Correspondence - #52 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OCAC Wrong Numbers and No Plan Malignant Innumeracy Most of the numbers OC Animal Care (OCAC) puts forward wither at the slightest scrutiny. A benign innumeracy might entail merely poor grasp of hard data, but OCAC also invents and distorts numbers and facts, and it actively resists high quality analysis and statistics. OCAC suffers from malignant innumeracy. Oversight by OC Community Resources (OCCR) and upper county leadership has been superficial. Instead of identifying and remedying the problem, OCCR has enabled it - if not amplified it. OCAC built a Potemkin village. OCCR and county leadership did not look behind the facade. OCCR abetted the misrepresentations by acting as OCAC's advertising agency. Previously, in the saga of OCAC An earlier round of reports, headlined by "OCAC Summary.pdf" and "OCAC Details.pdf" already corrected a slew of OCAC's misrepresentations. Just three highlights: - The kill rate rose in the 2020-2022 period, even though intakes are well below pre -pandemic levels. - OCAC's Orwellian "Fact Check" brags about the low rate at which adopted animals were returned. In reality, the return rate was higher in 2022 than in any prior year. - OCAC claims it maintains a low length of stay of 11 days. The real length of stay has been rising and, in 2022, reached about 20 days for dogs. The earlier reports showed the impact of (on -going) pandemic -era policies on large dogs and proposed remedies. They fell on deaf ears. Suffering from malignant innumeracy, OCAC treats sound analysis with contempt or hostility, even as it is unable to produce a valid study of its own. OCAC is refusing to talk about the length of stay or the return rates, because it can't refute them and they show its poor performance. The misleading metrics in its Orwellian "Fact Check" document have been exposed, so a code of silence is its only option. The OCAC/OCCR primary talent is false advertising with invented metrics, telling pretty stories disconnected from the reality on the ground. The OCAC Bite Statistics are Wrong OCAC and OCCR make a show of caring deeply about the number of bites at the shelter. But not deeply enough to actually count them correctly. Or is it possible that they care too deeply, to the point of massaging the numbers to better fit a preconceived story? The report "OCAC Bad Data on Bites.pdf" and its supporting documents show that the number of bites is 92% higher than the OCAC/OCCR report for 2022. The artificially low numbers of bites were used to justify dog -kennel policies - without even attempting to look specifically at dog bites. Apparently, OCAC/OCCR believe that cat bites matter for judging dog adoption procedures. A simple study shows that the frequency of dog bites depends on the age of the dog. From 2019 to 2022 we saw not only a drop in the number of dogs (intakes or outcomes), but also a shift to younger dogs. These two effects account for most of the change in the number of dog bites between 2019 to 2022. Any credit given to procedure changes is preposterously inflated. OCCR persistently obstructed PRAs over 3.5 months before the bite data was (fortuitously) obtained. Will OCAC and OCCR inform the county how they arrived at the erroneous numbers, dismal quality analysis, and flagrant misinterpretation - and why the covered their tracks? Were bites just a ruse to justify the continuation of pandemic -era policies? The OCAC Animal Checkbook doesn't Balance The OCAC never ceases to point to its published statistics which it claims are "Industry Standard" and "transparent". But a simple consistency check of the OCAC's statistics revealed that its animal accounts don't balance. If you start from their stated initial animal count, add intakes (animals that came in), and subtract outcomes (animals that left, alive or dead), you don't get their reported final Bad Numbers and No Plan - Page 1 of 3