shelter Services is performing. It is not enough to simply
communicate the results; employees must be actively
engaged and allowed to use the performance information in
their own decision-making, in contributing to policy and
program changes, and for their continuous process
improvement efforts.
Page 31
Service Delivery Review
Current Performance Measures
As of the date of the report, the following key performance measures were tracked by Animal Shelter services. One key measure
would be intakes and outgoing animals. This indicates the effectiveness of the activities and the ability to transfer animals or
adoption. As can be seen by Figure 9 and Figure 10, the Shelter has seen an increase in intakes but the outgoing animals are
decreasing. One would conclude that the shelter has an increase in animal resident in the shelter but this is not the case.
Therefore, the data is not complete and 2017 data represents 10 months. It does appear the population is declining indicating
that the shelter is having the impact that it had intended. With reduced intake, the shelter can look at other activities such as
training and outreach.
Animal Intake by Type
600
500
400
�
■
300
200
100
0
Annual 2017
Annual 2016
Annual 2015
Annual 2014
Annual 2013
■ Reptile
1
■ Rabbit
8
4
5
3
3
■ Puppy
5
4
4
9
4
■ Mammal
4
10
35
26
14
■ Kitten
90
95
148
123
126
■ Fowl
3
2
1
■ Dog
150
143
132
146
177
■Cat
173
161
197
174
164
■ Bird/Wildlife
6
5
10
8
8 J I
Figure 9: Animal Intake - 2013-2017
Page 32
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
4
2
Annual 2017
■ Bird/Wildlife
6
■ Reptile
1
■ Rabbit
9
■ Puppy
5
■ Mammal
4
■ Kitten
85
■ Fowl
3
■ Dog
148
I Cat
129
Figure 10: Outgoing Animals 2013-2017
Outgoing Animals by type
2013-2017
Annual 2016
annual 2015
Annual 2014
Service Delivery Review
Annual 2013
5
4
2
3
4
4
9
4
10
35
26
14
90
146
114
107
5
10
8
9
143
132
145
183
172
209
188
176
Stray intake is declining slightly also indicating that the communication, and licensing programs are having an impact as shown
in Figure 11.
Page 33
Stray Intake
2013-2017
280
270
260
250
244
240 236
233
230 M P1
220
210
247
Service Delivery Review
271
2 2016 2014 2013
Figure 11: Strays 2013-2017
In terms of other indicators and expectations, client service indicators are not available. However, the community survey
provided some insight into response time and satisfaction levels. When asked how long it took staff to assist a client, 6% had to
wait more than 24 hours. The majority had very little wait time. However, only 76% were satisfied or very satisfied with the level
Page 34
Service Delivery Review
of service provided. As well, referring to the Appendix, Question 25, the overall impression of the shelter could be improved
(15%).
How long did it take for staff to assist you?
In the field
Through email
On the phone
In the animal areas
At the front desk
0.00% 7.0.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00°% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00°% 80.00%
Page 35
At the Fran* desk
In the animal areas
On the phone
Thmo email
n the field
Less than 5 minutes
62.50%
38.8246
SOHO%
6.17%
732%
5.15 minutes
799%
16.47%
233%
123%
966%
■ L5+ mirutes
4.551A
135%
3.49%
2.47%
4.88%
eWdhin24hours
0.00%
0.00%
LIM
&64%
b.1O%
■ Over 24 hours
0.00%
0.0046
LIM
4.9 6
0.0046
Page 35
Do the activities logically lead to the
04 expected outcomes?
04- Do the activities logically lead to the expected outcomes?
How satisfied were you with the level of service you received
from Ciarington Animal Shelter Services?
% Rating
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% MAO% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
r Undecided
■ Very Satisfied
■ Satisfied
■ Somewhat Dissatisfied
■ Very Dissatisfied
Service Delivery Review
Findings: There are currently no performance indicators to assess expectations or benchmarks.
Page 36
Service Delivery Review
The logic model found in Figure 8 identifies the types of activities that are undertaken at the shelter as well as from a bylaw
perspective. When reviewing the activities, it is clear that they would logically lead to the expected outcomes in most cases.
Certainly, administering medicine and recording should logically lead to healthy safe animals to be adopted and reduce the
number of animals in the shelter. No person will want to adopt a pet that is not healthy and does not have its records. Similarly,
education sessions could logically lead to increased awareness of animal safety and reduction in cruelty to animals. Animal
licensing is intended to improve the likelihood of returning the pet to its rightful owner, thereby, reducing strays, intake and
numbers in the shelter. However, patrolling the parks does not necessarily lead to increased compliance or reduction in numbers
in the facility. Further, it is very costly and time consuming with little value. Animal Services Staff spend a significant amount of
time patrolling and the municipality is very large. It would be a "hit and miss" result. Certainly, if staff are in areas and observe
infractions, these should be dealt with.
Findings: The activities undertaken by animal services logically leads to the desired outcomes as
identified in the logic model with the exception of patrolling parks.
Recommendation 4: As part of the strategic planning process, update activities and review the need
for patrolling parks.
Recommendation 5: Transfer this responsibility to all municipal law enforcement officers and set up
municipal patrol areas.
Recommendation 6: Advertise the Municipality's complaint line/email/services at various locations to
allow citizens to easily report infractions via mobile.
Page 37
Service Delivery Review
How is the DEMAND for services
05 being managed?
Currently, Animal Shelter
Services is part of the Clerk's Clerk's Department Organization Chart 2017
department with an onsite _ _ _ _ Municipl Clerk
-----------------
manager. As shown in Figure 1
12, the service has the Deputy
following positions: --_Cierk -
Accessibility Manager Manager Records/Election Administrative
Co-ordinator Municipal Law Animal Services Co-ordinator Assistant
— — 1 — — — — —1 — — — — —Acting .._.._ .._•._•. 1 •_.•—• — — —••_i _.._..
Municipal Law
Senior Animal
Committee
Enforcement
Services Officer (Bylaw)
Co-ordinator
4
...............
1
1
Cemetery Services
Clerk I(PT)
Animal Services
and Records Clerk
Officer (Bylaw)
1
Municipal Law
1
Enforcement
Clerk II
2
1
Animal Care
Attendant
— — — — —
Clerk I
— — -------
2
1--
Clerk II
Municipal Law
-mmai pare
Attendant (PT)
Enf Officer I (PT)
0.5
Clerk I(PT)
Figure 12: 2017 Clerks Department Organization Structure
Page 38
Service Delivery Review
Position
Duties
Manager
Oversees the facility and all management functions
Performance management
Budget and financial management
Facilities management
Work assignment and management
Reporting
Animal Care
Daily cleaning and disinfecting animal housing areas and facility.
Attendant
Conducting general physical/behavioral exams of all animals.
Feeding, general care and medicating of animals under the general direction of a
Veterinarian.
Assisting in the adoption, returning to owner, delivery to Veterinarian and euthanizing any
animals in care as required or directed.
Entry and maintaining of all animal related information into Shelter Database.
Animal licenses
Interacting with the public and staff in a courteous and professional manner.
Repetitive lifting of heavy items, repetitive motions and standing for prolonged periods of
time.
Providing general information to Public for all aspects of Animal Services
General Clerical duties including data entry, call dispatch, handling cash and answering
phones
Animal Services
Media relations
Officer/Bylaw
Enforcement of all applicable laws
(One Senior)
Kennel Inspections
Patrolling- parks, fields subdivisions and school grounds for dogs at large to ensure public
safety
Picking up stray/injured animals, livestock, wildlife, reptiles
Adding information into the Shelter Buddy software system such as record management,
investigative notes, enforcement records all must be kept up to date for court purposes
Order to Restrain investigations
Page 39
Service Delivery Review
Position
Duties
Customer service
Animal Care as per above (prior to the change was 50%)
Clerk
Manage front desk
Total Open
Accounts payable and receivables
MON
Customer enquiries
The Animal Shelter also hosts Co-op students during the school year and volunteers.
The hours of adoption services at the Shelter are above average against the comparators all of which are closed on Sundays. This
is interesting to note as Sundays would likely be favourable for the public. Clarington may wish to review the hours of adoption to
increase the likelihood of reducing the numbers of animals in the shelter, perhaps reducing weekday hours when few adoptions
occur.
Figure 13: Hours of Service - Comparators
Page 40
Total Open
Municipality
MON
TUE
WED
THURS
FRI
SAT
SUN
Hours
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
8:OOam -
Clarington
5:30pm
5:30pm
5:30pm
5:30pm
5:30pm
2:30pm
Closed
44
Pickering
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:00am-
4:00pm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
2:OOpm
Closed
34
Oshawa
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:00am-
4:00pm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
4:OOpm
Closed
36
Whitby/Ajax
8:OOam -
8:OOam -
8:OOam -
8:OOam -
8:OOam -
8:OOam -
4:30pm
4:30pm
4:30pm
4:30pm
4:30pm
4:30pm
Closed
51
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:OOam-
10:00am-
Caledon
4:00pm
6:30pm
4:OOpm
6:30pm
4:OOpm
2:30pm
Closed
39.5
11:OOam -
11:OOam -
11:OOam -
11:OOam -
11:OOam -
12:OOam
Thunder Bay
S:OOpm
S:OOpm
S:OOpm
S:OOpm
S:OOpm
- 4:OOpm
Closed
34
AVERAGE
39.75
Figure 13: Hours of Service - Comparators
Page 40
The staff work in shifts as follows:
Position I Weekday
Manager
Animal Care
Attendant
7am-3pm(1 FT)
9:30 — 5:30 (1 FT)
Animal Services 8 am -4 pm (1 FT)
Officer/Bylaw 10 am — 6 pm (1 FT)
(One Senior)
Clerk (PT) 1 9 am — 2:30 pm (1 PT)
dents 12 (one morning, one afternoon)
Saturday
7am-3pm(1 FT)
7 am — 3 pm (1 PT)
Service Delivery Review
Sunday
7am-1pm(1 PT)
The following slides, Figures 14 to 17 show that the workload peaks at 10 am but also shows increases at 5 pm. This study allows
management to review the work practices to determine if changes to the schedule are necessary. For example, if there are Co -
Ops or volunteers available, it would appear that 10 am to 2 pm are the peak times for services.
As was seen in the comparators study, Figure 13: Hours of Service - Comparators, Caledon has elected to have late opening hours
two days a week in favour of a shorter day on Saturday. The municipality may wish to look at extended hours in order to improve
the likelihood of adoptions, perhaps at certain times of the year.
The detailed charts for each day throughout the survey period, can be found at Appendix B. These figures show that there may
be opportunities to change adoption hours to better align with workload of staff as well as client service.
Page 41
Service Delivery Review
In terms of volunteers, staff and management indicated that it has been a challenge managing volunteers in the past. This is
partly due to the unionized environment as well as health and safety concerns. Further, staff time is needed to manage the
volunteers and ensure they are trained and scheduled. A strategy and program are the only way to ensure that a volunteer
program is successful. It can be very rewarding and elevates the profile of the shelter in the community. We understand that the
Municipality had been developing a volunteer program but lacked the structure and resources to support the program to make it
successful. Figure 14: Volunteer Hours 2013-2017 shows that volunteer hours are down significantly over the 5 year period.
Volunteer Hours
2017
2016
2015
2014 2013
Cat Socializing
111.56
411.27
725.13
595.68 25.87
Dog Walking
0
3.92
25.93
205.95 10.50
111.56 I.
415.19 I
751.06
I. 801.63 36.37
Volunteer
Numbers 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Cat Socializing 46 23 27 24 4
Dog Walking 0 2 9 14 3
46 25 36 38 7
Figure 14: Volunteer Hours 2013-2017
Page 42
# OF HOURS BY ACTIVITY AVERAGE WEEKDAY FOR
NOVEMBER 14TH TO 26TH, 2017
6.00
5.00--
4.00
3.00
2.00 i
1.00 -
0.00
7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM
■Transfer 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.19 0.03 0.14 0.08 0.03
EService 0.03 0.89 1.61 2.53 1.78 1.86 1.22 0.89
E Reuniting 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.06 I 0.08
■ Outreach 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.00
■Facility 0.19 0.14 0.50 0.31 0.53 1.17 1.14 0.86
ECare 0.56 0.78 1.53 1.67 1.25 0.44 0.44 0.97
■ By -Law 0.00 0.25 0.28 0.42 0.97 0.89 1.64 1.25
■Adoption 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.17 0.25 0.47 0.39 0.06
Figure 15: Average Daily Activities - Weekday - From Staff Survey November 14-26, 2017
Service Delivery Review
3 PM
4 PM
5 PM
6 PM
0.19
0.06
0.00
0.00
1.47
0.94
0.92
0.17
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.14
0.06
0.00
0.53
0.28
0.39
0.00
0.19
0.39
0.03
0.00
0.14
0.17
0.00
0.00
Page 43
# OF HOURS BY ACTIVITY AVERAGE - SATURDAYS -
NOVEMBER 18TH AND 25TH, 2017
2.50
2.00
1.50
m
0.50
Figure 16: Average Daily Activities - Saturdays - From Staff Survey November 14-26, 2017
Service Delivery Review
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.13
0.13
1.63
0.13
0.63
0.00
0.00
7 AM
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM
12 PM
■ Service
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.50
■ Facility
0.13
0.00
0.50
0.25
0.38
1.00
® Care
1.75
2.00
1.00
1.25
1.13
0.25
■Adoption
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.25
0.25
Figure 16: Average Daily Activities - Saturdays - From Staff Survey November 14-26, 2017
Service Delivery Review
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
0.50
0.25
0.00
0.75
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.63
0.13
0.63
0.00
0.00
Page 44
# OF HOURS BY ACTIVITY AVERAGE - SUNDAYS -
NOVEMBER 19TH AND 26TH, 2017
1.20
0.80
• .•
0.40
1 PM
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7 AM
E Service
0.13
i Facility
0.00
i Care
0.88
8 AM
0.00
0.25
0.75
Service Delivery Review
9 AM 10 AM 11 AM
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.13 0.13 0.38
0.88 0.75 0.25
Figure 17: Average Daily Activities - Sundays - From Staff Survey November 14-26, 2017
12 PM
1 PM
0.13
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.13
5 PM
0.00
0.00
0.38
Page 45
Service Delivery Review
Animal Shelter Services has had some staffing and organizational changes over the past two years. The key change being the
move of the Animal care component from the Animal Services/Bylaw Officer. This has created much confusion and staff
dissatisfaction. Since the role of the Animal Services Officer is primarily enforcement and confrontational, the skill set required is
very specific. Staff indicated that the combination of the care and enforcement roles in the past was more desirable as it
provided balance between the types of work. However, it also can create a conflict. It was the intention of the municipality to
standardize the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer role and move the animal control enforcement into the "Municipal By-law
Enforcement" section as shown in Figure 12. However, management faced resistance from both the Municipal Law Enforcement
Officers and the Animal Services Officers, primarily due to the unique skills required to handle animals. As new employees are
hired, this requirement has been built into the position. At the current time, the Animal Services Officers reside at the Animal
Shelter and are not part of the Municipal By -Law Enforcement section. This has its challenges, primarily due to the physical
location of the staff. Clients at the front desk look for services from the shelter but the Animal Services Officers do not necessarily
assist. This may be due to the fact that the municipality is unionized and there are clear lines of responsibility. However, clients
do not view this as being good service. Other challenges have arisen as a result. Limited staff during illness or vacation, make it
very difficult for coverage at the shelter as well as bylaw services.
In reviewing the role of the onsite manager, it would appear that, because of the small staff size, that this role requires both
"supervisory" roles as well as operational activities. This may result in human resource issues in the future as it would appear
that union activities are undertaken by management. Being a small service, direct reports are limited and the managerial function
is not significant.
As shown below, much of the work that is performed by the Animal Care Attendant outside of adoption hours provides for the
preparation of the building and caring for animals. Depending upon the number of animals in the shelter at any given time, the
preparation may continue throughout the day. When both attendants are onsite, the staff undertake the services requiring two
people such as vaccinations. Some concerns were raised in the community survey that there were not any staff available to assist
them in the animal area. This may be due to the time of day or the lack of resources.
Findings: There is no requirement for a full onsite manager but rather a supervisor. the position of
animal services officers/by-law should be integrated with the municipal law enforcement officer role
Page 46
Service Delivery Review
with workload allocations based upon skill set. The volunteer program is not managed or robust due to
a lack of resources. Successful volunteer programs generally require a coordinator who can manage
both the people, training and ensuring that the work continues to attract interested, dedicated
volunteers.
We are of the opinion that Animal Services should report through Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement with an onsite
supervisor. The Animal Services Officers/Bylaw should also report to the Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement and be located
with other officers.
Recommendation 7: Reclassify of the Animal Services Manager to a supervisor reporting to the
Manager of Municipal Law Enforcement.
Recommendation 8: Move the Animal Services Officers to municipal law enforcement offices and
standardize the roles but allow for specialty skill sets as a transition.
Recommendation 9: Utilize the savings from the reclassification of the manager to implement a
volunteer program, perhaps with a coordinator role.
Page 47
Service Delivery Review
Clerk's Department Organization Chart - Recommended
Municipl Clerk — — — — —
----------- ---i
Deputy
.. —Clerk .........
1
Accessibility Manager Records/Election Administrative
Co-ordinator Municipal Law Co-ordinator Assistant
Municipal Law
Animal Services
Committee
Enforcement
_ Supervisor_
Co-ordinator —
4
1
1
Senior Animal
Services Officer (Bylaw)
.._.._.._.._.._.._..
Cemetery Services
1
and Records Clerk
Animal Care
1
Municipal Law_
A.tte_n_dant _
Enforcement
2
Clerk II
--------------
2
Animal Services
----------------
1
Officer (Bylaw)
...............
1
Animal Care
Clerk I
Attendant (PT)
_
1
Clerk II
___________
0.5
_ Cle_r_kI (PT)
Municipal Law 0.5
Enf Officer -I (PT)
-j
Figure 18: Recommended Organization Chart
Page 48
Service Delivery Review
What are the full costs and
benefits of the service?
The cost of services based upon the 2017 is as follows:
Figure 19: 2017 Operating Budget and Cost Per Animal Intake
On a per capita basis, each taxpayer contributes $5.73 a year or 48 cents per month to operate the shelter and ensure that its
bylaws are enforced. Assuming that 50% of the cost is attributable to housing and caring for animals, each animal housed will
cost approximately $690. This is fairly consistent with the calculations based upon the time spent by staff on each activity. As
shown in Figure 20: 2017 Revenue and Expenses Per Capita And Household - Clarington ComparatorsFigure 5: 2017 Budgeted
Expenses per capita and household - comparator municipalities, Clarington's costs are higher than the comparators and lower revenues in
some municipalities. We were unable to capture the intake for the comparators with the exception of Oshawa who had 1411
intakes in the first 9 months of 2017 which is 3.5 times more than Clarington. Since Oshawa's costs are significantly lower than
Clarington's on a per household basis, it indicates that there are some efficiencies that are realized with both volume and
economies of scale.
Page 49
Annual
Annual
Cost per
Operating
Salaries
Other
Operating
Net
Net
Animal
Municipality
Expenses
and Wages
Expenses
Revenue
Net
$/capita
$/household
Intake
Clarington
$604,830
$467,485
$137,345
$77,800
$527,030
$5.73
$15.79
$690.45
Figure 19: 2017 Operating Budget and Cost Per Animal Intake
On a per capita basis, each taxpayer contributes $5.73 a year or 48 cents per month to operate the shelter and ensure that its
bylaws are enforced. Assuming that 50% of the cost is attributable to housing and caring for animals, each animal housed will
cost approximately $690. This is fairly consistent with the calculations based upon the time spent by staff on each activity. As
shown in Figure 20: 2017 Revenue and Expenses Per Capita And Household - Clarington ComparatorsFigure 5: 2017 Budgeted
Expenses per capita and household - comparator municipalities, Clarington's costs are higher than the comparators and lower revenues in
some municipalities. We were unable to capture the intake for the comparators with the exception of Oshawa who had 1411
intakes in the first 9 months of 2017 which is 3.5 times more than Clarington. Since Oshawa's costs are significantly lower than
Clarington's on a per household basis, it indicates that there are some efficiencies that are realized with both volume and
economies of scale.
Page 49
Municipality
Rev $/household
Exp $/household
Clarington
-$2.33
$18.12
Pickering
-$2.92
$15.39
Oshawa
-$0.85
$9.08
Whitby
-$3.71
$16.00
Ajax
-$1.55
$9.11
Caledon
-$4.10
$25.61
Thunder Bay
-$2.77
$12.16
AVERAGE
-$2.38
$13.75
30
Service Delivery Review
Animal Services
Revenues/Expenses per Household
Budget 2017
25.61
20
18.12
15.39
16
13.75
1216
10
9.08
9.11
■5
0
-2.33
-2.92
-1.55
-2.77
-2.38
-3.71
4.1
-10
Clarington
Oshawa
Ajax
Thunder Bay
Pickering
Whitby
Caledon
AVERAGE
M Rev $/household M Exp $/household
Figure 20: 2017 Revenue and Expenses Per Capita And Household - Clarington Comparators
Page 50
In 2015, Clarington decided to
outsource its licensing to DocuPet,
an online provider following an
Request for Proposal process. Prior
to that point, the municipality
collected at the municipal office and
had "door-to-door" salesmen. This
had mixed results. While the
revenues were higher, some
complaints about the door-to-door
approach were received by the
municipality. Unfortunately,
however, the implementation of
DocuPet has not been very
successful. Partially due to the fact
the incentives are not in place for
the veterinarians to license pets
under this regime, which is a
significant loss in revenues. Further,
DocuPet is not integrated with the
Animal Shelter system, Shelter
Buddy and staff must access both
systems to determine if an animal
Service Delivery Review
# Purchased Licence
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
10% Disc - Spay/Neuter & Chip
49
32
10% Disc - Spay/Neuter & No Chip
93
15
10% Disc - Unaltered
23
9
Adoption Licence
121
109
133
125
Agriculture
4
10
Agriculture - Subsequent Dog
24
72
Early Bird Spay/Neutered
39
190
Early Bird Spay/Neutered & Microchipped
62
123
Early Bird Unaltered
18
36
Lifetime
-
4
83
235
293
Microchip Only
6
Replacement Tags Charged
34
30
27
18
24
Replacement Tags No Charge
6
Service Licence
6
5
3
Spay/Neuter & Microchipped
667
305
178
461
515
Spay/Neuter & Microchipped (Dec Rate)
4
280
Spay/Neuter No Microchip (Dec Rate)
2
281
Spay/Neuter ONLY
647
307
272
1557
2159
Unaltered
254
188
109
261
312
Unaltered (Dec Rate)
-
60
Unknown S/N
27
TOTAL
1,741
1579
1130
2891
3566
has a licence. It is not accessible in the field for the Animal Services Officers Figure 21: Volume of Pet Licences Sold (Early Bird and
should they encounter an animal. The community survey indicated that 3% Lifetime are no longer provided (2017))
of respondents did not know that pets had to be licensed. Of those that did license their pet, 26% indicated they purchased their
licence from the veterinarian.
Page 51
$ Licence Sales
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
10% Disc - Spay/Neuter & Chip
-
661.50
720.00
10% Disc - Spay/Neuter & No Chip
-
2,092.50
202.50
10% Disc - Unaltered
-
828.00
324.00
Adoption Licence
-
Agriculture
400.00
1,000.00
Agriculture - Subsequent Dog
Early Bird Spay/Neutered
877.50
4,275.00
Early Bird Spay/Neutered & Microchipped
823.50
1,660.50
Early Bird Unaltered
648
1,296.00
Lifetime
10,000.00
6,640.00
18,800.00
23,440.00
Microchipped Only
240.00
Replacement Tags Charged
170.00
120.00
135.00
90.00
120.00
Replacement Tags No Charge
-
Service Licence
-
Spay/Neuter & Microchipped
10,005.00
4,575.00
2,670.00
6,915.00
7,725.00
Spay/Neuter & Microchipped (Dec Rate)
54.00
3,780.00
Spay/Neuter No Microchip( Dec Rate)
45.00
6,322.50
Spay/Neuter ONLY
16,175.00
11,000.00
6,800.00
38,925.00
53,975.00
Unaltered
10,160.00
7,520.00
4,360.00
10,440.00
12,480.00
Unaltered(Dec Rate)
-
2,160.00
Unknown S/N
1,080.00
TOTAL
36,609.00
47,826.50
27,836.50
80,472.0
99,986.50
Figure 22: Revenues From Pet Licences Sold (Early Bird and Lifetime no longer provided (2017))
Service Delivery Review
More than 50% indicated that
online and automated renewals
would be the best mechanism to
increase the likelihood of
utilization of the online licensing
program.
Page 52
Service Delivery Review
In terms of revenues, we analyzed the comparators fees which shows that Clarington's fees are below all other municipalities
resulting in lower revenues.
Price Per Service
Clarington
Pickering
Oshawa
Whitby
Ajax
Caledon
Thunder
Bay
Adoption Fee - Dog
$95.00
$250.00
$250.00
$250.00
$250.00
$155.00
?
Adoption Fee - Cat
$130.00
$120.00
$150.00
$150.00
$150.00
$105.00
?
Adoption Fee - Other
$50.00
$50.00
$10.00
Agriculture
$100.00
Early Bird Spay/Neutered
$22.50
Early Bird Spay/Neutered & Microchipped
$13.50
Early Bird Unaltered
$36.00
Lifetime
$80.00
N/A
Lifetime - microchipped/unaltered
N/A
$60.00
$15.00
Lifetime - spayed/neutered/microchipped
$40.00
Replacement Tags Charged
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
$5.00
Service Licence
Free
Free
Free
Free
Spay/Neuter & Microchipped
$15.00
$20.00
$20.00
$20.00
$40.00
Spay/Neuter ONLY
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
$25.00
$40.00
$20.00
Unaltered
$40.00
$50.00
$50.00
$50.00
$40.00
$40.00
$50.00
Microchip Only
$40.00
$45.00
$35.00
$35.00
Kennel Fee
$250.00
Late fee for Kennel
$50.00
Animal Breeder Fee
$250.00
Late fee for Breeder
$50.00
Redemption Fees (dog)
$80.00
Redemption Fees (cat)
$20.00
Disposal of Animals
$20.00-
$100.00
Obligated to Licence
Do /Cat
Do /Cat
Do /Cat
Do /Cat
Dog/ at
Dog
Do /Cat
Note: Adoption fees for Clarington do not
include spay/neuter
Page 53
Service Delivery Review
In terms of activities, the staff undertook a 12 -day process whereby they tracked their time which showed the cost per activity
which we have extrapolated based upon 260 days. While the shelter staff are onsite on Sundays, a conservative view would have
indicated that proportion of cost for animal services, Figure 23: 2017 Estimated Activity Costs shows that 30% of time is spent
servicing customers which entails email, telephone and complaints. Therefore, improving customer service processes would yield
improvements.
Note that 23% was not reported over
the period so it is likely that each
activity has some additional time. As
well, breaks and lunches were not
specifically captured.
Total Cost per Activity for November 14th to 26th, 2017
Adoption
548.85
3%
By -Law
0
Transfer
256.20
2%
Figure 23: 2017 Estimated Activity Costs
203.25 127.95
1% 1%
MAdoption
NI By -Law
HICare
Mi Facility
Care M C)utreach
2,936.55
19% MI Reuniting
MI Service
Mi Transfer
YI Unreported
Page 54
Annual 315
Activity
12 days
days
Adoption
548.85
14,407.31
By -Law
2,022.45
53,089.31
Care
2,936.55
77,084.44
Facility
1,309.05
34,362.56
Outreach
127.95
3,358.69
Reuniting
203.25
5,335.31
Service
4,602.00
120,802.50
Transfer
256.20
6,725.25
Unreported
3,555.48
93,331.28
Grand
Total
15,561.78
408,496.66
Note that 23% was not reported over
the period so it is likely that each
activity has some additional time. As
well, breaks and lunches were not
specifically captured.
Total Cost per Activity for November 14th to 26th, 2017
Adoption
548.85
3%
By -Law
0
Transfer
256.20
2%
Figure 23: 2017 Estimated Activity Costs
203.25 127.95
1% 1%
MAdoption
NI By -Law
HICare
Mi Facility
Care M C)utreach
2,936.55
19% MI Reuniting
MI Service
Mi Transfer
YI Unreported
Page 54
Service Delivery Review
Figure 24: 2017 Estimate By-law Activity Costs shows that more than 55% of the Animal Services Officer's time is spent patrolling.
As indicated in this report, we are of the opinion that this should be reviewed. Significant savings ($15k per year) could be
realized with a 50% reduction in patrolling time. Further, it should be noted that most of the processes undertaken by Animal
Services Officers is paper based and staff return to the office to enter data in the Shelter Buddy system. This could be eliminated
with mobile technology which would reduce the time required to undertake these activities.
Activity
B1- By -Law warn rg
B2 - Charges
B3 - En€orcement
B4- Patrolling
B6 - Pickup Dead Arirna:s/l
B7 - Dog Licensing
Grand Total
Total Cost
per Activity Annual 315 days
173.40
4,551.75
51. OD
1,338.75
370.95
9,737.44
1,120.50
29,413.13
163.50
4,291.88
143.10
3,756.38
2,022.45
53,089.31
By -Law Total Cost per Activity for November 141th to
25th, 2017
Figure 24: 2017 Estimate By-law Activity Costs
•B1- By -Law warning
Y B2 •• [urges
W B3 - Enforcement
* B4 •• patrolling
NB6- Pickup DeadAni maIW1niured
Animals
NB7- Dog Licensing
Page 55
Service Delivery Review
Findings: Fees are below that of comparators and do not reflect costs or an analysis of cost. online
licensing program has not been overly successful. patrolling is costly and likely does not result in
increases in compliance.
Based upon the cost of housing an animal of approximately $690 and an adoption fee of $130, it would appear that adoptions are
subsidized by the taxpayer at a rate of $560. While the intention is not to fully recover costs in shelters, it is clear that the rate is
lower than most of the neighbouring communities and likely creates "competition". The adoption process is effective and must be
balance against the revenues. However, there is an opportunity to increase fees appears to be palatable, at least up to the
comparators.
In terms of animal licenses, improved communication is required to demonstrate why licences are helpful. Some municipalities
have eliminated the fee for licensing as it is a deterrent to the outcome of returning pets to their owner.
Recommendation 10: Undertake a fee study to determine the true cost of adoption and licensing and
a policy on the amount of subsidization.
Recommendation 11: Review the licensing program and at minimum, introduce automated renewals
and welcome packages.
Recommendation 12: Review and expand the use of technology to improve processes, record keeping
and workload management in the Animal Shelter as well as investigate mobile technology for the
Animal Services Officers (By-law).
Page 56
Service Delivery Review
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Haw can benefits and outputs of
07 the service be increased?
The key outputs identified in the logic model that could be "increased" and benefits be realized include:
Output
Benefit
RECOMMENDATIONS
# of licences
Increased revenues,
Improved services online including automatic
increased likelihood of
renewals via credit card
reunited animals
Increased communication through social media
Allow for mobile licensing for Municipal Law
Enforcement Officers at the scene
Advertise at all parks
Provide a package for all new residents upon move in
or with the property tax bill
Increase number of locations for purchasing licences
Engage with veterinarians to encourage participation.
# of microchipped
Increased number of pets
Advertising and increased social media presence
reunited, reduced in the
indicating benefits.
shelter
Page 57
Service Delivery Review
Output
Benefit
RECOMMENDATIONS
# of vaccinations
Increase number of healthy
Initiate a regional campaign
pets, reduced likelihood of
disease and euthanasia
# of calls/complaints
Increased awareness and
Improve client relationship management practices to
compliance
allow for online submission of complaints/concerns
on the website/mobile
Institute a work order system that will track the time
spent on complaints.
Implement a standardized service level and priority
system for response
Track response
# of partnerships
Increased reach, compliance
Work with the other shelters and partners to develop
and service
a regionwide strategy to improve compliance
Standardize, as much as possible, the bylaws across
municipalities
# of vouchers
Reduced numbers of pets
Track and report on the effectiveness of vouchers
redeemed/issued
and strays
issued
Create a follow-up system that alerts clients to
outstanding vouchers.
# of education sessions
Increased awareness,
Develop a strategy for a long-term outreach including
licensing, reduced animals in
other organizations, trade shows,
the shelter
Develop educational tools that can be used for
multiple sessions, and online training for new pet
owners
Track attendance and perform analysis on impact.
# of animals adopted
Increased number of pets in
Promote the shelter utilizing social media and other
safe and healthy homes,
communication media
reduced costs and number
of animals in the shelter
Increase number of hours for viewing.
Page 58
Service Delivery Review
Output
Benefit
RECOMMENDATIONS
Transform all forms to allow for online completion
and input into Shelter Buddy
Provide for "error proofing" of applications by asking
questions throughout the application process.
# of animals reunited
Increased number of pets in
Increase utilization of social media to increase
safe and healthy homes,
likelihood of reunited animals.
reduced costs and number
of animals in the shelter
Findings: Processes and tools are not in place for communication and outreach.
We are of the opinion that Animal Services can improve its services, increase its outputs by improving its paper based services,
developing some tools to assist in education activities and developing a strategy.
Recommendation 13: Develop a communication and outreach strategy in line with the strategic plan
on a regional basis.
Recommendation 14: Improve client relationship management through tracking and service quality
standards.
Page 59
How can the number and costs
of inputs be decreased?
Service Delivery Review
Animal Services is primarily driven by salary and wage costs and supplies for the animals including veterinarian, medicine, food,
cleaning products and utilities. The community is very generous and provides donations of goods, blankets, toys and food on a
regular basis. These are not recorded. As well, donations of cash are also made. We have reviewed the procurement of some of
the key items and note that the Municipality has had challenges getting competitive bids for its veterinarian services over the past
few years. This may be due to the lack of incentives or a belief by the industry that the competition does not exist.
There is an opportunity to partner with other organizations to leverage joint purchases for items such as food and cleaning
supplies. However, it is noted that costs as shown in Figure 25: 2012 To 2017 Expenses have actually declined since 2013. This
may be due to an influx of donations but most likely due to the fact that intake has reduced by significant amounts, particularly
between 2015 and 2016 where there was a 20% decline. Note that Figure 25 attributes all of the cost to intake when likely, this
represents 50% of the activities.
EXPENSE
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
SALARIES AND WAGES
580,481
567,785
554,400
488,038
430,422
NON COMPENSATION EXPENSES
97,578
124,182
135,189
206,112
162,985
TOTAL EXPENSE
717,826
691,967
689,589
694,150
593,407
CHANGE
4%
0%
-1%
17%
13%
COST PER INTAKE
$ 1,638.87
$1,632.00
$ 1,298.66
$ 1,419.53
$ 1,193.98
Figure 25: 2012 To 2017 Expenses
Page 60
Service Delivery Review
COST OF SERVICES
In reviewing the activities undertaken by staff, it is evident that the inputs are higher than the comparators as well as the
standard. The National Animal Control Association (NACA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS 2010) recommend
a minimum of 15 minutes of care time per day for feeding and cleaning each animal housed in the shelter (9 minutes for cleaning
and 6 minutes for feeding) 7. As indicated above, the staff undertook an exercise to capture their activities over a 12 -day period.
The results in Figure 26, indicated that the minutes per day for each animal equated to 55 for cleaning and 12.75 for feeding
which is significantly higher than the standard equating to $26 per animal per day (average 0.50/minute). This equates to $10k
per year based upon 400 animals per year. The largest reason for the amount of time spent is process. The shelter utilizes paper
based tools which are time consuming. There is a lack of mobile tools and software to assist Animal Care Attendants in the care
areas. As well, record keeping is all manual in terms of the care which leads to errors and omissions not to mention time
consuming. If the shelter had technology that could be used in the care areas including online check sheets, staff would have
access to the information without having to access paper. Further, management would be able to monitor the workload, ensure
that the appropriate care and medicine is administered and the time of day.
72010 Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters
Page 61
Service Delivery Review
Grand Total
6,360.00 2936.55 1,601.51 133.46
Figure 26: Cost and Time Per Animal - November 14-26 2017
Findings: Donations are not pursued on a systematic basis, joint purchasing is not robust, time spent
on activities is not tracked or benchmarked.
We are of the opinion that donations should be tracked and valued to reflect the true cost of operations. A campaign and online
donations link could be set up and allocated to a reserve for utilization for purchases and/or upgrades to the building or towards
new/expanded shelter. Processes should be reviewed to eliminate paper. Mobile technologies should be enhanced to allow for
improved tracking of activities and animal care.
Recommendation 15: Develop a donation campaign with online, automated receipts. Track all
donations and determine the true cost of operations.
Recommendation 16: Implement activity based costing, tracking of animal care, medications and
performance measures/standards.
Page 62
Sum of #
Sum of Minutes per
Activity
u Sum of # of Minutes
Sum of Cost/Activity
Min/Animal animal per day
=� Care
6,360.00
2936.55
1,601.51
133.46
Cl-
Medicating
420.00
209.25
122.50
10.21
C10-
Microchipping
45.00
20.25
37.50
3.13
C2 -
Grooming
60.00
29.4
34.29
2.86
C3 -
Exercising
930.00
492.9
285.00
23.75
C4 -Cleaning
2,490.00
1057.35
666.70
55.56
C5-
Feeding
1,440.00
666.45
153.02
12.75
C6 -
Vaccinations
150.00
82.95
72.50
6.04
C7 -
Dewormi ng
15.00
6.75
0.00
C8 -
Assessments
240.00
122.55
82.50
6.88
C9 -Socializing
the animals
570.00
248.7
147.50
12.29
Grand Total
6,360.00 2936.55 1,601.51 133.46
Figure 26: Cost and Time Per Animal - November 14-26 2017
Findings: Donations are not pursued on a systematic basis, joint purchasing is not robust, time spent
on activities is not tracked or benchmarked.
We are of the opinion that donations should be tracked and valued to reflect the true cost of operations. A campaign and online
donations link could be set up and allocated to a reserve for utilization for purchases and/or upgrades to the building or towards
new/expanded shelter. Processes should be reviewed to eliminate paper. Mobile technologies should be enhanced to allow for
improved tracking of activities and animal care.
Recommendation 15: Develop a donation campaign with online, automated receipts. Track all
donations and determine the true cost of operations.
Recommendation 16: Implement activity based costing, tracking of animal care, medications and
performance measures/standards.
Page 62
Hover can a service change best
be managed, implemented and
communicated?
Change Management
Municipality staff consist of professionals, many
of whom have been with the Municipality for
many years, some in excess of 20 years. Some
of the changes in this report may seem
threatening and may cause concerns about job
security. The manner in with the Municipality
handles these changes will determine the overall
outcome. Ongoing communication, continuous
improvement and performance measurement is
key to effective change management.
Improvement is always possible. Online services
are no different than any other type of change
that the Municipality has tried to implement.
This conviction is the heart of the transformation
system developed by Virginia Satir who assists
people in improving lives by transforming the
way they see and express themselves.
Performs rm
The Change Proee ss
Ofd Status Quo
Service Delivery Review
New
Status Quo
R
An element of the Satir System is a five -stage
change model (see the Figure above) that describes the effects each stage has on feelings, thinking, performance, and physiology.
Using the principles embodied in this model, the Municipality can improve how it promotes process change and how
management can help staff process change.
Page 63
The Table below summarizes suggestions on how to help during each stage of the change model:
1
2
3
4
Service Delivery Review
Late Status The staff is at a familiar place — paper based Encourage people to seek improvement information
Quo transactions. The performance pattern is and concepts from outside the group. Develop a
consistent. Stable relationships give members
a sense of belonging and identity. Members
know what to expect, how to react, and how
to behave. New information and concepts
from outside the group can open members up
to the possibility of improvement.
communication plan that outlines the
implementation. Create a website or suggestion box
for people to ask questions in a safe manner. Pilots
are a good way at addressing some fears as well as a
planned implementation in consultation with staff.
Resistance The staff confronts a foreign element that Help people to open up, become aware, and
requires a response. Often imported by a overcome the reaction to deny, avoid or blame. This
small minority seeking change, this element
brings the members whose opinions count
the most face to face with a crucial issue. This
will likely occur when the staff see the report
and processes being revamped.
Chaos The group enters the unknown. Relationships
shatter: Old expectations may no longer be
valid; old reactions may cease to be effective;
and old behaviors may not be possible. This
stage is vital to the transformation process.
Integration The staff discover a transforming idea that
shows how the changes can benefit them.
can be done through lunch and learns, workshops,
focus groups or individual meetings.
Help build a safe environment that enables people
to focus on their feelings, acknowledge their fear,
and use their support systems. Help management
avoid any attempt to short circuit this stage with
magical solutions. Undertake pilots and facilitate
feedback.
Offer reassurance and help finding new methods for
coping with difficulties. Provide ongoing training.
Page 64
The team becomes excited. New relationships
emerge that offer the opportunity for identity
and belonging. Staff can become frustrated
when things fail to work perfectly the first
time. Although staff feel good, they are also
afraid that any transformation might
mysteriously evaporate disconnecting them
from their new relationships and plunging
them back into chaos.
5 New Status If the change is well conceived and
Quo assimilated, the teams and its environment
are in better accord and performance
stabilizes at a higher level than in the Late
Status Quo. We believe that the Municipality
Staff will be here about a year after
implementation.
Figure 27: Change Management Strategy
Service Delivery Review
Help people feel safe. Recognize that the project can
always be improved.
The actions in the table will help people cope. But organizations that create a safe environment where people are encouraged to
cope with change and embrace it, will increase their capacity for change and are much more able to respond effectively to
whatever challenges are thrown their way.
Recommendation 17: Develop a change management program or supports.
Page 65
Service Delivery Review
Recommendations/Opportunities
There are 17 recommendations/opportunities that arise from the service delivery review for consideration:
Recommendation 1: Explore partnership opportunities with neighbouring municipalities.
Recommendation 2: Undertake a strategic planning session to fully explore the goals and outcomes as
well as performance indicators to assess client expectations.
Recommendation 3: Undertake a client survey on a regular and transactional basis.
Recommendation 4: As part of the strategic planning process, update activities and review the need
for patrolling parks.
Recommendation 5: Transfer this responsibility to all municipal law enforcement officers and set up
municipal patrol areas.
Recommendation 6: Advertise the municipality's complaint line/email/services at various locations to
allow citizens to easily report infractions via mobile.
Recommendation 7: Reclassify the Animal Services Manager to a supervisor reporting to the Manager
of Municipal Law Enforcement.
Recommendation 8: Move the Animal Services Officers to municipal law enforcement offices and
standardize the roles but allow for specialty skill sets as a transition.
Recommendation 9: Utilize the savings from this move to implement a volunteer program.
Page 66
Service Delivery Review
Recommendation 10: Undertake a fee study to determine the true cost of adoption and licensing and
a policy on the amount of subsidization.
Recommendation 11: Review the licensing program and at minimum, introduce automated renewals
and welcome packages.
Recommendation 12: Review and expand the use of technology to improve processes, record keeping
and workload management in the Animal Shelter as well as investigate mobile technology for the
Animal Services Officers (By-law).
Recommendation 13: Develop a communication and outreach strategy in line with the strategic plan
on a regional basis.
Recommendation 14: Improve client relationship management through tracking and service quality
standards.
Recommendation 15: Develop a donation campaign with online, automated receipts. Track all
donations and determine the true cost of operations.
Recommendation 16: Implement activity based costing, tracking of animal care, medications and
performance measures/standards.
Recommendation 17: Develop a change management program.
Page 67
Service Delivery Review
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Municipality of Clarington's Animal Services provides good services but utilizes old methods. The shelter is well
respected in the community and it appears to have the support. However, there are areas where there are clear opportunities for
improvement, particularly in the area of process, technology and performance management. Revenues have slipped in recent
years, following changes to the licensing program. The building is in jeopardy of being moved and therefore, opportunities to
work with other municipalities are abundant. To support any change, the Municipality needs to invest in its people and
technologies so that it has the capacity to make change happen. We are confident that the recommendations in this report are a
positive step in that direction.
Acknowledgement
We wish to express appreciation to the staff, management, the Steering Committee, for their participation, cooperation and
assistance throughout the project.
Page 68
Service Delivery Review
Appendix A: Community Survey Results
This survey was administered from November 6 to December 15, 2017 through Survey Monkey. A total of 100 responses were
received representing 0.3% of Clarington's households.
1. Do you live in the Municipality of Clarington?
H Yes o No
Answer
Choices
Res onses
Yes
80.0%
80
No
20.0%
20
Answered
100
Ski ed
0
Page 69
30.0% 28.0%
2. Please indicate your age range.
25.0% 25.0%24.0%
20.0%
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
15.0%
25 to 34 years
45 to 54 years
1 1.0% 55 to 64 years
10.0%
18 to 24 years
24.0%
7.0%
55 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
5.0%
4.0%
Under 18 years
7.0%
1.0% 75+ ears
0.0% 0.0% y
0.00/c
Prefer not to answer
4
Responses
Answer Choices
Responses
35 to 44 years
28.0%
28
45 to 54 years
25.0%
25
25 to 34 years
24.0%
24
55 to 64 years
11.0%
11
18 to 24 years
7.0%
7
65 to 74 years
4.0%
4
Under 18 years
1.0%
1
75+ years
0.0%
0
Prefer not to
answer
0.0%
0
Answered
100
Skipped
0
Service Delivery Review
Page 70
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
3. If applicable, how long have you lived in the
Municipality of Clarington?
Responses
10 to 19 years
30+ years
20 to 29 years
1.0%
I do not live nor own property in
Clarington
5 to 9 years
0 to 4 years
Answer Choices
Responses
10 to 19 years
22.0%
22
30+ years
19.0%
19
20 to 29 years
18.0%
18
I do not live nor own property in Clarington
18.0%
18
5 to 9 years
12.0%
12
0 to 4 years
11.0%
11
Answered
100
Skipped
0
Service Delivery Review
Page 71
4. Please provide your gender.
Answer Choices
Responses
Female
86.00%
86
Male
12.00%
12
Prefer not to answer
2.00%
2
Other
0.00%
0
Answered
100
Skipped
0
o Female
V Male
W Prefer not to answer
o Other
Service Delivery Review
Page 72
5. How important is it that animals are protected and do not
run at large in the Municipality of Clarington?
Answer Choices
Res onses
Essential
53.0%
53
important
42.0%
42
-Very
Somewhat
important
5.0%
5
Not at all important
0.0%
0
Answered
100
Skipped
0
911 Essential
WIIVery important
WI Somewhat important
WINot at all important
Service Delivery Review
Page 73
6. How important is having an Animal Shelter for the
Municipality of Clarington?
Id Essential
0 Very important
W Somewhat important
W Not at all important
Answer Choices
Responses
Essential
61.6%
61
Very important
32.3%
32
Somewhat
important
6.1%
6
Not at all important
0.0%
0
Answered
99
Ski ed
1
Service Delivery Review
Page 74
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
7. Please indicate the number and types of pets in
your household, if any.
Dogs
34.0%
Cats
■0
■1
■2
■3
■4
■ 5 or more
Service Delivery Review
Page 75
Dos
Cats
0
35.0%
34.0%
1
37.0%
32.0%
2
22.0%
26.0%
3
5.0%
7.0%
4
0.0%
0.0%
5 or more
1.0%
1.0%
Service Delivery Review
Page 75
8. Clarington has two off -leash dog parks that provide a
safe place for dogs to run leash free. Have you used the
off -leash dog parks in Clarington?
Answer Choices
Res onses
Yes
45.0%
45
No
37.0%
37
N/A
18.0%
18
Answered
100
Skipped
0
o Yes
u No
M N/A
Service Delivery Review
Page 76
9. If you HAVE USED the off -leash parks, please indicate
how often you have used them.
60.00% 55.93%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Responses
Vo
■ Seldom (less than five times a year)
Sometimes (more than five times a
year but less than once a month)
Often (at least once a month, but less
than weekly)
Always (daily or weekly)
Answer Choices
Responses
Seldom less than five times a ear
55.93%
33
Sometimes more than five times a year but less than once a month
13.56%
8
Often at least once a month, but less than week)
25.42%
15
Always(daily or week)
5.08%
3
Answered
59
Skipped
41
Service Delivery Review
Page 77
Responses
10. If you have NOT used the off -leash parks,
please provide the reason(s) (choose all that
apply)•
3.08%
6.15%
Too many rules
Local areas and parks provide
sufficient space and variety
Location is not convenient
Home provides sufficient space
69.23%
Other (please specify)
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00%
Answer Choices
Res onses
Other leasespecify)
69.23%
45
Home provides sufficient space
21.54%
14
Location is not convenient
10.77%
7
Local areas and parks provide sufficient space and
variety
6.15%
4
Too many rules
3.08%
2
Answered
65
Skipped
35
Service Delivery Review
Page 78
Service Delivery Review
Other - Reasons for Not Using the Off -Leash Dog Park
Dog Too Old M
Walk dog daily
Too muddy
Hydro Tower -
Don't use _
Have used -
Dog Doesn't Play Well -
Unsupervised Dogs -
No Dog
0.0% 20.00/ 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Other Reasons For Not Using Dog Park
# of
Respondents
No Dog
48.9%
Unsupervised Dogs
1S.6%
Dog Doesn't Play Well
13.3%
Have used
6.7%
Don't use
4.4%
Hydro Tower
4.4%
Too muddy
2.2%
Walk dog daily
2.2%
Dog Too Old
2.2%
Grand Total
100.0%
Page 79
12. Animal licences are intended to improve services and meant to
increase the likelihood that a lost pet is returned. Are you aware that
dogs and cats must be licensed annually in the Municipality of
Clarington?
Answer Choices
Responses %
#
Yes
90.0%
90
No
3.0%
3
Unsure
7.0%
7
Answered
100
Skipped
0
0 Yes
u No
0 Unsure
Service Delivery Review
Page 80
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
13. If you are aware of the licensing
requirements and you own a pet, where did you
purchase your licence?
moo,
Responses %
At the shelter
Other (please specify)
N/A
Online through DocuPet on
clarington.net
Answer Choices
Responses %
#
At the shelter
32.98%
31
Other leasespecify)
24.47%
23
N/A
22.34%
21
Online through DocuPet on clarin ton.net
20.21%
19
Answered
94
Skipped
6
Service Delivery Review
Page 81
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
14. If you purchased your licence online, please provide
your assessment on the ease of use with the DocuPet
website.
70.33%
13.19%
6.59% 6.59%
_ _ 2.20% 1.10%
Rating
Star
Rating
#
N/A
70.33%
64
Meets Expectations
13.19%
12
Average
6.59%
6
Excellent
6.59%
6
Not at all
Acceptable
2.20%
2
Needs
Improvement
1.10%
1
Answered
91
Skipped
9
■ N/A
■ Meets Expectations
■ Average
■ Excellent
■Not at all Acceptable
■ Needs Improvement
Service Delivery Review
Page 82
15. Our goal is to ensure that animals are protected
and aren't running loose. Please indicate ways that
animal licensing can be improved to encourage
people to license their pets (choose all that apply).
56.25%
■ Online renewal
50.00%
Renewal notices
38.54%
■Automatic renewal upon expiry
(via credit cards)
35.42% ■Additional locations to purchase
licences
■ Other (please specify)
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
■ Door-to-door sales
Answer Choices
% of Res onses
Door-to-door sales
10.42%
10
Other please specify)
15.63%
15
Additional locations to purchase licences
35.42%
34
Automatic renewal upon expiry via credit cards
38.54%
37
Renewal notices
50.00%
48
Online renewal
56.25%
54
Answered
96
Skipped
4
Service Delivery Review
Page 83
16. If you have contacted the Animal Shelter in the
past two years, provide the method of contact.
60.00%
55.21%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00% J
0.00%
I visited the shelter in person.
None of the above.
I called the shelter.
I emailed the shelter.
I received a visit from a Clarington
Municipal Law Enforcement Officer
or other employee.
Service Delivery Review
Answer Choices
Responses
I visited the shelter in person.
55.21%
53
None of the above.
23.96%
23
1 called the shelter.
18.75%
18
I emailed the shelter.
2.08%
2
1 received a visit from a Clarington Municipal Law Enforcement Officer or other
employee.
0.00%
0
Answered
96
Skipped
4
Page 84
17. Why were you visiting or contacting the shelter?
I was there for spay/neuter or other veterinary services.
0.00%
I was visiting the shelter under another organization.
0.00%
I was volunteering at the shelter.
0.00%
I was there on a tour of the shelter.
0.00%
I was there to surrender a pet.
0.00%
I was there as part of an animal rescue group.
1 .45%
An Animal Services Officer/Municipal Law Enforcement Officer..
10.14%
7
I was looking for my lost pet.
10.14%
7
I wanted to ask about or see a specific animal.
1.45%
1
I was there to drop off donations.
0.00%
0
I was visiting to see the animals in general.
0.00%
10.14%
10.14%
14.49%
15.94%
47.83%
Service Delivery Review
Answer Choices
Responses
#
I was visiting to see the animals in general.
47.83%
33
I was there to drop off donations.
15.94%
11
I wanted to ask about or see a specific animal.
14.49%
10
I was looking for my lost pet.
10.14%
7
An Animal Services Officer/Municipal Law Enforcement Officer responded to stray
animal pickup/other reason(s).
10.14%
7
I was there as part of an animal rescue group.
1.45%
1
I was there to surrender a pet.
0.00%
0
I was there on a tour of the shelter.
0.00%
0
I was volunteering at the shelter.
0.00%
0
I was visiting the shelter under another organization.
0.00%
0
1 was there for spa /neuter or other veterinary services.
0.00%
0
Other please specify)
20
Answered
69
Page 85
Service Delivery Review
Reasons for Contacting Other Reasons for Contacting The Shelter
Shelter
# of Respondents
Accident with Animal
1
stray
Adopt
3
No Acknowledgement 1
Complaint
1
N/A
Coyotes
1
Issue At Dog Park
1
More Options 1
Lost animal
3
Lost animal 3
More Options
1
Issue At Dog Park 1
N/A
4
No Acknowledgement
1
Coyotes 1
Stray
4
Complaint 1
Grand Total
20
Adopt 3
Accident with Animal 1
4
4
Page 86
18. Have you or any member of your family been
in contact with the Clarington Animal Shelter in the
past two years?
Answer Choices
Responses
Yes
59.0% 59
No
41.0% 41
Answered 100
of Yes
ui No
Service Delivery Review
Page 87
0.00%
19. If you have contacted the Clarington Animal Shelter in
the last two years, what was the approximate date of your
visit, call or email ?
5.49%
13.19%
Winter 2017
Spring 2017
Within the last month
Do not remember
Before 2017
Summer 2017
;% Not applicable - I have never
contacted the Shelter
21.98%
25.27%
Service Delivery Review
Answer Choices
Responses % #
Not applicable - I have never contacted the Shelter
25.27%
23
Summer 2017
21.98%
20
Before 2017
19.78%
18
Do not remember
14.29%
13
Within the last month
13.19%
12
Spring 2017
5.49%
5
Winter 2017
0.00%
0
Answered
91
Page 88
20. Given the programs and services offered by
Clarington Animal Shelter services, how would you
rate the value you are receiving from the Shelter?
Star Rating
Responses % #
4 - Excellent
48.45%
47
3 - Good
23.71%
23
Undecided
13.40%
13
2 - Poor
9.28%
9
1 -Very Poor
5.15%
5
Answered
97
MIA - Excellent
of 3 - Good
M Undecided
of 2 - Poor
MI 1 - Very Poor
Service Delivery Review
Page 89
21. If you visited/contacted the shelter to adopt an animal,
how did you first hear about the opportunity to adopt that
animal?
26.32%
Responses W22819%
10.53%
■ 3.51
36.84%
Visiting the shelter
Shelter website
Heard about from
friend/family/neighbour
Social media
■ Other website or shelter
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00%
Answer Choices
Responses
Other website or shelter
3.51%
2
Social media
10.53%
6
Heard about from friend/family/neighbour
22.81%
13
Shelter website
26.32%
15
Visiting the shelter
36.84%
21
Other please specify)
12
Answered
57
Skipped
43
Service Delivery Review
Page 90
Service Delivery Review
Categories # of Respondents Other Ways of Hearing About Pets to Adopt
Adopted Previously 1
Already Knew 1 Pet Value 2
Durham Lost Cat Page 1
More Options 1 N/A 6
N/A 6
Pet Value 2 More Options 1
Durham Lost Cat Page - 1
Already Knew - 1
Adopted Previously - 1
Page 91
22. Please tell us your overall impression of the Clarington Animal
Shelter in each area.
Knowledgeable Animal Services Officer/Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer
Knowledgeable office and animal care staff
Friendly Animal Services Officer/Municipal Law
Enforcement Officer
Friendly office and animal care staff
Fees (adoption, etc.)
Public hours
Availability of pets
Clean facilities
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Service Delivery Review
■ Not at all Acceptable
Needs Improvement
Average
Meets Expectations
Excellent
N/A
Page 92
Service Delivery Review
Services
Not at all
Acceptable
Needs
Improvement
Meets
Expectations
Excellent
N/A
Total
Weighted
Average
Clean facilities
0.00%
5.43%
21.74%
44.57%
19.57%
92
4.31
Availability of pets
0.00%
7.69%
27.47%
21.98%
25.27%
91
3.85
Public hours
3.30%
8.79%
34.07%
27.47%
15.38%
91
3.87
Fees (adoption, etc.
3.37%
3.37%
30.34%
23.60%
19.10%
89
3.83
Friendly office and animal care
staff
2.17%
7.61%
17.39%
50.00%
14.13%
92
4.23
Friendly Animal Services
Officer/Municipal Law Enforcement
Officer
2.17%
8.70%
15.22%
39.13%
27.17%
92
4.1
Knowledgeable office and animal
care staff
2.20%
5.49%
10.99%
53.85%
17.58%
91
4.32
Knowledgeable Animal Services
Officer/Municipal Law Enforcement
Officer
2.22%
5.56%
13.33%
40.00%
28.89%
90
4.17
Answered
94
Skipped
6
Page 93
In the field
Through email
On the phone
In the animal areas
At the front desk
23. How long did it take for staff to assist you?
0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% 120.00%
■ Less than 5 minutes
5-15 minutes
. 15+ minutes
Within 24 hours
Over 24 hours
N/A
Service Delivery Review
Assistance How
Less than 5
minutes
5-15 minutes
15+
minutes
Within 24
hours
Over 24
hours
N/A
Total
Weighted
Average
At the front desk
62.50%
7.95%
4.55%
0.00%
0.00%
25.00%
88
2.29
In the animal areas
38.82%
16.47%
2.35%
0.00%
0.00%
42.35%
85
2.41
On the phone
50.00%
2.33%
3.49%
1.16%
1.16%
41.86%
86
2.42
Through email
6.17%
1.23%
2.47%
8.64%
4.94%
76.54%
81
5.11
In the field
7.32%
3.66%
4.88%
6.10%
0.00%
78.05%
82
3.94
Other (please specify)
5
Answered
90
Skipped
10
Page 94
24. How satisfied were you with the level of service you
received from Clarington Animal Shelter Services?
9.78%
57.61%
% Rating 18.48%
9.78%
4.35%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Star Rating
% Rating
#
Very Dissatisfied
4.35%
4
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
9.78%
9
Satisfied
18.48%
17
Very Satisfied
57.61%
53
Undecided
9.78%
9
Answered
92
Skipped
8
Undecided
■Very Satisfied
■ Satisfied
Somewhat Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied
Service Delivery Review
Page 95
60.00%
25. What is your overall impression of the
Clarington Animal Shelter based on this visit or
contact?
51.58%
■ Excellent
■ Meets Expectations
■ Needs Improvement
■ Average
.4% ■ N/A
11.58% 10.53%
■ Not at all Acceptable
6.32%
3.16%
Star
Response
%
#
Excellent
51.58%
49
Meets Expectations
16.84%
16
Needs Improvement
11.58%
11
Average
10.53%
10
N/A
6.32%
6
Not at all Acceptable
3.16%
3
Answered
95
Skipped
5
Service Delivery Review
Page 96
Row Labels
Adoption criteria
Coyotes
Don't know
Enforcement
Essential service
Friendlier staff
Good experience
Lifetime licences
More dog parks
More staff
Recording keeping
Shelter hours
Shelter improvement
Shelter location
Shelter website
Small animals at dog park
More animals
Grand Total
Service Delivery Review
# of Respondents
1
1
26. Please provide any suggestions you would make to improve
5 Clarington Animal Shelter Services, animal control or other animal
6 related programs.
6
3
More animals 1
4
� 1
Shelter website 1
2
1
1
Shelter improvement
3
Recording keeping 1
1
More dog parks 1
3
6
Good experience
1
Essential service
1
Don't know
1
� 1
1
Adoption criteria 1
46
0 1
2
3
3
2
4
3
5
3 4 5
1.1
■ 6
■ 6
6 7
Page 97
Appendix B: Staff Checksheet results
Time of Activity Categories for Monday For November 20th, 2017
5
4
0
0
4t 3
2
1
0
7 AM 8 AM 9 AM
10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM
Time of Day
4 PM 5 PM
Service Delivery Review
■Monday - Transfer
■Monday - Service
■Monday - Reuniting
■Monday - Outreach
■Monday - Facility
■Monday - Care
■Monday - By -Law
■Monday - Adoption
Page 98
Service Delivery Review
Time of Activity Categories Average for Tuesdays (November 14th and 21 st 2017)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
N
7
0
= 2.5
0
It
2
0.5
0
7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM
Time of Day
1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM
■Tuesday - Transfer
■Tuesday - Service
■Tuesday - Reuniting
■Tuesday - Outreach
■Tuesday - Facility
■Tuesday - Care
■Tuesday - By -Law
■Tuesday - Adoption
Page 99
7
e
5
4
D
0
0
0
U 3
1
0
7 AM
Service Delivery Review
Time of Activity Categories Average for Wednesdays (November 15th and 22nd, 2017
8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM
Time of Day
■ Wednesday - Transfer
■ Wednesday - Service
■ Wednesday - Reuniting
■ Wednesday - Outreach
■ Wednesday - Facility
■ Wednesday - Care
■ Wednesday - By -Law
■ Wednesday - Adoption
Page 100
r�
5
4
0
= 3
0
U
2
0
01
7 AM
Service Delivery Review
Time of Activity Categories Average for Thursdays (November 16th and 23rd, 2017
8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM
Time of Day
■Thursday - Transfer
■Thursday - Service
■Thursday - Reuniting
■Thursday - Outreach
■Thursday - Facility
■Thursday - Care
■Thursday - By -Law
■Thursday - Adoption
Page 101
14
12
8
0
2
0
0
U 6
4
2
0
7 AM
Service Delivery Review
Time of Activity Categories Averages for Fridays (November 17th and 24th, 2017
■
■
i
_ ■
■
8 AM
9 AM
10 AM
11 AM 12 PM
1 PM
Time of Day
2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P
■ Friday - Transfer
■ Friday - Service
■Friday - Reuniting
■Friday - Outreach
■Friday - Facility
■Friday - Care
■Friday - By -Law
■Friday - Adoption
Page 102