Yolo County Pet Animal Welfare Society (YCPAWS)

Transcription

December 7, 2011
O
T
O
N
SE
N
Strategic Development Plan
F
YC
PA
W
S
YCPAWS Strategic Development Plan
U
T
C
Prepared for
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
Yolo County Pet Animal Welfare Society (YCPAWS)
T
D
Cammi Cardon, Tarren Corbett, David Meservey, Keith Weissglass
December 7, 2011
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
UC Davis Graduate School of Management
Redacted Version Created by
YCPAWS on 03/28/2012
1
December 7, 2011
Table of Contents
YC
PA
Background ................................................................................................................................. 4
W
S
Executive Summary..................................................................................................................... 3
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................... 4
O
F
Key Players .................................................................................................................................. 4
SE
N
T
Yolo County Sheriff’s Department .......................................................................................... 4
City and County Governments ................................................................................................ 5
O
N
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) ............................................................................. 5
U
T
C
Research Process ........................................................................................................................ 7
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
Meetings and Site Visits .......................................................................................................... 7
TR
IB
Animal Outcomes & Live Release Rate ................................................................................. 13
IS
Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 15
T
D
Current YCAS vs. Proposed NGO Budget .............................................................................. 15
N
O
Current YCAS vs. Proposed Staffing Structure ...................................................................... 18
:D
O
Additional Resources ............................................................................................................ 20
L
Case Studies .............................................................................................................................. 21
TI
A
Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix II: Proposed NGO Staffing ......................................................................................... 27
Appendix III: Overhead Cost Comparison ................................................................................. 28
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
Appendix I: Current YCAS Staffing ............................................................................................ 26
2
December 7, 2011
Background
YC
PA
The Yolo County Pet Animal Welfare Society (YCPAWS), a local animal welfare group contacted
the UC Davis Graduate School of Management for business consulting assistance. Our team of
O
F
four MBA students conducted a 10-week pro-bono engagement to help YCPAWS analyze
T
information about shelter operations at Yolo County Animal Services (YCAS) and explore the
N
SE
N
financial case for different shelter models.
C
O
During the research phase of our project, we held meetings with executives from leading
U
T
animal welfare organizations in and outside Yolo County. We also met with Davis city officials
IT
H
O
and corresponded with a group that recently negotiated a shelter management transition.
W
We used our findings to conduct SWOT analyses of the current shelter and the YCPAWS group.
TE
Using documents obtained by YCPAWS through public records requests, we then performed a
IB
U
performance analysis of YCAS. Our preliminary results show a poor Live Release Rate (LRR)
IS
TR
compared with other communities across the state.
D
Next, we developed a pro forma budget and staffing model for a hypothetical non-
O
T
governmental shelter separated from YCAS operations. We contrasted this budget with the
N
current YCAS staffing and budget levels. Our model demonstrates that a nonprofit shelter
:D
O
organization could provide improved animal care and community services without increased
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
revenue demands on cities or the County.
3
W
S
Executive Summary
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
The Yolo County Pet Animal Welfare Society (YCPAWS) approached students at the UC Davis
W
S
Background
Graduate School of Management with a request for business consulting services. Our team of
F
four MBA students accepted the project, which was conducted as a Group Practicum under the
T
O
mentorship of Professor Kimberly Elsbach. The goal of the engagement is to help YCPAWS fulfill
O
N
Scope of Work
SE
N
its mission of improving animal sheltering and services in Yolo County.
C
Our team first met with YCPAWS Steering Committee members in late September 2011, and
U
T
regularly over the following two months. After discussing the many potential projects to assist
H
O
their mission, we decided on two deliverables:
IT
1. A written plan evaluating the current shelter’s performance and analyzing the business
W
case for a separation of animal sheltering services, and
IB
U
TE
2. A presentation that YCPAWS could use to make their case to decision-makers.
IS
TR
Key Players
D
Yolo County Sheriff’s Department
O
T
The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department, Animal Services Section is responsible for the operation
O
N
of the Yolo County Animal Services (YCAS) shelter and animal control services. Animal Services
:D
serves the cities of Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and the University of
L
California Davis campus, as well as the unincorporated areas of Yolo County such as Esparto,
TI
A
Dunnigan, Madison, and Brooks. The program is supported primarily through contracts for
FI
D
EN
service with the cities, with additional support from businesses and dog licensing fees.
C
O
N
The Yolo County Animal Services staff provides pet adoptions, redemptions, rescues, licensing,
and appointments for dog and cat rabies vaccinations. In addition to these services, the staff
investigates barking and noise complaints, inspects kennels, picks up loose and contained
4
December 7, 2011
animals including livestock, responds to animal bites and attacks, rents traps, and provides
W
S
welfare checks on animals. As part of the Hill's Shelter Program, the Yolo County Animal
YC
PA
Services Shelter feeds Hill's Science Diet.
City and County Governments
O
F
Yolo County is governed by a five member Board of Supervisors. While the Supervisors do not
SE
N
T
control the Sheriff’s department (the Sheriff-Coroner is elected), they control County budget
O
N
and operations.
C
The County contains four incorporated cities: Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland.
U
T
Each city has its own elected representatives. Cities in Yolo County outsource their animal
H
O
control and sheltering responsibilities to the Sheriff’s Department. The contracts they negotiate
W
IT
give cities some degree of power over how the County handles animal services.
TE
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
U
In addition to the Yolo County Animal Services, there are a number of other key players working
TR
IB
to improve animal control and care throughout the county. Some of these groups work closely
IS
with YC Animal Services, while others operate independently.
O
T
D
Friends of the Yolo County Animal Services (FYCAS)
Friends of the Yolo County Animal Services (FYCAS) is a non-profit organization that was
O
N
founded by volunteers who have worked with the Yolo County Animal Services staff and realize
:D
how devoted they are to improving the welfare of animals in this county. The FYCAS supports
L
the Yolo County Animal Services primarily through seeking donations and grants to raise fund
TI
A
for a new, state-of-the-art shelter for Yolo County, enhance the conditions for animals for the
EN
period they are held at the shelter, increase the rate of adoption of animals from the shelter,
C
O
N
FI
D
implement and expand spay and neuter programs, and support training of shelter personnel.
Yolo County SPCA
The Yolo County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or YCSCPA works with Yolo
County Animal Services to improve the lives of animals in the area. The organization does this
5
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
animals in the community through programs that promote the adoption of homeless animals
W
of spaying and neutering, The mission of the YCSPCA is to continuously improve the welfare of
S
through adoption events, public education and outreach, and active promotion of the benefits
into permanent, loving homes; humane education; spay/neutering; and the trapping, altering,
O
F
and releasing of feral cats.
SE
N
T
UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program
The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program works to protect the health of shelter animals to
O
N
increase their survival rate using veterinary science. The program accomplishes this goal by
C
training veterinary students, veterinarians and shelter professionals in all aspects of shelter
U
T
medicine. Koret also conducts research on shelter animal health issues and consults directly
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
D
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
privately funded and operates solely on contributions.
H
O
with shelter staff to improve animal care. The UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program is
6
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
During the past ten weeks, our team gathered information through meetings with NGO and
government leaders. We spoke with animal welfare groups in and outside Yolo County, and also
O
F
analyzed data obtained by YCPAWS through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
SE
N
T
Meetings and Site Visits
N
The following are brief summaries of our meetings. We were unable to arrange an interview
U
T
C
O
with the Koret Shelter Medicine program.
H
O
Sacramento County SPCA
Penny Cistaro is the Director for the Sacramento County SPCA. Meeting with Penny provided
IT
valuable insight into the potential for a Non-profit organizations management of a shelter. One
W
area she felt very strongly about was keeping the shelter manager position and veterinary
TE
positions as two different positions. The Yolo County Shelter currently has their head
IB
U
veterinarian as their shelter manager which can create issues within the shelter.
TR
Penny was also generous enough to provide us the “Society of Animal Welfare Administrators”
IS
report. This document gave us realistic costs, position descriptions, and other in-depth
T
D
resources to create our business proposal. She also directed us to Shelters that had similar
N
O
statistics to Yolo County so we could compare differing management approaches.
:D
O
Yolo County SPCA
On Wednesday, October 26th, we met with Kimberly Kinnee, the Executive Director of Yolo
TI
A
L
County SPCA. The YC SPCA has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Yolo County
EN
Animal Services in which the SPCA provides services for the county.
C
O
N
FI
D
The main services provided by the YC SPCA are:
1) Adoption under YC Animal Services guidelines
2) Lost and found center
3) Rescue coordination
4) Transportation for animals out of the shelter
7
W
S
Research Process
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
the new Volunteer Coordinator position and helped in purchasing the spay/neuter program.
W
from the Davis SPCA Thrift Store. In addition to the services above, YC SPCA assisted in funding
S
All of these tasks provided by YC SPCA are made possible by volunteers, donations, and profit
When speaking to Kimberly about the possibility of moving the shelter operation from Yolo
O
F
County Animal Services to a non-profit organization, she said that it would be helpful to look at
SE
N
T
analogous counties in California to find the best model. When asked about YC SPCA’s interest in
running the shelter, Kimberly mentioned that any decisions or changes would have to go
C
O
N
through the SPCA Board of Directors.
W
IT
H
O
residents, rather than asking for any special consideration.
U
T
Yolo County Animal Services
Members of our team visited Yolo County Animal Services. We elected to tour the shelter as
TE
In order to enter the shelter, we had to sign in at the front office. The only administrator at the
IB
U
office was a uniformed officer. Once signed in, we were free to roam the facility.
TR
First, we went into the dog kennel area. We noticed that only about 40% of the cages were in
D
IS
use. They appeared clean and all the dogs in the kennel were quiet and well behaved. All of
T
the pertinent information on the animals was attached to the front of their cages along with a
O
N
O
printed out biography that we later found on PetFinder.com.
:D
We then went to the feline section of the facility; a much smaller area compared the dog
TI
A
L
enclosures. We again found the majority of the cages to be empty. Once again, all of the cats
EN
were well behaved and all the cages were clean. At no point during our tour did we interact
C
O
N
FI
D
with any volunteers or management staff.
Finally, we noticed that a large section of the facility’s grounds were being used for equipment
storage. Large trucks, trailers, and other heavy machinery were taking up space that appeared
8
December 7, 2011
to be intended for animals. We had made it a point to keep our eyes open for a “Drop Box”
YC
PA
W
S
referenced in Koret’s investigation, but we never found it.
Our visit gave us a much greater understand of why a change is necessary. We found it off-
putting to check in with a uniformed Sheriff’s officer in order to see the animals. We also later
O
F
found out that to volunteer,one must contact the Sheriff’s Department and submit to a
SE
N
T
background check. The response time to an inquiry is over two weeks, so this likely acts as a
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
D
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
U
T
C
O
N
deterrent.
9
December 7, 2011
Utilizing the Intake and Outcome data obtained by YCPAWS, we conducted a quantitative
YC
PA
analysis of YCAS’ performance. This analysis covered a period of approximately one year: from
W
S
YCAS Performance Analysis
June 1, 2010 to May 25, 2011. Due to ambiguities in the YCAS records, we had to make certain
F
assumptions when interpreting the data. For example, YCAS uses non-standard categories
T
O
when quantifying outcomes. Also, because our statistics were calculated over time, rather than
SE
N
by tracking individual animals, minor discrepancies exist (eg. between intake and outcome
N
totals).We strongly recommend that YCPAWS revisit our interpretations before publicizing
C
O
these numbers.
H
O
U
T
Animal Outcomes & Live Release Rate
IT
The first table on the following page shows the breakdown of animal intake and outcomes for
W
the communities that make up Yolo County from June 2010 to May 2011. It lists the city
TE
populations, as well as the totals for the county. The total intake for the year was 4,904. Of that
TR
IB
U
intake, 2,426 of the animals were euthanized for reasons other than owner request.
IS
The Asilomar LRR of 46% is the annual live release rate for Yolo County. This calculation looks at
T
D
the total adoptions, transfers, relocations, rescues, and returns to owner versus the total
N
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
the second table.1
O
euthanasia rate. This rate is rather low when compared to other LRR across California, shown in
1
Community Comparison tool, Maddie’s Fund:
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/SingleYear/CommunityCompare
13
December 7, 2011
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
D
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
U
T
C
O
N
SE
N
T
O
F
YC
PA
W
S
14
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
current YCAS shelter and an alternative shelter arrangement. Many potential sheltering models
exist, including:
F
Centralized animal control and sheltering
O
o by County government (Yolo County’s current model)
SE
N
T
o by an NGO
Divided animal control and sheltering
O
N
o between county and city government
C
o between county government and an NGO
U
T
Distributed animal control and sheltering
W
IT
H
O
o between local municipalities and one or more NGOs
TE
Selecting the appropriate model for Yolo County is a task far beyond the capacity of this
U
project. Instead, we prepared a pro forma budget based on YCPAWS’ preferred option, a
TR
IB
separation of services.
D
IS
Our budget depicts an existing non-profit or NGO assuming control of Yolo County’s animal
T
sheltering services (at the same facility) while the Sheriff’s department continues animal control
N
O
services. This budget should be viewed as a proof of concept that improved services can be
:D
O
provided for a competitive price.
L
Current YCAS vs. Proposed NGO Budget
TI
A
The annual budget starts from numbers contained from the Yolo County Animal Shelter 2010-
EN
2011 budget, and makes allowances for the differences between a public and privately-run
FI
D
shelter operation. At the same level of financing, the proposed budget allows for improved
C
O
N
service through additional staff to better care for the animals in the shelter.
15
W
One of the key deliverables requested by YCPAWS was a financial comparison between the
S
Financial Analysis
December 7, 2011
W
Winters, West Sacramento, and Davis. Each city contracts with Yolo County for animal control
O
F
Current YCAS Budget (2010-2011)
YC
PA
and services. The animal control department will keep its current share of the revenue
allocated to animal control services, and the shelter side will maintain its current portion.
SE
N
T
(See Appendix I for detailed YCAS salary and staffing information)
Other Revenue
$233,900
General Fund
$100,000
Total Revenues
$1,636,933
IT
W
TE
IB
U
Appropriations
TR
Salaries and Benefits
IS
Services and Supplies
D
Fixed- Assets-Equipment
$1,126,446
$499,887
11,000
$1,636,933
0
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
Total Appropriations
Total Surplus
C
$950,410
U
T
Local Government Agencies
O
$352,623
H
Fees and Charges
O
N
Revenues
16
S
The main revenue streams come from the four cities that the animal shelter serves: Woodland,
December 7, 2011
S
Pro Forma Income Statement (NGO)
YC
PA
W
(See Appendix II for detailed NGO pro forma salary and staffing information)
Other Revenue
$233,900
General Fund
$100,000
Additional Donations
$85,000
Total Revenues
$1,721,933
O
$950,410
T
Local Government Agencies
SE
N
$352,623
U
T
C
O
N
Fees and Charges
F
Revenues
H
O
Appropriations
$1,158,609
Services and Supplies
$499,887
Fixed- Assets-Equipment
11,000
TE
W
IT
Salaries and Benefits
$1,669,096
TR
IB
U
Total Appropriations
$52,837
T
D
IS
Total Surplus
O
Notes & Rationale
O
N
The Pro Forma Income statement was based primarily on the Yolo County Animal Shelter’s
:D
2010-2011 Budget. The only changes to the income statement are the “Additional Donations”
TI
A
L
line item, and a slight increase in salaries and benefits.
EN
The current shelter received $ 17,000 in donations for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. In the new
FI
D
model, we have hired a Director of Development that we estimate will generate an additional
C
O
N
$85,000 per year.
There is also a slight increase in salaries, due to the additional staff hired under the new
management structure. The new structure adds a full time Volunteer Coordinator, Director of
17
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
non-profit salary structure, reducing the number of Sheriff’s Clerks, and replacing the Business
W
Attendants. The funds to hire these additional positions were made available by changing to a
S
Development, Office Manager, Office Clerk, Animal Care Lead and three full time Animal Care
Services manager with a Shelter Manager. The money saved in the reduced overhead costs
SE
N
Current YCAS vs. Proposed Staffing Structure
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
D
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
U
T
C
O
N
Current YCAS Organizational Chart
18
O
T
us to increase the number of budgeted full time equivalent positions from 17 to 22.
F
associated with these positions, along with the added benefit of additional fundraising, allowed
December 7, 2011
C
O
N
SE
N
T
O
F
YC
PA
W
S
Proposed Organizational Chart (YCAS)
H
O
U
T
Proposed Organizational Chart (under anexisting NGO)
U
Animal Care
Attendants
(4)
IB
Veterinary
Technician (2)
Office Manager
Director of
Development
Volunteer
Coordinator
Office Clerk
:D
O
N
O
D
IS
TR
Animal Care
Lead
T
TE
W
IT
Shelter Manager
TI
A
L
Current YCAS Salaries and Benefits
Due to the fact that animal control and services is housed under the sheriff’s department,
EN
benefits are a large percentage of salaries. In the current model, benefits average about 54% of
benefits are the key to gain a cost savings. See Appendix III for details.
C
O
N
FI
D
the base salary of employees. When compared to the industry average of 30%, one can see that
19
December 7, 2011
W
veterinarian is trained and skilled in caring for animals, not managing a shelter. Best practices
S
In the current system the veterinarian is also the shelter manager, which is not appropriate. A
YC
PA
call for the veterinarian and shelter manager to be separate job functions.
Additional Resources
O
F
Transitioning animal sheltering to an NGO would confer additional benefits not quantified in
SE
N
T
our pro forma budget.
N
Volunteer Capacity
Our budget fully funds the current part-time Volunteer Coordinator position.Volunteers could
C
O
be used in expanded roles for the shelter, such as:
Yard Maintenance
Dog Walkers
Office Cleaners
H
O
U
T
Meet and Greeters
Building Upkeep/Improvements
IT
Animal Socializers
W
Cat Companions
TE
Dog Bathers
IB
U
Dog Trainers
Event Volunteers
Bookkeeping
Office Volunteers
IS
TR
Kennel Cleaners
Fundraising
O
T
D
Fundraising & Grants
A non-profit shelter would possess increased fundraising capacity due to a full time Director of
N
Development. In addition to achieving the modest fundraising goal we have included in the pro
:D
O
forma budget, this staff member can apply for grants from Maddie’s Fund and other
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
foundations.
20
December 7, 2011
YC
PA
There have been many successful cases of NGOs assuming control of animal shelters at both
W
S
Case Studies
the city and county levels. We focus on two recent examples. In both situations, an existing
F
NGO has presented a bid to the governing body to take control of an existing shelter that is
T
O
being managed by a branch of law enforcement. In the following section we will examine two
SE
N
of these examples and analyze their different approaches.
O
N
Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter: City of Alameda, CA
C
The “Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter” (FAAS) was originally started as a fundraising NGO
U
T
with the goal of keeping Alameda’s city shelter from being closed down. Without sufficient
IT
H
O
funds, the city planned to close the shelter and outsource functions to neighboring cities.
TE
W
The reason for the proposed shut down was insufficient funds. Outsourcing to other cities was
U
estimated to save the city $600,000 a year. FAAS developed a proposal to shift supervision of
IB
the shelter from the Police Department to a non-profit organization. The plan offered the same
IS
TR
savings and kept the added benefits and convenience of a local shelter.
T
D
On November 15th, 2011, FAAS and the city of Alameda reached an agreement to implement
N
O
the transition. They have formed a public/private partnership in which the city will still
O
contribute $300,000 toward the animal shelter. The balance of funding (a matching $300,000)
L
:D
will come from FAAS fundraising efforts.
TI
A
Sammie’s Friends Humane Society: Nevada County, CA
EN
Sammie’s Friends Humane Society has a slightly different story. The group was formed to
FI
D
provide support for their county shelter. Although the Sheriff’s office was in charge of the
C
O
N
facility, SFHS was responsible for all the functions aside from external animal control services.
As of July, 2010, SFHS took complete control of the shelter while keeping animal control under
the sheriff’s department.
21
December 7, 2011
from the county, but much less than what was required under the sheriff’s management.
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
T
D
IS
TR
IB
U
TE
W
IT
H
O
U
T
C
O
N
SE
N
T
O
F
YCPAWS 03/28/12 : Correction of
organization name for "Sammie's Friends"
YC
PA
As an NGO, SFHS has a greater ability to raise funds for the shelter. They still receive funding
22
W
to budget cut backs, the Sheriff’s office was unable to facilitate any expansion for the shelter.
S
The goal of SFHS was to expand shelter services while maintaining a low euthanasia rate. Due
December 7, 2011
Asilomar Accords, Maddie’s Fund:
YC
PA
http://www.maddiesfund.org/Documents/No%20Kill%20Progress/Asilomar%20Accords.
pdf
O
F
City of Woodland: http://www.cityofwoodland.org/default.asp
City of West Sacramento: http://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/
N
City of Winters: http://www.cityofwinters.org/
SE
N
T
City of Davis: http://cityofdavis.org/
C
O
Cushing, T. (2011). “FAAS Alameda Animal Shelter Business Plan.”
U
T
Determining Field Staffing Needs, National Animal Control Association
O
http://www.nacanet.org/fieldstaffing.html
IT
H
Friends of Yolo Shelter: http://www.friendsyoloshelter.org/index.php
W
Koret Shelter Medicine Program: http://www.sheltermedicine.com/
TE
MSEC Surveys and Society of Animal Welfare Administration Salary Report. 2011
IB
U
Recommended County Budget, Yolo County:
TR
http://www.yolocounty.org/Index.aspx?page=2063
IS
Shelter Comparison, Maddie’s Fund:
T
D
http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/SingleYear/ShelterCompare
N
O
Wicks, C. (2010). “Sammie’s Friends Humane Society: Business Plan for Operating the
O
Nevada County Animal Shelter”.
:D
Yolo County Animal Shelter 2008-2011 Budget data provided by Yolo County Animal
TI
A
L
Services through Freedom of Information Act.
County Animal Services through Freedom of Information Act.
Yolo County Animal Services: http://www.yolosheriffs.com/animalser.html
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
Yolo County Animal Shelter Intake/Outcome Data June 2010-May 2011 provided by Yolo
Yolo County SPCA: http://www.yolospca.org/
25
W
S
Sources
S
W
YC
PA
U
TR
354.98
D
744,231.87 68,614.72 12,099.39
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
O
Grand Total
261.83
1700.71
412.64
518.58
582.75
1481.42
O
Fringe
Clothing Overhead
Benefits Allowance
Total
T
Medical
SE
N
N
7.5
O
125
659.54
C
36.13
U
T
1436.25
O
54.17
30.31
18.91
24.06
31.4
42.39
16.06
OASDI
18031.7 7571.45
10174.16 4514.04
10172.71 4122.92
8820.15 4119.25
8955.58 3837.28
9050.5 4045.31
8892.28 3815.93
8907.65 3761.63
9045.07 3359.66
8328.06 3397.93
8191.9 2949.68
7846.78 2815.712
6267.73 2788.29
7798.94 3512.91
7854.53 3441.93
8047.92 2934.65
6509.46 2331.75
206.86
271.71
125.81
87.22
169.15
106.22
113.68
117
-14.63
106.98
H
2241.25
1230
1485
1543.76
1336.88
1400
995
84154.84
51166.04
51131.11
54671.15
50352.8
53310.56
50312.15
51330.71
55107.08
44932.9
39388.51
37637.43
37224.35
45694.52
44766.65
39135.53
30654.47
3551.8
1065.14
1388.47
1529.37
1398.33
Retirement
IT
0.9
W
306.25
Labor
Total
TE
2983.59
3817.94
8543.85
4778.65
6852.36
4955.96
5409.89
8562.62
2213.73
414.76
228.6
4122.47
7770.29
6783.71
161.78
IB
84154.84
47875.3
47313.17
43831.88
44313.84
44954.29
43788.37
44552.54
45102.07
41708.11
38973.75
37408.83
31629.5
37924.23
37982.94
38973.75
30654.47
1059.05
652.5
869.89
591.64
-83.09
T
Business Services Manager
Supervising Animal Services Officer
Animal Services Officer II
Sheriff's Record's Clerk II
Animal Care Technician
Animal Care Attendant
Shift
Payoff/VA
Differential C Buyback
Overtime Standby
IS
Regular
Salary
Job Title
F
Appendix ICurrent YCAS Staffing
14898.28
14898.28
11704.22
11704.22
11704.22
11704.22
11270
11704.22
11704.22
10535.12
6380.88
6380.88
6380.88
6380.88
15348.24
14898.24
14898.28
150
75
4,696.10 829,903.91 153,495.99 64,009.45 147,350.52 45,369.76
1000 41951.39
1000 30586.44
1000 30193.91
1000 28837.68
1000 28691.14
1000 25800.03
1000 25412.43
1000
25373.5
1000 25258.95
1000 23995.99
600
23445.8
600 22966.712
750 20341.14
1000 18692.73
1000 18677.34
17363.45
600 15822.09
478.57
288.03
275.37
230.68
92.35
Labor and
Overhead
Total
126106.23
81752.48
81325.02
83508.83
79043.94
79110.59
75724.58
76704.21
80366.03
68928.89
62834.31
60604.142
57565.49
64387.25
63443.99
56498.98
46476.56
4030.37
1353.17
1663.84
1760.05
1490.68
14,550 424,775.72 1,254,679.63
S
W
Proposed NGO Staffing
Medical
Fringe
O
T
SE
N
N
O
C
31.40
7.5
18.91
54.17
30.31
36.13
16.06
42.39
24.06
U
T
1,336.88
125
1,485.00
2,241.25
1230
1436.25
995
1,400
1543.76
1,700.71
IS
83,003.80 12,099.39
261.83
10,174.16
10,172.71
8,907.65
206.86
9,050.50
8,820.15
8,955.58
6,267.73
8,328.06
9,045.07
8,892.28
6509.46
O
0.9
H
306.25
D
780,751.59
OASDI
1,700.71
95,330.21
4,514.04
4,122.92
3,761.63
271.71
4,045.31
4,119.25
3,837.28
2,788.29
3,397.93
3,359.66
3,815.93
2331.75
11,704.22
11,704.22
14,898.28
14,898.28
10,535.12
11,270.00
11,704.22
11,704.22
6380.88
14,898.24
14,898.28
150.00
Clothing
Total
$52,447.20
$30,497.00
$20,800.00
$20,800.00
$20,800.00
$58,500.00
$19,500.00
$32,464.00
$32,464.00
$35,000.00
$20,800.00
1,000 $81,752.48
1,000 $81,325.02
1,000 $76,704.21
$ 4,030.37
1,000 $79,110.59
1,000 $83,508.83
1,000 $79,043.94
750 $57,565.49
1,000 $68,928.89
1,000 $80,366.03
1,000 $75,724.58
600 $46,476.56
40,365.70 104,799.44 29,946.52 10,350.00 1,158,609.19
O
T
Grand Total
2,983.59
3,817.94
5,409.89
659.54
6,852.36
8,543.85
4,778.65
4,122.47
2,213.73
8,562.62
4,955.96
IT
47,875.30
47,313.17
44,552.54
1059.05
44,954.29
43,831.88
44,313.84
31,629.50
41,708.11
45,102.07
43,788.37
30654.47
W
TE
40,344 12,103.20
30,497
20,800
20,800
20,800
45,000 13,500.00
15,000 4,500.00
32,464.00
32,464.00
35,000.00
20,800.00
Payoff/Vac
Retirement
Buyback
U
Shelter Manager
Animal Care Lead
Director of Development
Volunteer Coordinator
Office Manager
Office Clerk
Overtime Standby
F
Fringe
IB
Regular Salary
TR
Job Title
YC
PA
Appendix II
L
:D
O
N
Salaries for the sheltering services positions were determined using the report conducted by MSEC Surveys in conjunction with the Society of Animal Welfare
Administrators published in 2011, with the exception of the Director of Development. The Director of Development salary was based off of the business plan from the
Friends of Alameda Animal Shelter. Fringe benefits for the shelter Manager, Director of Development and Volunteer Coordinator were based on the industry average of
30% of the base salary.
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
Note: the volunteer coordinator position is only 15,000 because currently the Yolo SPCA funds a part time coordinator, and the new shelter will pay the additional half
of the salary to increase the employee to full time. We forecast that in the following year the new shelter will be able to take full responsibility of the coordinator
position to allow the Yolo SPCA to spend their resources on spay/neuter vouchers and their foster program.
W
S
Appendix III Overhead Cost Comparison
C
O
N
FI
D
EN
TI
A
L
:D
O
N
Labor and
Overhead Total
O
126106.23
81752.48
81325.02
83508.83
79043.94
79110.59
75724.58
76704.21
80366.03
68928.89
62834.31
60604.142
57565.49
64387.25
63443.99
56498.98
46476.56
4030.37
$ 1,254,679.63
H
O
U
T
41951.39
30586.44
30193.91
28837.68
28691.14
25800.03
25412.43
25373.5
25258.95
23995.99
23445.8
22966.712
20341.14
18692.73
18677.34
17363.45
15822.09
478.57
424,775.72
IT
U
IB
TR
IS
D
T
N
O
Grand Total
84154.84
47875.3
47313.17
43831.88
44313.84
44954.29
43788.37
44552.54
45102.07
41708.11
38973.75
37408.83
31629.5
37924.23
37982.94
38973.75
30654.47
1059.05
742,200.93
TE
W
Business Services Manager
Overhead Total
C
Regular
Salary
Job Title
SE
N
T
O
F
YC
PA
The primary cost savings from transitioning to a non-profit is the cost savings from personnel. As you can see from
the data below, overhead as a percentage of salary if 57%, but when the shelter transitions to a non-profit it reduces
dramatically.
$
Overhead as a
Percentage of
Base Salary
50%
64%
64%
66%
65%
57%
58%
57%
56%
58%
60%
61%
64%
49%
49%
45%
52%
45%
57%
S
O
N
O
:D
L
TI
A
EN
FI
D
N
O
C
YC
PA
W
O
IT
H
78,462
77,507
69,926
1,538
70,754
72,670
73,005
51,971
65,704
70,361
69,201
46,477
W
TE
U
IB
TR
Total
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
30%
30%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
64%
64%
57%
45%
57%
66%
65%
64%
58%
56%
58%
52%
59%
35%
F
O
SE
N
30,586.44
30,193.91
25,373.50
478.57
25,800.03
28,837.68
28,691.14
20,341.14
23,995.99
25,258.95
25,412.43
15822.09
N
47,875.30
47,313.17
44,552.54
1059.05
44,954.29
43,831.88
44,313.84
31,629.50
41,708.11
45,102.07
43,788.37
30654.47
52,447
30,497
20,800
20,800
20,800
58,500
19,500
32,464
32,464
35,000
20,800
O
12,103.20
13,500.00
4,500.00
-
U
T
40,344
30,497
20,800
20,800
20,800
45,000
15,000
32,464.00
32,464.00
35,000.00
20,800.00
Overhead as a
Percentage of
Base Salary
T
Labor and
Overhead Total
T
D
IS
Shelter Manager
Animal Care Lead
Director of Development
Volunteer Coordinator
Office Manager
Office Clerk
SHELTERING SERVICES
ANIMAL CONTROL
Overhead
Total
C
Regular
Salary
Job Title

Yolo County Pet Animal Welfare Society (YCPAWS)

Transcription

Similar documents

r-agreement1-SPCA

September 2015

Frequently Asked Questions - University of Georgia College of

Angelo Elementary School - Brockton Public Schools

Gardening For Wildlife PDF file

About Our Shelter Featured Pet Milly

Give Me Shelter - SPCA Serving Allegany County

Evaluation of Mechanical Spread of Fusarium Wilt and Evaluation of

August 2014 - Promise Place

Our Mission - Bucks County SPCA