Agenda - 06-03-2010 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2009 -10 2010 -11 2010 -11 Evaluator Scorecard Results and Evaluator Comments Approved Request Manager Rec. Evaluator: Animal Services (Animal Services Advisory Board) Eyes Ears Nose and Paws $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 62 We feel that a human service department within the county might benefit more from utilizing the services offered by Eyes, Ears, Nose and Paw as their application appeared to target human needs that can be addressed and met with the assistance of trained service dogs. As it is a very young program, sufficient data and statistics are not available to evaluate its effectiveness in serving the clients it is targeting. Additionally, without the historical information of some kind, the review team found it difficult to make a rational evaluation and recommendation regarding their programs results. The panel does believe that this organization has a noble mission and important goals and objectives. However, the review team did not see how the proposed program related to County priorities, nor how it would relate to the core service provided by the Animal Services Department. We would like to meet with representatives of this organization in the coming year and see if there is any possibility of an ongoing partnership. Their program and the County's facility are quite close to each other and there may well be dogs available from the County that could become service dogs. Piedmont Wildlife Center 81 $17,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 The program does not directly and immediately relate the core animal services requested by residents or provided by the Animal Services Department. Organizational stability is a significant concern that arose in review of the application. It is well known that PWC underwent a significant change in its support base and scope of service during the last year. It was also noted in the application that PWC had not been able to provide scholarships during the previous year. The review team also noted that there was no detailed budget for the costs involved in the camp scholarship program. In the absence of such information, it was difficult to know how to evaluate the proposed scholarship amount. Triangle Wildlife Rehabilitation Clinic 49 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 While this agency suggests they could fill a service gap they did not identify how they would meet the specific service needs of our department. They imply that they have communicated with our department regarding animal control and wildlife issues and have worked with us to develop operational guidelines. However, Animal Services staff initiated communication and requested information and guidelines (as referenced in the application), but never received the information. In addition, this is a young program that we feel does not yet possess sufficient data and statistics needed to fully evaluate the proposed program.Without some historical information, the review team found it very difficult to make a rational evaluation and recommendation regarding program results. DOrganizational stability was another concern that arose in the team's discussion of the application. In part, this is due to the newness of the organization. But it was also raised by the budget which indicates that they will be operating with a significant deficit for the next two years. Thursday, May 27, 2010 Page 2 of 12 is • •