The Ministry for Primary Industries conducted an audit report into Napier City Council's dog pound. The council declined to release the report but instead issued a press release on December 23 last year. Hawke's Bay Today requested the report from MPI under the Official Information Act and received it on Friday. The council's press release and the MPI report are below:
NAPIER CITY COUNCIL-ISSUED PRESS RELEASE, December 23, 2016
No breaches of Animal Welfare Code at Napier Pound
23 December 2016
The Ministry for Primary Industries External Audit Report has found that on the whole, the Napier Pound is "well run" and "very clean and sanitary".
An inspection was carried out in November 2016, finding that animals had ample space, good clean pens, bedding and bowls, and were adequately cared for by Animal Control staff. The storage of dog food, chemicals, equipment and the bodies of euthanised dogs was also compliant with MPI standards.
MPI found there to be no breaches of the Animal Welfare Code at the Pound.
Shortfalls identified by the report were taken for immediate action by Napier City Council and Chief Executive Wayne Jack says, as the Pound moves into the holiday period, all recommendations highlighted by MPI have been facilitated. These include a better system for triaging animals on entry, in order to mitigate any biosecurity risk, and stricter operational procedures, quality management and record-keeping.
Mr Jack says he enjoyed meeting with MPI staff in November and welcomes the report. "The recommendations made in the report are sensible and achievable, and most were already being worked towards under our new management structure when the inspector visited us.
For example, we are well underway with the completion of a secure veterinary facility next door to our Pound, for triaging animals and the management and care of unwell dogs. All physical assessments take place here, separate to the other dogs in care at our Pound. We have also introduced standard operating procedures, a training framework for new and existing staff members, and the recruitment of a kennel attendant to oversee the facility is progressing well."
Another positive action taken by Napier City Council is the signing of a one year memorandum of understanding with the SPCA. Director City Services, Lance Titter, says the system is working well. "SPCA now visits our Pound to undertake a weekly visit and audit. It's reassuring for us all to know our shelter is being regularly assessed, independently of the Animal Control Team."
He adds that Animal Control staff have changed their operating procedures to improve customer experience - for instance, only approaching the front doors of properties in all cases, and leaving notes if nobody answers the door.
The number of dogs voluntarily surrendered by their owners for euthanasia is also being recorded, says Mr Titter, "as previously this statistic was rolled into our total yearly euthanasia figures".
Mayor Bill Dalton says that overall, the Napier Pound will be in an excellent position when the new Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing of Companion Animals comes into effect, likely sometime early next year. "It's great to be ahead of the game in this regard. I'm satisfied that we have sound management practices in place, are constantly improving, are compliant with current legislation and I'm confident that by the time the new legislation is signed off, Napier City Council will be leading the field in the care of impounded animals."
Fiona Fraser
MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING
Napier City Council,
Private Bag 6010,
Napier 4142.
MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES EXTERNAL AUDIT REPORT
Facility: Napier City Council Dog
Pound.
Location: Depot Place (off Austin
St), Onekawa, Napier.
Operator: Napier City Council.
Audit Date: 8th November, 2016
Audit Report Date: 15th November 2016
1. Executive Summary
This document is the report of the external audit of the Napier city Council animal control facility at Depot Place (off Austin Street), Onekawa, Napier, carried out by warranted Animal Welfare Inspectors, Minstry for Primary Indistries (MPI) on the 8th November 2016. The purpose of the audit was to verify compliance to the facility and operator approvals in accordance with the MPI Codes of Welfare for Dogs and Temporary Housing of Companion Animals (Currently under Consultation).
There were 4 major non-compliances and 2 minor non-compliances identified during the assessment.
The key findings are:
- lack of Standard Operating Procedures,
- lack of internal auditable records of pound operations,
- lack of evidence of training,
- poor ability to prevent contagious disease,
- poor ability to control temperature in the facility.
2. Scope
To verify compliance to the following:
- The MPI Code of Welfare: Dogs (2010); and
- The MPI Code of Welfare Temporary Housing of Companion Animals (Currently under Consultation).
3. Background
The Napier City Council Pound is the subject of an MPI Animal Welfare Investigation (AW 12334) regarding allegations of animal abuse and failure to meet welfare obligations by staff members. An investigation began on 27 September 2016 with Senior Investigator (BLANKED OUT) as the lead and Inspector (BLANKED OUT) assisting.
To assess compliance with the Codes of Welfare a facilities and process audit took place on 8 November 2016. (BLANKED OUT) and (BLANKED OUT) were shown the facility by Animal Control Officers (BLANKED OUT) and (BLANKED OUT). All questions were answered by (BLANKED OUT) and (BLANKED OUT).
4. References
- The MPI Code of Welfare: Dogs (2010); and
- The MPI Code of Welfare Temporary Housing of Companion Animals (Currently under Consultation).
5. Key Findings
Although there were a number of non-compliances identified during the audit predominately the pound is well run and it was found that the facility was very clean on inspection and all dogs had ample space with pen options for exercise in large runs or outdoor areas. There are also various sizes of cages for different size dogs and the cage design of some cages allowed for adequate care and cleaning of dangerous dogs
through use of a combination of doors.
The beds were off the ground and bedding was clean. All the cages and bowls were also clean and sanitized. All processes as described met the minimum standards of the codes but as mentioned before there is no auditable SOPs or records to verify this.
However there were areas of non-compliance and these are documented in section 7, along with the corrective actions recommended to address them as the new Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing of Companion Animals (hereafter Temporary Housing C.o.W) is expected to be signed off by the Minister in the near future.
The overall management, supervision and operation of the facility may be compliant with MPI Codes of Welfare but there is no existing documentation to allow verification and therefore is a significant failing.
While there are obviously staff caring for the animals and keeping the pound operating, there is no evidence of standards and guidelines to ensure proper management and operation of the pound. Urgent measures need to be initiated to correct this to ensure biosecurity of the facility (preventing disease outbreaks) and standards of animal welfare are maintained.
The facility, was and is currently operating without an approved operations manual. This makes it extremely difficult to identify how the facility is meeting the requirements of the Code of Welfare minimum standards, what procedures are being used to oversee the day-to-day operations of the pound, and how these procedures are deemed to be effective and what internal audit checks are being used to monitor compliance. In addition, it creates uncertainty and unacceptable latitude for staff in understanding and
implementing the requirements of the standard.
The facility as it currently stands has very good infrastructure within the pound building proper. There is evidence upon inspection of the ability to comply with Parts 5, 6, 7 of the Temporary Housing C.o.W, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Code of Welfare: Dogs, as the facility is constructed to a high standard. The main deficiency is the open nature of the pound and the inability to maintain temperatures throughout the year.
The lack of ability to assess and triage animals in an appropriate area before entering the main pound facility has a significant impact on the biosecurity of the facility and the overall documentation and record keeping associated with the animals. The animals are typically taken out of pound vehicles in a large yard and moved directly into the facility which is a significant risk of non-compliance not only with Part 4 of the Temporary C.o.W but is also a health and safety risk to the Animal Control Officers. This obviously has
been recognized as on the day of inspection a veterinary room in a smaller enclosed shed with two links to the pound was under construction. There has been veterinary input into the design which will likely result in less risk of disease outbreaks and better ability to control outbreaks should they occur.
The storage of chemicals, bodies of euthanized animals, food, and equipment also was adequate on the day however there is again lack of documentation. A review of the records associated with animals, both written and electronic also indicated that very little information about the animals was collected on admission and communication records regarding animals' care was lacking.
All euthanasia is done by a veterinarian and decisions on euthanasia are done in consultation with a veterinarian. There are rooms available for microchipping and meeting potential adoptable dogs as well as an office/tea room and a reception area.
There was no documentation available to demonstrate a clear training plan or a means of demonstrating competency and stockmanship. There were no training binders or certificates available with the only Standard Operating Procedures available are draft documents that did not exist at the time of the complaints.
There was no Facility Manual nor any form of Quality Management program in place on the day of inspection. Sheets on cages indicated very little auditable information about the care of the animals in the pound and would certainly limit the ability to monitor compliance and general standards of care across the team.
The roles of the Animal Control Officers did not appear to be clearly defined and as such there was a significant amount of the tasks that they were doing that were clearly kennel assistant duties. There was no role defined or occupied that was responsible solely for the day-to-day care of the animals in the pound.
All the animals at the pound on the day of inspection were in good health and body condition in clean, well ventilated and lit pens, and the facility was very clean and sanitary.
6. Non-Compliances & Corrective Action Requests
Non-Compliance: A failure to comply with requirements. MPI rates non-compliances as follows:
Major: A major failure in an operation or system that caused or could have caused a risk to
the welfare of the animals.
Minor: A situation or incident that may not be a major failure but results in a decrease in
confidence in the management of the facility and may or may not immediately cause or
lead to a risk to welfare.
Non-compliance 1 Rating: Major
Inadequate documentation of a Quality Management system that assures compliance with the relevant Codes of Welfare Reference: Part 11: Quality Management Minimum Standard No. 17 - Draft Code of Welfare:
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals
*By not having ANY auditable documentation in place Napier City Council is not taking responsibility for
ensuring that
(a) the pound meets the requirements of the standards and
(b) Resources are adequate and effective for maintaining and managing the pound facility.
*The Napier City Council cannot demonstrate that they are complying with the Codes of Welfare.
Evidence
A fully 'signed off' suite of documents including training records, Standard Operating Procedures, Facility
Manuals, log books, admission forms, daily care forms, etc. are required immediately. Electronic records
would also need to be aligned to these forms.
Napier City Council is ultimately accountable and responsible for the facility and the activities occurring
within or associated with it and meeting the requirements of the standards in the Codes of Welfare. It is difficult to be clear that this accountability and responsibilities are currently being met in regards to the standards and hence animal welfare is not compromised at times due to the lack of audited procedures and document trails.
Non-compliance 2 Rating: Major
Inadequate documentation of responsibilities, competency, and stockmanship
Reference: Part 2: Responsibilities, Competency and Stockmanship Minimum Standard No. 1 - Draft
Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing of Companion Animals.
Part 3: Food and Water Minimum Standard No. 2 - Code of Welfare: Dogs (2010);
Part 7: Health Minimum Standard No. 10 - Code of Welfare: Dogs (2010)
*There is no evidence that the personnel have the appropriate training and understanding of the Codes
of Welfare to demonstrate compliance.
*There is no verifiable evidence that animals in the pound are body condition scored, assessed for
health by qualified persons, and cared for in a manner consistent with the Codes of Welfare. Because
the animals are not body condition scored and only photographed (with no standard procedures
around that process) there is no ability to understand the welfare of the animal from arrival to
departure.
*Lack of objective assessment of animals and verifiable records of the care of an animal are a
significant failing and non-compliance. Napier City Council staff are considered under the Animal
Welfare Act (1999) to be the 'person in charge' of impounded animals while under their possession,
and as such can be prosecuted for failings under the relevant Codes of Welfare.
Evidence
All animals should have baseline information collected by an 'approved' person with weight, body condition
score, standardized set of photographs with reference measurement, and temperament evaluation. This
information along with any veterinary records and treatment plans needs to be part of an animal care plan
that is documented and records kept not just of what needs to be done, but what was ACTUALLY done e.g.
boxes for veterinary treatments initialled by staff once treatment is administered.
There is no excuse to not weigh animals and determine feed and care requirements based on weight, age,
breed, body condition, and health.
Non-compliance 3 Rating: Major
Inadequate disease prevention
Reference: Part 4: Health Minimum Standard No. 5, 6, 7 - Draft Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing
of Companion Animals;
Part 7: Health Minimum Standard No. 11 - Code of Welfare: Dogs (2010)
*All animals brought to the Napier City Pound must enter an area that is isolated from the rest of the
pound for a health assessment. The baseline information outlined in non-compliance 2 needs to be
collected and in addition all health issues need to be identified and noted in writing. This is key toensure that the animal welfare standards are being met. This also is the most important thing in the prevention of disease entering the pound.
Evidence/Explanation
The new veterinary exam room should have all the equipment and design to allow for disease prevention.
Standard Operating Procedures around the admission process should be developed and both electronic
and hardcopy auditable support documents are necessary.
Non-compliance 4 Rating: Critical
Inadequate temperature control
Reference: Part 7: Facility Management Minimum Standard No. 10 - Draft Code of Welfare:
Temporary Housing of Companion Animals;
Part 4: Containment, Tethering and Shelter Minimum Standard No. 5 - Code of Welfare:
Dogs (2010)
*The facility does not have any indoor kennels with temperature control. There is not documentation to
verify that, when necessary, additional measures are taken to ensure dogs are kept cool and warm.
There are no thermometers in the facility and there are no guidelines around temperature and
remedial actions.
Evidence/Explanation
The lack of any way to measure temperature and clear guidelines for remedial actions is concerning.
Animal Control Officers can be away from the pound for long periods of time and with an open air facility
there is a risk of issues around hyper/hypothermia. Thermometers, log books, and a Facilities Manual are
necessary to ensure the standards around temperature are being met.
Minor Non-compliances
No large dog kennels in the isolation area
*The cages in the isolation area would be too small in area for a medium to large dog. An additional
large dog cage is required
The isolation area is open air
*The isolation area is open air and as such aerosols both from any ill animals and the cleaning of the
cages of ill animals by hosing could spread infection in the rest of the facility. If these animals are ill
they would likely need to be kept warm and draft-free. Ideally the isolation area would have ventilation clearly moving air away from the rest of the pound or fully-enclosed with air filters.
7. Recommendations
Recommendation: Non-binding advice provided to assist and facilitate the enhancement and improvement of structures, systems, processes and methodology to maintain compliance with the requirements of the standard(s) and minimize the likelihood of non-compliances occurring.
Recommendations are generally based on observations made by the auditor during the course of the audit.
Recommendation 1
It is recommended that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined for Animal Control Officers in line with the Animal Control Act. To facilitate this a Job Description should be produced in a written form outlining the day to duties and responsibilities which is readily available in the workspace.
Recommendation 2
It is also recommended that a Kennel Attendant or similar position be created to have overall responsibility for the safe custody and welfare of the dog including any subsequent action required. The responsibilities of animal assessment, animal care and welfare, and quality assurance.do not necessarily all need to be part of the Animal Control Officer role and can be incorporated in the Kennel attendant role. I recommend that work be undertaken to develop a new team structure that encompasses these roles.
Recommendation 3
That a Facility Bio-security Area be established in the double Garage. This would require that the following actions take place.
• That temporary holding kennels be constructed within the double garage area to house dogs until they have been assessed.
• That a S.O.P be developed outlining any processes and procedures as required but must include but not limited to the following matters
• No dogs are to enter the main kennel area without a Physical and temperament assessment. This requires that any dogs impounded after hours are kept in the holding kennels until kennel staff are present and assessments are carried out.
• Documentation is completed to accompany the dog and be visible on any cage that outlines, identity (if known), temperament notes, sex, weight, medications and injuries, dietary requirements, impounding location and officer and any other information deemed necessary.
• Assessments should be carried out by two officers where possible.
• A photograph to be taken of the dog on its arrival at the pound.
Recommendation 4
A full suite of auditable documents needs to be developed and an auditable Quality Management system implemented immediately. A suitable independent auditor should be engaged to carry out regular audits of the pound and systems.
Recommendation 5
A consultant should be engaged to oversee improvements to the pound facility to improve compliance around temperature and disease prevention. It appears that at weather extremes, heat or cold the facility may be difficult to regulate the environment within the kennel area.
8. Summary
On the basis of this audit of the Napier City Council pound, I conclude that the facility and operator are meeting the minimum standards of welfare of the animals in the pound.
The lack of records hinders the ability to verify that this is the case at all times.
It should be noted that had any failings of the codes been detected on the day of the inspection a notice AW130 would have been issued to mitigate any issue, however there were no breaches identified therefore the audit makes recommendations only at this time.
At this stage, I am recommending that Napier City Council continue to progress towards addressing the non-compliances through the recommendations made in this report.
Failure to do this or inadequate response or progress, may result in future inspections, particularly when the Final Code of Welfare: Temporary Housing of Companion Animals is signed off by the minister.