Tracking Length of Stay Statistics

*How will this kitten group affect the overall shelter's LOS? 

While we have discussed length of stay (LOS) in a few different contexts already, we have yet to talk about the myriad of ways it can be calculated and what information each of those calculations lends to managing an animal populations.   Similar to calculations for human patients in a hospital, LOS in its most simplistic definition is the intake date minus the outcome date, and again related to hospital computing, if a group finds itself lucky enough to have a relinquished animal come in and leave within the same day, I always advise groups to count that animal’s LOS as one day.  Individual animals have personal lengths of stay and groups of animals contribute to average lengths of stay.  It is within this latter aggregate group that the power of the LOS statistic shines through. 

The first step in gathering meaningful information from aggregate LOS is to define cohorts of animals you are interested in analyzing.  Presented below are some suggestions for analysis and descriptions of what benefits the data offer.  All the calculation proposals below can also be subdivided into animal groups such as all dogs, all cats, all animals, just puppies, just kittens, etc.

1. Intake Cohorts:  Calculating an average length of stay for animals grouped together by the month (or week, or day, etc) they came in to the shelter.  Tracking LOS in this manner will give you insight to any seasonal variations in your shelter’s operations and how your population management handled things.  Does the January Intake Cohort move through quickly compared to the July Intake Cohort?   Using historical LOS data from last year’s Intake Cohorts, shelter managers can make decisions about enlisting additional resources such as foster homes, staffing, or volunteers to help alleviate anticipated increases in LOS during particular time periods.  One limitation to using this calculation is that you might not get stable data until many months  (or weeks, or days, etc) after the intake month under consideration has passed.  If your group routinely moves animals through within 15-20 days, then this will not be such a problem, but if your shelter does not, then it may take a while for all members of this cohort to have an outcome, and have their data contribute to the calculation.   For example, if the shelter manager was calculating the February Intake Cohort’s LOS, he or she might have to wait until April to do so as those animals that came into the shelter in late February will need time to pass through the system.
2. Outcome Cohorts: Calculating an average length of stay for animals grouped together by the month (or week, or day, etc) they left the shelter.  This can show insight into the health of a shelter’s adoption and/or transfer program.  And, opposite of the Intake Cohort limitation mentioned above, Outcome Cohorts can be calculated immediately for their specified time period.  For example, if a shelter manager was calculating the February Outcome Cohort’s LOS, he or she can do so on March 1.
3. Current Cohort: Calculating the average length of stay for all animals at your facility at this moment in time, regardless of intake date.  This is probably as close to real-time shelter data as a shelter manager can get!  Again, this particular calculation can give insight into the shape of your adoption/transfer program, but can also give a shelter manager clues about the overall well-being and health of the population.  Animals that are ill or need extended care will increase this calculation, whereas a healthy population will move through the system quickly and therefore have a shorter LOS.
4.  Stage/Location Cohorts: It is also useful to calculate a LOS statistic for animals in specific stages or locations within a shelter system.  Much like the calculation for Current Cohorts, monitoring the data from a Stage/Location Cohort will ensure that bottlenecks for whatever reason are noticed and addressed before they affect the greater population.  Examples of possible stages and locations to monitor include:
1. Intake/Processing
2. Medical
3. Holding
4. Adoption Rooms
5. Foster Stays
6. Rehabilitation Rooms
5. Intake Type Cohorts: Calculating LOS for intake types such as owner guardian surrenders, strays, transfer animals, or emergency response intakes, can give a shelter manager understanding of the burden that these subcategories of animals place on the global shelter system.  For example, if a shelter takes in a large transfer group from another shelter or even a hoarding situation, it will be useful to track both the transfer group’s LOS, as well as all other animal’s LOS.  If we see a rise in the LOS for all other animals (compared to data for this group from pervious months or time period), that is an indication that perhaps the transfer group was too burdensome or overwhelming for this shelter’s operations as it affected the data for these other animals in the shelter’s care at that time.  From this, shelter managers can create operation protocols for dealing with such burdens so that the rest of the population is not affected.
6. Outcome Type Cohorts: Calculating LOS for outcome types such as adoption, transfer out, euthanasia, etc.  This will inform shelter staff as to the efficiency of daily operations, as well as the health and well-being of their population.  For example, if a shelter euthanizes animals, it is imperative to watch this LOS so that efficiency is managed.  Although euthanasia is not always a predictable outcome and shelters would like to give all animals as much of a chance as possible, if Outcome Euthanasia LOS increases, it might be indicative of unnecessarily delaying inevitable outcomes.  

The second step in monitoring LOS statistics is to set goals or benchmarks for each of the categories of data a shelter is tracking.  I would recommend monitoring data for a year before determining baseline statistics.  Although one year seems long, you must account for seasonal fluctuations and therefore need the entire year to see a complete picture of your shelter.  Once baseline is established, go ahead and set goals for each category.  This will help focus operations and will certainly drive decisions made around the shelter.  And again, based on any seasonal fluctuations recorded in your baseline data, it would be good practice to set fluctuating benchmarks to accommodate the ups and downs.  All of us shelter workers know all too well what the warmer months (i.e., “kitten season”) can do to a shelter’s numbers, so it is acceptable to adjust your expectations at this time based on what your baseline is telling you.

What types of LOS does your shelter track?  Has knowing your LOS been beneficial to your organization and staff?  Does your shelter set goals or benchmarks?  What happens if you do not hit your benchmark?

*Photo courtesy of Chris Tanaka

*Microchips versus Municipal Registration for Dogs—Let’s Get Crackin’ Animal Welfare Supporters!

*Warning—slightly controversial post below, read at your own risk!

I recently stumbled onto a fantastic blog dedicated to interesting correspondences, and while perusing through the posts hit the jackpot when I found a letter from children’s book author E.B. White written to the ASPCA back in 1951.  Apparently, he was cited for harboring an unlicensed dog and his amusing response to the citation got me to thinking about animal licensing and identification and a shelter’s role in it all.    

           

I am just coming off a tour of duty at Chicago’s municipal control facility and learned more than I ever thought necessary about animal licensing laws in Chicago.  The thing that sticks out most for me is that no one really pays attention to the mandatory licensing law and even with incentives built around spaying and neutering and discounts for senior citizens, the compliance rate is pretty abysmal.   In fact, according to this Sun-Times article, Chicago’s compliance rate is under 5% of all dogs in the city, and that is even after a 2005 upgrade of the licensing software to cross reference against the county’s rabies vaccination list.  Obviously, the city and its citizen’s are not paying attention, so what is the point?  From experience, the only time fines are imposed for not having a city dog license is when a dog has a run-in with animal control for some other reason (bite, off-leash, noise ordinance violation, etc), and of course, licensing fees are imposed for any stray animal reclaimed by its owner.  And, that leads me to the meat and potatoes of this post: redemption rates. 

Historically, return to owner rates at Chicago Animal Care and Control hover around 10% (source: CASA; this number is possibly higher, but the data provided do not split intake numbers by type).  This is slightly worse than the suspected national average of 15-20%.  Although not the primary reason municipalities require dog licenses, one of the benefits of it being law should be a higher stray redemption rate because (in theory) we have ownership information about the dog.  To put this in other terms, we can measure a direct increase in Live Release Rates if more dogs were licensed. However, because we have such low compliance, Chicago is never going to see an increase in its rates.  And to make matters worse, some people who do have licenses may not actually put them on their dogs’ collars as eloquently hinted by E. B. White:

She wears her metal license tag but I must say I don't particularly care for it, as it is in the shape of a hydrant, which seems to me a feeble gag, besides being pointless in the case of a female.

So if said dog turned up at the city pound, staff would never know the dog is licensed and ownership information is on record.  This is a missed opportunity to reunite the animal with its owner, and subsequently, increase shelter live release rate.  So, I am proposing it is in the animal shelter’s best interest (regardless of whether they accept strays or not) to encourage their municipality to explore alternatives to dog licensing.  From an animal shelter’s perspective, what is a better method to identify animals?  Microchips!

While not a new technology and already thoroughly embraced by the animal welfare community, microchips provide the perfect substitute for licenses: they are permanent, they are reliable, and they are gaining in popularity.  Many studies have time and again reported a higher rate of return for stray animals with microchips, than those without chips.  And, when disaster strikes, local animal shelters and rescue groups are the first to jump in and assist with the homeless and displaced animals, so again an additional benefit of having the community’s animal population microchipped. 

Can microchips replace traditional dog licenses?

It appears that legislators and local government leaders are aware of the benefits of micochipping, but the new laws are targeted in the wrong direction, or at the least, not in a helpful direction.  I find it odd that a new measure was signed into law in Illinois effective since January 1 of this year requiring all Illinois animal shelters to scan for a microchip at least two times during an animal’s tenure with the shelter in effort to reunite lost pets with their owners.   In Governor Quinn’s own words, this really is making law policies shelters already have in place: “The bill that I’m signing is really a best practices bill, it’s used already in many places in Illinois”.  The Governor is right and in fact, most shelters and rescues have stronger and even more thorough microchip scanning procedures in place.  So, I really don’t see the point to this law—it’s missing the first step: require all animals to be microchipped in the first place!  And again, this is where I see the role of shelters acting as consultants to legislators to steer them in a more productive direction.   

I am not naïve enough to think microchipping is anything more than a substitution of municipal dog licenses and will solve all our animal identification problems.  The same compliance and enforcement issues exist, but from the perspective of the animal shelters responsible for reuniting lost pets and their owners, microchipping will go a whole lot further at effectively accomplishing that task than will paper licensing alone.  So, let’s get crackin’ and start talking to your local City Clerk’s office to encourage a better licensing system. 

Please leave your thoughts about this below, I’d love to have a conversation about the pros and cons of mandatory microchipping, success and failures of communities that already have this as law, compliance and enforcement issues, return to owner rates, etc.

Calculating Staffing Requirements Based on Animal Population

I don’t think anyone would argue if I made the blanket statement that all shelters are on a limited budget and must carefully apportion their resources in order to manage their animal population best.  In that spirit, one of the most important resource allocations a shelter makes is deciding how many staff are required to clean and feed the animals in its population.  Too many staff can drain the shelter’s budget, and too little staff can compromise the health and well being of the animals in its care.  So, how does a shelter manager decide how many staff to assign?

To answer this question, let’s start with the animal care time requirements suggested by HSUS and NACA and also endorsed by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians in their 2011 Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters document.  These groups estimate a minimum of 15 minutes is required for adequate animal cleaning and feeding.  This is a good starting point for calculations, but if you feel 15 minutes is too long or too short, you can adjust the calculations accordingly to hit your goal.  Next, we need to know how many animals are in the shelter.  We can use our historical data to make staffing projections, or we can use the daily shelter count to make real-time decisions.  Let’s use some faux data from Shelter XYZ:

Table #1: Shelter XYZ Daily Population, January

January	Total Cats	Total Dogs	Total Population
1	100	75	175
2	111	76	187
3	99	79	178
4	98	80	178
5	99	81	180
6	100	76	176
7	104	74	178
8	109	70	179
9	121	69	190
10	123	68	191
11	120	66	186
12	121	67	188
13	125	69	194
14	121	61	182
15	119	63	182
16	118	65	183
17	115	69	184
18	113	64	177
19	101	70	171
20	99	71	170
21	99	60	159
22	100	61	161
23	111	62	173
24	111	63	174
25	112	64	176
26	108	66	174
27	106	60	166
28	103	70	173
29	102	71	173
30	101	77	178
31	99	70	169
Average:	108.6	68.9	177.5

And, finally, the third variable of total time allotted for staff to finish the task is needed.  For our calculations below we will use four hours, but based on each individual shelter’s operating procedures, this may differ.  

To calculate for real-time staffing decisions (using January 21^st as an example day):

• We had 159 total animals in the shelter that day: 159 x 15min/animal = 2,385min
• 2,385min / 60min/hr = 39.75 care hours
• Staff are expected to finish cleaning and feeding in 4 hours: 39.75 care hours / 4hr = 9.9 (10) staff required to complete the task

To calculate for projection staffing (using January animal averages):

• On average, we had 177.5 animals in the month of January at Shelter XYZ: 177.5 x 15min/animal = 2,662.5min
• 2,662.5min / 60min/hr = 44.3 care hours
• Staff are expected to finish cleaning and feeding in 4 hours: 44.3 care hours / 4hr = 11.0 staff required to complete the task

What if you are curious to know how long it is currently taking your staff to clean and feed the animals?  One option is to time your staff.  But, I would not recommend this as anyone doing a task knowing they are being times/watched will at the least be suspicious, and probably perform differently as a result—in other words, your data will be significantly skewed.  The other option is to work the above math backwards to find a time per animal.   For example, if I have five staff cleaning and feeding for three hours, and 50 animals they are tending to, then they are spending 18 minutes per animal:

·      5 staff x 3 hrs x 60min/hr = 900min

·      900min / 50 animals = 18min/animal

Although I am not a fan of timing staff, now knowing the theoretical time per animal, a shelter manager can pull out their stopwatch to see how the data compare. 

Looking at the population numbers from the past year will allow shelter managers to plan appropriately for the upcoming year, and help save money and stress when high population season hits.  For example, if we know from last year’s data that June-October produces our highest populations, then the shelter manager can prepare for the staffing fluctuations needed to accommodate the rise in animals in February or March, rather than be taken by surprise in June and July and have husbandry and animal health compromised as a result.  When hiring seasonal help, I have found two techniques to be of great service:

1. Begin the hiring process 2-3 months before you actually need the seasonal help.  This will allow you to train new staff during a period of lower population when stresses are less and you can dedicate more time and attention to training.  When the high season begins, they are all in place and ready to jump in.
2. Consider rehiring the same seasonal help year to year.  This works great if you have a relationship with college students looking for summer work or even stay at home moms or retirees who would like a little work from time to time.  And again, having the same seasonal help will minimize the learning curve.

Photo from Health Technology Professional Products (htproducts.net)

Once you do the calculations above, and set your goal for animal contact time, what should a shelter do if it can only employ so many paid staff?  Using the data from January for Shelter XYZ above, we need 11 people to accomplish the task in four hours.  Shelter XYZ only has budget for eight staff.  My suggestion is to get trained volunteers in to work along staff and fill in the staffing gap to hit the target.  

Tracking Animal Transfer Placements

One of the many benefits that has emerged from the growing cooperation of humane societies and animal welfare organizations in the past decade is the concept of transferring animals from one organization to another.  Many open admissions and municipal facilities depend on transfer programs to increase live release rates, and most smaller rescue and limited admissions shelters only pull animals from other facilities.  For everyone involved—large and small organizations, municipal shelters, rescue organizations, and of course, the animals—it is a win-win situation.  Additionally, a transfer program also addresses pet distribution inequities.  In Chicago, we are lucky to have a network of hundreds of breed and specialty rescue organizations all working to save more lives; if an adopter is unable find what they are looking for at one shelter, they can readily open the latest addition of Chicagoland Tails to browse the vast rescue list and check out other organizations to find their new family member.  Some shelters have relationships with organizations in other states and even other countries.  Click here to read about a creative transfer program to get island pets to the mainland.   

Photo from Boggs Mountain Humane Shelter: boggshumaneshelter.com

Now that the transfer concept is established and working well in most communities, it is time to add sophistication to the data analysis for transfer programs.  Most shelters will calculate transfers as a variable in their live release data—which is good, but at this point, not enough.  How does a shelter know what actually happens to the animal once it is transferred?  From personal experience and anecdotal data, I know that many shelters keep in touch with their transfer partners and share photos and updates on the animal, but so far, not many have been recording actual data on placement rates, lengths of stay, or any other information.  I know, I know, one more thing to add to the shelter’s ever growing list of important things to do.  Here are a few suggestions:

1. This could be a great volunteer job—from your shelter software, print out the current list of transfers to other organizations, give the lucky volunteer a telephone, and let the calling begin.   
2. Be proactive about the process—add a clause in your transfer contract that puts the responsibility on the end of the transfer-receiving group to notify you when an animal is dispositioned. 
3. Of course, use your already existing shelter software to manage the data—if there is not a field or page in the software to add details to outcomed animals, talk to your software administrator to work on a solution to make this easy for you!  (You can even point them to this post to convince them of its necessity!)

And, here is a list of possible data to track:

1. Length of stay at transfer receiving organization—like length of stay within your own organization, this will give you a good overview of that organization’s overall health and adequacy at placing animals. 
2.  Final outcome percentages—are all animals adopted?  Some may be transferred yet again, some may be euthanized, some may become permanent residents of the receiving organization (sanctuary-type situations). 
3. Disease rates—did said animal get sick?  On what date of care did it break with symptoms?  What are the symptoms/diagnosis?  This will be helpful in determining your own shelter’s disease rates—if the animal broke with symptoms within the first few days of transfer, you can make the assumption it contracted disease while in your care and subsequently, you can add the data to your own disease calculations.  If it broke with symptoms well after transfer, then the disease transmission likely occurred while in the receiving transfer organization’s care.
4. Behavior Notes—was there unexpected behavior training/modification necessary?  If so, of what nature?  Did the behavior issues prohibit or increase the time to adoption? 

Following these numbers will give your organization a better understanding of its transfer program, and also strengthen the relationship with your transfer partners.  After all, in its broadest scope, the goal of a transfer program is to initiate more and more appropriate animal placements, so knowing your data (ie, your transfer partner relationships) more intimately will assist in successfully arriving at this goal.  You will have a clearer understanding of which animals to place with which groups, which groups to work with on a regular basis and those to work with on an episodic time frame, and you can also justify pulling away from certain groups if the data does not support the relationship any longer.  Further, if you notice lengths of stay increasing for one group or all transfer partners, you may look more closely at your own data to find out what is causing the swell.  Perhaps, your husbandry practices are slipping, and the animals transferred out are requiring unexpected or additional medical interventions thus increasing lengths of stay at the receiving transfer organization.  Or, maybe the issue is not with your group, but with the receiving transfer organization, and you may then consider advertising those animals on your own shelter’s website to boost exposure to potential adopters.  (Word of caution: *so as to not confuse or frustrate adopters, clearly label transferred animals as not being in residence at your shelter).  Whatever you decide to do with your transfer program data, I encourage all shelters to take this next step in enhancing the animal transfer concept and overall adding to the benefits for the animals.  Hats off to The ASPCA, whom in their $100K Shelter Challenge began requiring transfer affidavits in order for any transferred animals to count as a successful live release during the challenge period!  Click here to read their transfer rules (scroll down to “Challenge Rules” heading, point #9).    

What Happens Between Intake and Outcome? Explaining Animal Care Days

While important to know, tracking and reporting absolute animal intake and outcome numbers for a defined period of time (weekly, monthly, annually) is only useful to a point.  Certainly, when composing direct mail campaigns to raise awareness and money for your organization it is relevant to report total intake and disposition numbers as a measure of the impact you have on the community, and additionally, if your organization is a member of a coalition, or at the least, aiming to achieve transparency with your data, then indeed absolute numbers will again be useful.  It’s easy to report the intake numbers, and similarly, the outcome numbers (adoptions, transfers, spay/neuter surgeries, euthanasias) but how can we talk about what happens in between intake and outcome?  Enter: the Animal Care Days (ACD) statistic!

In its most elementary form, the Animal Care Day equals how many days an animal spends in your organization’s care. 

Table #1: Animal Care Days

Animal #	Intake Date	Outcome Date	Animal Care Days (d)
001	1/1/11	1/31/11	30
002	1/5/11	1/15/11	10
003	1/6/11	1/10/11	4
004	1/11/11	1/31/11	20
005	1/15/11	1/30/11	15
006	1/16/11	1/25/11	9
007	1/20/11	1/29/11	9
008	1/21/11	1/23/11	2
009	1/22/11	2/21/11	29
010	1/30/11	2/4/11	4
		Total ACD:	132

From the table above, we can see that this shelter took in 10 animals in January, but the total time these 10 animals spent in this shelter’s care was 132 days.  Big difference between those two stats!  To get a better understanding of the population, it is imperative for staff to track ACD.  Looking more closely at the data, shelter staff can begin to analyze differences between the animals and ask itself questions such as: why was Animal #008 outcomed so quickly whereas Animal #001 took 30 days until outcome?

From this data, we can also calculate an Average Length of Stay: number of days an average animal contributes to the total animal care days.  From the data above:

Average Length of Stay = (Total Animal Care Days) / (Total Animals)

                                         = (132) / (10)

                                         = 13.2 d: meaning the average animal at this shelter stayed 13.2 days before finding a disposition.

Animal Care Days are also important when requesting funding or determining an operating budget.  From the data above, if the shelter knows that it costs $25 to care for an animal each day (housing, food, medical expenses, staffing, etc), then it can add the following column to the table:

Table #2: Determining Costs 

Animal #	Intake Date	Outcome Date	Animal Care Days (d)	Cost per Animal ($)
001	1/1/11	1/31/11	30	750
002	1/5/11	1/15/11	10	250
003	1/6/11	1/10/11	4	100
004	1/11/11	1/31/11	20	500
005	1/15/11	1/30/11	15	375
006	1/16/11	1/25/11	9	225
007	1/20/11	1/29/11	9	225
008	1/21/11	1/23/11	2	50
009	1/22/11	2/21/11	29	725
010	1/30/11	2/4/11	4	100
		Total:	132 d	$3,300

From the data above, the shelter calculates it costs $3300 to care for the animals that come in January.  The average cost per animal is: $330.  Obviously, the longer an animal stays, the more investment a shelter puts into it whereas the shorter the length of stay, the less investment necessary.  Moving forward, the shelter can look more closely at animal cohorts (kittens, puppies, adults, black cats versus other colors, pit bulls versus other dog breeds, etc) to identify patterns, recognize strains on resources, and appropriately manage the animal population.  Managed and limited intake facilities can use historical ACD data to more effectively plan their intakes, and all types of shelters can use this data to promote transfers of certain types of animals that may have more ACD or longer lengths of stay.  Additionally, shelters can use ACD data to ensure that euthanasias are happening in a timely fashion.  By analyzing the ACD for the average euthanized outcome, shelter managers can make certain that inevitable outcomes are decided early rather than late. 

For calculations in Excel, use function DAYS360, click here to see the full Excel tutorial to make ACD calculations easy!