YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

Missouri has the highest percentage of licensed commercial dog breeders in the nation,  yet the state program that regulates these breeders is ineffective, our audit found.  Our concerns about the Division of Animal Health’s animal care inspection program fall into four main areas: spotty state inspections with few sanctions; appearance of conflicts of interests of top management; state inspections less thorough than federal inspections; and lax program performance measures.  

No penalties from state inspections 

State inspectors have not fined, revoked or suspended licenses of any Missouri commercial breeder in at least two years.  Whereas, in just one of these years, federal inspectors fined 11 of Missouri’s commercial breeders in excess of $14,000.  State program officials would rather “encourage” breeders to improve, rather than issue sanctions.  This philosophy means inspectors often tell breeders about violations rather than recording or fining them.  Such a practice leaves the program little paper trail to track violations and breeders little incentive to correct problems. (See page 6)   

Federal inspections more thorough

An average state inspection for the three inspectors we accompanied takes only 15 to 30 minutes, as compared to an average 90-minute federal inspection.  During the state inspections, not all inspectors check for expired medications, reconcile the number of dogs in a facility to its inventory records, or review records of how dogs were received or distributed.  All of these inspection tests concern a dog’s health under a breeder’s care.  

State inspectors did not coordinate inspections with federal authorities, which caused overlapping inspections at some facilities.  In one case, state and federal inspectors arrived on the same day, but reported starkly different conditions. State inspections reported no violations, while federal inspectors noted seven violations, including six repeat violations. (See page 4) 

In addition, some state inspectors did not note violations, such as a dog struggling to keep its foot from falling through the wire mesh flooring; while other state inspectors said they knew if the dogs were healthy by looking at their eyes and coats.  (See page 2)

State inspectors initially told our auditors that they do not “nitpick” like the federal inspectors and dismissed the federal inspections as unreliable.  However, in their response to our audit, department officials then presented the federal inspections as a collaborative effort with state agents, which has not been the practice.  (See page 8)

Inspector time logs need monitoring

Our review showed that managers do not have a reporting system to easily analyze how inspectors spend their time.  We analyzed weekly activity reports of  5 inspectors over  a four-month period.  One inspector reported an average 10.4-hour workday.  Using conservative calculations that included travel time and our observation that inspections took about 30 minutes, this inspector had an average of 4.7 hours each day not spent on daily inspections.  When our staff noted this to program officials, they stated an average inspection took 4 hours, but they did not have data to support this statement.  (See page 16). 

Appearance of Conflict of interest 

The program coordinator and an inspector, both responsible for monitoring Missouri’s breeding industry, were former commercial breeders.  They are still involved in the industry through their wives, who now run their former businesses.  Missouri law includes business ownership through a spouse in the conflict of interest definition.  (See page 10) 

Our recommendations included changes to make a more effective inspection program and taking action to resolve conflicts of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest within the animal care facilities inspection program.  

Subsequent to receiving the Department’s official response, effective January 26, 2001, the program coordinator and the inspector were reassigned to other duties within the Department of Agriculture and no longer have a role in the canine inspection program.