YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

Report No. 2004-91

December 16, 2004

Second Audit of State Canine Breeder Inspections Finds Most Previously Cited Problems Still Occurring

Auditors found the majority of findings noted in the first audit of the animal care inspection program were still occurring, four years later. Auditors detailed ten recommendations in the first report (February 2001) and found one finding fully implemented, with the nine remaining partially implemented.  (See page 2)

Auditors found violations not always observed or cited

Auditors found inspectors did not always cite violations which auditors observed.  For example, during a pre-license inspection, we observed cages with inadequate flooring, unsealed concrete runs with accumulated fecal material, multiple shelters in poor condition and improper food storage.  The inspector indicated they had not seen these violations, but agreed observed situations could have been cited.

The same inspector did not check for expired medication, verify the canine count to the facility records; or verify the canines' identification tag information to facility records.  The inspector called criticism of these areas "nitpicking." Prior to the inspection, this commercial breeder operated without a valid license.  The inspector did not stress the fact it is illegal to operate without a license and chose not to cite this violation.  (See page 5)

Penalties have increased but division reluctant to use administrative hearing process

The previous audit found state inspectors had not fined, revoked or suspended licenses of any commercial breeders in 1999 and 2000.  As of May 31, 2004, the division had fined six facilities $3,800 since the last audit and obtained voluntary surrender of animals at four facilities through settlement agreements during 2003 and 2004.  (See page 7)

The division did not conduct any administrative hearings during 2003 and 2004.  The division has only had two administrative hearings, conducted as of fiscal year 2002, resulting in two fines totaling $1,500, which have not been collected. One of these unpaid fines was then referred to a county prosecutor, who did not pursue the case.  The program coordinator said the division does not typically pursue administrative hearings because they are too costly and not timely.  However, according to a Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission official, the commission will conduct administrative hearings on the division's behalf at no cost to the division.  (See pages 8 and 9)

Marginal performing facilities have not been penalized

State inspectors do not always track repeat violations similarly to federal inspectors unless the violation involves the same canine or a previously cited item. Instead, the division has allowed these facilities to continually repeat violations, requiring additional time and attention of inspectors to constantly re-inspect problem facilities.  (See page 9)

Most licensed facilities not inspected once a year

State regulations require division inspectors to inspect all licensed facilities once a year, however inspectors averaged 27 percent of required facilities for 2004, as of September 1, 2004.  Rescue facilities have been exempted from required yearly inspections due to the overwhelming number within the state.  Division records showed Missouri had 92 licensed rescue facilities as of March 2004.  (See page 13)

Division priorities impact required inspections

Division priorities require inspectors to spend a significant amount of time handling citizen complaints, identifying unlicensed breeders, and performing administrative duties in addition to inspecting facilities.  Inspectors spend an average of 17 percent of their time handling complaints and approximately 40 percent of all complaints documented since January 2002, have been related to unlicensed activity.  Inspectors also estimated they spent 20 percent of their time on administrative matters which reduces time available for inspections.  (See page 16)

Inspectors duplicate federal inspection efforts

Program officials have elected not to fully utilize federal inspectors as agents for the state when inspecting licensed facilities.  As a result, state inspectors have duplicated federal inspection efforts.  Commercial breeders dually licensed by the state and USDA for fiscal year 2004, showed 235 facilities had been inspected by both USDA and state inspectors.  (See page 18)

Inspector workload has increased but most inspectors have split responsibilities

The number of licensed facilities has increased by 29 percent since 2000.  However, only one of nine inspectors worked full-time on the animal care facilities inspection program.  Other duties include state fair responsibilities, testing milk samples, cattle herd testing, and other animal health issues.  As of September 1, 2004, one vacant inspector position had not been filled.  (See page 19)

Division has not ensured fees paid were appropriate

Commercial breeders pay a licensing fee of $100 plus $1 per canine sold, up to a maximum of $500. Division personnel have not verified licensed facilities paying less than $500 paid the correct amount in fees.  According to the program coordinator, verification based on disposition records has not been done because it would be too time consuming and would not be cost effective for the program.  (See page 31)

Complete Audit Report