Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Monthly Report topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Austin Animal Services reports 92.5% live outcomes in November; commissioners press for better data and trend context
Summary
Staff presented November metrics including a 92.54% live outcome rate, 723 intakes and 407 adoptions; commissioners asked for clearer reporting cadence, cause codes for deaths, and year‑over‑year trend comparisons.
Austin Animal Services staff presented November intake and outcome statistics at the advisory commission's Dec. 8 meeting, and commissioners followed with detailed questions about data definitions and historical comparisons.
"For November, the live outcome rate for animals was 92.54 percent," Jason Garza, operations staff, told the commission during the staff briefing. Garza also reported 723 intakes for the month, 407 adoptions, about 73 returns to owner and an inventory of roughly 1,077 animals at month'end. He said the department performed 381 spay/neuter surgeries and administered more than 1,800 vaccinations in November. The report listed 46 euthanasias for the month, with 40 attributed to severe injury or neurologic suffering.
Several public commenters and commissioners pushed back on use of single-month snapshots and asked for more consistent historical reporting. Julie Oliver, a longtime volunteer, said adoption counts fell: "November 2025 saw 91.9 percent live outcome rate... Last November, the shelter was at 95.1 percent overall," and she asked why adoptions declined while transfers increased.
Commissioners asked staff to provide year‑over‑year comparisons and to clarify how outcomes like "cremated" are displayed in reports when the cause of death or subtype is not shown. Commissioner Holt asked whether the system could show what actually caused the death behind a final disposition record; Garza said the animal's record should retain cause but the public-facing report may show only the final disposition and that staff will investigate and return with additional detail.
The briefing also prompted questions about transfer practices and TNR/SNR distinctions. Staff confirmed that some portion of the transfer total reflects community‑cat (SNR/TNR) placements separate from placement transfers to partner rescues such as Austin Pets Alive.
What happens next: staff said they will work to provide more granular breakdowns in future reports (cause codes for deaths, age bands for cats vs. kittens, and clearer separation of SNR/TNR from transfer totals) and will circulate additional written detail to the commission between meetings.
