Pima
Animal Care Center staff member Ellie Beaubien takes "Max," still
clinging to his blanket, to be transported to an adoption event in
March.
Inspections of Pima Animal Care
Center conducted over several months last year showed numerous health
and safety hazards and a general lack of safety protocols.
Infractions found when Pima County Risk Management officials inspected the animal care center included:
“A 40 percent tells you that there’s a lot you need to work on,” Pima County Risk Manager Lauren Eib said.
Eib said the resulting report allowed county officials to identify risks and problems and focus on strategies to address them.
“People needed to tighten up over there and they knew it,” Supervisor Ray Carroll said.
The inspections took place over several days and were prompted by the number of employees reporting injuries.
“It was done because of the rate of industrial incidents,” Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said.
The number of Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable injuries for the year by June 2014, just after the report was completed, stood at 45.
County officials said new safety controls have been put in place and the number of injuries reported this year was reduced by more than half to 17 as of June.
PACC operations manager Kristin Barney said heavy workloads and a small crew of full-time employees contributed to the situation at the animal care center, at 4000 N. Silverbell Road.
“I really think before there was an attitude that we just have to get the job done,” Barney said.
Health and safety analyses that started in 2013 and continued through the completion of the 2014 report prompted a sense of urgency.
“We have undergone a lot of process renewal,” she said. “We really want to create a culture of safety.”
Eib said PACC and other county officials have worked to change how the animal care center operates.
“It’s a philosophy change,” Eib said. “If you’re having accidents and not investigating them, you’re going to have them again.”
The report indicates that occurred at PACC for years.
It found that internal investigations into mishaps and safety hazards failed to identify causal factors, included proposed corrections that would not prevent similar occurrences, and that incident reports were not filed in a timely manner.
The report also said PACC officials frequently filed incorrect incident forms with risk management.
In addition, there were gaps in training procedures for new employees.
“Numerous new employees have not been trained and therefore were not able to describe job-specific safety rules,” the health and safety report notes.
For example, new employees were not trained on the proper use of protective equipment, and methods to verify training were not in place.
PACC also lacked in emergency preparedness. The reports showed PACC had no documentation to verify when or even if employees had been trained in emergency response procedures.
Safety and health training requirements for managers or supervisors also weren’t in place at the time of the inspections, which led inspectors to conclude PACC officials were unaware of or did not understand the potential health hazards employees faced.
While the 2014 analysis prompted the county to make changes at PACC, it wasn’t the first time officials had learned of problems at the facility.
Less extensive inspections done at the facility in 2011 indicated a need for PACC officials to conduct annual evaluations of health and safety programs but no process for doing so had been implemented by 2014.
PACC officials had acknowledged the deficiencies previous health and safety inspections identified, according to the report, but did little to address them.
County officials acknowledged there was a lack of health and safety systems and processes to follow at PACC.
Huckelberry said the dearth of such systems was the result of PACC being largely overlooked within the larger health department bureaucracy.
“Five years ago, animal care was the red-headed stepchild,” Huckelberry said.
County officials said a change in the approach to caring for animals also contributed to the troubles at PACC.
“In the old days when we didn’t have space, we just got rid of the animals,” Deputy County Administrator Jan Lesher said.
Over the past few years, however, PACC has changed philosophies. Rather than euthanize thousands of animals each year, the shelter has moved closer to a no-kill model, with a nearly 85 percent live-release rate.
But as that policy shift occurred, the need to house more animals grew.
“The whole tent was the result of this change in philosophy,” Huckelberry said.
As a result, PACC has come to increasingly rely on the legion of volunteers and inmate laborers from Pima County Jail who work daily at the shelter.
Huckelberry said the planned new PACC facility, which voters approved in a $22 million bond election in 2014, would be a modern animal care center and run more efficiently.
“It’s likely the operations costs may shrink,” he said.
For example, new kennels would have dividers allowing one person to clean them instead of two like now, with one worker handling the animal while the other cleans.
County officials also say many of the problems identified in the 2014 inspections have been addressed.
The temporary kennel, for instance, now has permanent wiring and the issue of contaminated runoff has been fixed.
“We’re out there every day now almost, looking at what they do,” Eib said. “If we do (inspections) again today, they would get a score of over 75 percent.”
Infractions found when Pima County Risk Management officials inspected the animal care center included:
- Contaminated runoff from kennel cleanings pooling next to the temporary tent kennel.
- Use of extension cords instead of permanent wiring as an electrical source in temporary kennels.
- Electrical outlets in temporary kennels not waterproofed.
- A lack of accountability for repeated violations of health and safety regulations.
- Insufficient training of new employees before allowing them to work with chemicals or other hazardous material.
- Improper handling and disposal practices with syringes.
“A 40 percent tells you that there’s a lot you need to work on,” Pima County Risk Manager Lauren Eib said.
Eib said the resulting report allowed county officials to identify risks and problems and focus on strategies to address them.
“People needed to tighten up over there and they knew it,” Supervisor Ray Carroll said.
The inspections took place over several days and were prompted by the number of employees reporting injuries.
“It was done because of the rate of industrial incidents,” Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said.
The number of Occupational Safety and Health Administration reportable injuries for the year by June 2014, just after the report was completed, stood at 45.
County officials said new safety controls have been put in place and the number of injuries reported this year was reduced by more than half to 17 as of June.
PACC operations manager Kristin Barney said heavy workloads and a small crew of full-time employees contributed to the situation at the animal care center, at 4000 N. Silverbell Road.
“I really think before there was an attitude that we just have to get the job done,” Barney said.
Health and safety analyses that started in 2013 and continued through the completion of the 2014 report prompted a sense of urgency.
“We have undergone a lot of process renewal,” she said. “We really want to create a culture of safety.”
Eib said PACC and other county officials have worked to change how the animal care center operates.
“It’s a philosophy change,” Eib said. “If you’re having accidents and not investigating them, you’re going to have them again.”
The report indicates that occurred at PACC for years.
It found that internal investigations into mishaps and safety hazards failed to identify causal factors, included proposed corrections that would not prevent similar occurrences, and that incident reports were not filed in a timely manner.
The report also said PACC officials frequently filed incorrect incident forms with risk management.
In addition, there were gaps in training procedures for new employees.
“Numerous new employees have not been trained and therefore were not able to describe job-specific safety rules,” the health and safety report notes.
For example, new employees were not trained on the proper use of protective equipment, and methods to verify training were not in place.
PACC also lacked in emergency preparedness. The reports showed PACC had no documentation to verify when or even if employees had been trained in emergency response procedures.
Safety and health training requirements for managers or supervisors also weren’t in place at the time of the inspections, which led inspectors to conclude PACC officials were unaware of or did not understand the potential health hazards employees faced.
While the 2014 analysis prompted the county to make changes at PACC, it wasn’t the first time officials had learned of problems at the facility.
Less extensive inspections done at the facility in 2011 indicated a need for PACC officials to conduct annual evaluations of health and safety programs but no process for doing so had been implemented by 2014.
PACC officials had acknowledged the deficiencies previous health and safety inspections identified, according to the report, but did little to address them.
County officials acknowledged there was a lack of health and safety systems and processes to follow at PACC.
Huckelberry said the dearth of such systems was the result of PACC being largely overlooked within the larger health department bureaucracy.
“Five years ago, animal care was the red-headed stepchild,” Huckelberry said.
County officials said a change in the approach to caring for animals also contributed to the troubles at PACC.
“In the old days when we didn’t have space, we just got rid of the animals,” Deputy County Administrator Jan Lesher said.
Over the past few years, however, PACC has changed philosophies. Rather than euthanize thousands of animals each year, the shelter has moved closer to a no-kill model, with a nearly 85 percent live-release rate.
But as that policy shift occurred, the need to house more animals grew.
“The whole tent was the result of this change in philosophy,” Huckelberry said.
As a result, PACC has come to increasingly rely on the legion of volunteers and inmate laborers from Pima County Jail who work daily at the shelter.
Huckelberry said the planned new PACC facility, which voters approved in a $22 million bond election in 2014, would be a modern animal care center and run more efficiently.
“It’s likely the operations costs may shrink,” he said.
For example, new kennels would have dividers allowing one person to clean them instead of two like now, with one worker handling the animal while the other cleans.
County officials also say many of the problems identified in the 2014 inspections have been addressed.
The temporary kennel, for instance, now has permanent wiring and the issue of contaminated runoff has been fixed.
“We’re out there every day now almost, looking at what they do,” Eib said. “If we do (inspections) again today, they would get a score of over 75 percent.”