When she first arrived, the standard policy encouraged counselors to check potential adopters on MyCase before releasing an animal into the adopter’s care.
That policy was first instated in 2022, after the gruesome hanging and stabbing death of a dog that had been adopted from Animal Care Services to an owner with a violent criminal history. The rule was changed about two weeks into Fox’s tenure at Animal Care Services.
“Within the first week or two of me being there, they took away the MyCase policy,” Fox said. “They argued that going to any home, no matter who it’s with, where it is, what not, is better than being in the shelter.”
if anyone would like to give this organization their opinion;
https://www.indy.gov/agency/animal-care-services
i have.
Encourage random ignorants that best case scenario read the clickbait headline to provide negative feedback on the work of people that are probably just doing their job the best they can.
You’re what’s wrong with the Internet.
that are probably just doing their job the best they can.
Did you *read *the article?
Ok courae not. That’s what I said.
“you’re what’s wrong with the Internet”
Proceeds to do the stupid thing making the Internet bad
This story is about the organization firing people for following organization policy. The person you are replying to is suggesting letting the organization know that they are in the wrong for firing low-paid workers for just following policy.
Replying angrily and insultingly to a post without understanding what they are talking about and without reading the original story… you’re what’s wrong with the internet.
EDIT: I misread. The organization fired employees for NOT following the policy. They were fired for doing background checks when told not to. That’s even worse and more of a reason to be angry.
this story is about an animal organization actively providing abusive homes for animals.
im not sure how that isnt the primary issue for you, but to each his own
my statements to the organization were not about the employees, but the lack of qualifying adopters who are known animal abusers.
If the article is true, that’s astonishingly bad management.
It’s dangerously easy to obtain ownership over an animal in some states in the US, and it’s the reason why so many dogs are euthanized for almost no reason. My neighbor just got a dog from a southern state off of their execution list, he’s not even done growing, full of energy, just being abandoned and unwanted in overcrowded shelters almost cost him his life.
Is the statement at the bottom of the article new or did the earlier posters simply miss it?
… One of Best Friends’ recommendations for due diligence within the adoption process was to focus on the shelter’s existing system, Chameleon, which pulls information related to animal welfare cases. This includes animal abuse and animal cruelty cases. Checking MyCase was discouraged, as its use was problematic and could lead to biased, inequitable vetting of potential adoptees.
This story does not have enough detail, so I looked for more.
First, I looked up Best Friends and they are firmly no-kill to the exclusion of all else. I am guessing the ‘Chameleon’ referenced is this CMS, but I could be wrong. If that is the software, it looks like there is a way for people to add notes about specific animals, but it isn’t clear if you can enter notes about specific people. It certainly doesn’t look like it has a way of automatically checking police records for criminal records. It does suggest you can enter these types of ‘field’ data:
- Calls for service
- Citations
- Bite reporting
- Field staff dispatching
- Shift control and tracking
- Laptop implementation
- Case photos
I’m guessing MyCase is this free Indiana-specific portal.
Now: if they aren’t talking about the free MyCase link I found, then perhaps they are using software that charges the Animal Shelter for each search. I can see getting fired for incurring costs that aren’t in the budget. Alternately, perhaps ‘Best Friends’ is giving them funding based on the shelter NOT rejecting any adopter ever for any reason – or at least thinking that is a condition based on this statement from the Best Friends ‘who we are’ page:
We’re making sure that everyone has the same access to loving pets and that every adoptable pet has access to the comfort of a foster home instead of a kennel in a shelter.
– note that the above is meant to foster diversity and its links to their diversity page (which seems focused on income disparity), but that quoted bit COULD be read to mean ‘everyone gets a pet, no matter what’.
I would think it incumbent on all employees to create notes/warnings about known abusers and have that be a flag if they come back to adopt, but I do see a case for allowing people to re-adopt an animal they voluntarily gave to the shelter because they had gone through a patch where they couldn’t afford to feed it, but now they can. Others might argue that this is abuse or that the owners don’t deserve a pet, but it is clear that Best Friends thinks that refusing such people is discriminatory.
That doesn’t mean that the particular abuse getting uncovered with MyCase was simply surrendering a pet until people got on their feet. Mostly, it just feels like there’s a bunch of stuff going on that no one reported.
I am generally against criminal record bullshit except violence, fuck that shit.
Pessimistic take: someone with power in that organisation wants to secretly sell animals for fights or for meat
Prisoners and their cats(ft. gopher and pigeon): https://youtu.be/i8xIwiPk0G8
