Introduction

A sound financial footing is essential for a well-run animal care program, and it is important that program directors and managers have a working knowledge of program finances. Animal care programs are being forced to do more with less while operational expenses continue to climb or remain flat at best. Given this new reality, informed and relentless financial management is more important than ever to ensure that programs meet their various stakeholders’ needs. Innovative programs are adapting a proactive budgeting and tracking process in which every cost is challenged with the intent to reduce or eliminate it eventually, and embedding this process in a general management culture that is committed to unyielding continuous improvement through eliminating unnecessary work while providing researchers and animals with faster, better, cheaper, safer services.

Effective and inventive fiscal management is of interest to many other laboratory animal constituencies, including

• The parent organization, be it a university, governmental agency, or company looking for a quality program whose cost is reasonable and competitive. In addition, internal institutional groups (internal audit, budget offices, etc.) evaluate whether the program is fiscally sound.
• Researchers want a well-run program that is affordable. Most universities and some private companies charge daily housing (also known as per diems) and other fees”“researchers pay attention to these rates and “comparison shop””“often without appreciating that variances between institutions’ per diem rates are due to differential institutional subsidies rather than operating costs. Daily housing fees may not be as prevalent at governmental agencies or companies, but researchers still want to ensure that the animal care program provides necessary resources.
  Attractive wages and employee benefits are critical to maintaining animal care program staff. It is also important that fiscal managers embrace change and prepare for constant improvement and updating of resources needed by the animal program staff, such as supplies, equipment, and repairs and renovations.
• Funding agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and foundations, require the animal care program to properly charge expenses according to funding agency guidelines. Billing rates should be based on actual costs.
• Inspection and accrediting agencies (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] and Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care [AAALAC]), although not interested in program finances, focus on whether necessary staffing, equipment, repairs and renovations, and so forth, have been funded and provided. These agencies help assure private and funding sources that animal use is justified and humane, and can have a favorable impact on an investigator’s proposal review. It is critical that animal program management ensure adequate financial resources to support these needs.

Sound financial management should tell the financial story in clear terms. It should meet the needs and format of the institution being served, and include acceptable accounting practices, sound budget planning, and frequent monitoring and adjustments. It should constantly examine practices and expenses, striving to reduce or eliminate wasteful spending and practices. It is very important to remember that unlike most supplies and services used by the investigators, animal care and maintenance is usually a monopoly and therefore will be viewed critically. The more transparent and fiscally sound the accounting practices, the easier it will be for the manager to tell the program’s story.

Financial management comprises four processes: planning, budgeting, monitoring, and cost accounting (Alford 2001). Each of the four steps should be performed on a regular (monthly is recommended) basis for both short-term and long-term management. To ignore any steps truly jeopardizes fiscal management in any organization.

Program Planning

The planning process is the prequel to populating budgets with figures and is the opportunity for animal facility management to express their vision and plan for the future. At this juncture, program managers should strategize where the program should head, receiving input from investigators, program staff, and administration. Decisions should be made as to predicted animal populations, services to be added or eliminated, staffing needs, technical service levels to be delivered, and so forth. It is particularly important to have historical data available to make sure any projections and forecasts have a solid foundation. Animal population trends, revenue by various sources, technical services provided, expense details, and so forth, should be accessible for multiple years. If past spending involved wrong or wasteful expenses, the related historical data and methodology must be scrutinized heavily and modified. Questions to be answered about the upcoming year include

• What are the organization’s purposes, goals, and objectives?
• What should the organization be doing in the next and future years?
• What core activities are essential?
• Were there instances of previous spending that proved wrong or wasteful, and if so, was the historical data it was based on wrong?
• What additional programs might be taken on if cost were not an object?
• What one-time expenditures might be considered, such as upgrading equipment, improving physical plant, or reducing operational expenses?
• What peer programs are attractive for comparison, and how does your program compare with these organizations? Is there benchmarking information to evaluate, and is that data applicable to my program?

Input and involvement from as many stakeholders as possible should be solicited to understand true needs and problems, as a wide variety of information and input help planners make better decisions (National Research Council 2000).

Budgeting

The budgeting process should always be related to the planning process noted above. Planning for the future requires a clear sense of available resources. Conversely, sensible budgets and financial plans cannot be put together without knowing the direction the organization will take in the future. Simply allocating money is not enough. Instead, proper and strategic use of resources is key to budgeting.

Simply put, budgeting is predicting how much it will cost to carry out the activities identified in the planning process after the requisite details are compiled. The budget is completed after negotiations with the parent organization and approval. Most animal programs will utilize the budgeting mechanisms of the parent organization’s financial systems to develop and track budgeting information. In some cases, these systems may not be detailed enough, especially for monitoring multiple categories of expenses, and the program may have to augment the financial system output to further categorize and monitor expenses. This level of detail should help program financial managers. On the other hand, financial managers should strive to simplify financial output for easier sharing and understanding within the program.

The animal program should be tailored to a structure that best tells its financial story in clear terms and logically tracks expenses and revenues. Examples of possible structures and budget formatting decisions to be considered are

• Individual financial statements or budgets arranged by program or function (i.e., a large animal program could create a separate budget covering all barrier rodents, another for all large animals, still another for veterinary technical services, etc.).
• Financial statements or budgets established for each animal facility on campus.
• Level of expense and revenue detail for each budget. For instance, is a budget line for supplies sufficient, or should supplies be tracked further to include cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment (PPE), feed, bedding, and so forth? More detail is always better if one wants to understand where the money is going and is motivated to reduce or eliminate costs.
• Budgeting capital equipment purchases (e.g., equipment whose acquisition cost is $5000 or greater). Capital acquisitions will typically be addressed in a capital budget, separate from the operating budget, that projects and programs for large expenditures over a multiyear period. Capital purchases should always be accompanied by a justification as, well as a return on investment (ROI) whenever possible. In addition, it is a display of good management when big-ticket items are prioritized strategically.
• An amortization process should be considered for capital purchases. Amortization in the simple form basically refers to (1) depreciating the purchase cost of capital items over time and (2) charging the program’s operating budget the annual depreciation cost for the capital items and transferring those funds to an amortization fund. For example, 20 years ago ABC Animal Facility purchased a cage wash machine for $100,000. ABC estimates that the machine had a useful life of 20 years, so it transferred $5000 annually from operating expenses to its amortization account for the past 20 years. ABC had an epic cage wash failure and the cage wash needs to be replaced. Through the use of the amortization process, ABC has the funding available to purchase its next cage wash. Depreciation periods are often shorter than the expected lifetime of items, often in the 5- to 10-year time frame.

The organization’s financial system must have sufficient flexibility to track according to desired categories. In many cases, the budgeting process will be incremental, that is, relies heavily on information contained in the previous year’s actual expenses and income, with some adjustments. Some organizations utilize a zero-based budgeting approach, which requires each program and line item of a budget to be calculated anew. Staff members are told that any item in the budget will be zero unless they can provide a full justification for a new budget figure. Zero-based budgeting represents a proactive budgeting and tracking process in which every cost is challenged and works well with a general management culture that is committed to unyielding continuous improvement through eliminating unnecessary work and relentless financial management. Zero-based budgeting requires a different mind-set than traditional budgeting methodology, but it can be a more useful tool during times of doing more with less, providing a more innovative and exacting analysis.

Once the budget framework has been finalized, it is time to populate the budget based on projections made in the planning process. Salary and nonpersonnel expenses will be entered into the budgeting tool (usually provided by your organization) according to the various budget tracking categories the animal program management has agreed upon. Estimates should be made of predicted revenues based on activity levels (animal census, technical services provided, etc.) produced in the planning process. In many instances, the parent organization may provide budget subsidies and the subsidies may be applied equally across the entire program or may be allocated appropriately with guidance from the institution.

Pharmaceutical, other for-profit companies, and government facilities will typically utilize an annual budget that is developed and approved based on projected costs without recapturing any charges to investigators. Examples of annual costs that should be considered are

• Animal facility staffing, to include full-time employees (FTEs) and/or contractors (note that when dealing with staffing costs, do not forget to include fringe benefits)
• Training costs associated with new staff, as well as continual learning activities for existing employees
• Space, utilities, and other infrastructure charges
• Food, bedding, and supplies
• Sentinel programs
• Veterinary care
• Dedicated facility space and administrative costs assessed by the parent institution
• Animal facility-related equipment and preventive maintenance agreements, as well as contingencies for repairs

New programs will be especially challenging to estimate, as there is little historical data and many unknowns. The tendency is to underestimate costs and overstate revenues, but an accurate approximation should be attempted with a caveat regarding the circumstances of the estimate. Budget writers should also be sure to anticipate the cost that new programs will have on core staff, supervision, space, and equipment.

Once all expenses and revenues are entered, it is time to evaluate the bottom line of the various budgets. Are they acceptable, or do they need adjustment? Do projected expenses and revenues echo the organization’s purposes, goals, and objectives? Are the planned activities central to the organization? Do they help the organization 1–5 years down the road? Comparing the estimated expenses with the estimated income is usually very revealing. It may be clear in the process that some activities will have to be given up if the projected budget does not balance. In fact, if management discovers that income is adequate to cover all expenditures (less institutional subsidies) at this point in the budgeting process, perhaps the organization is not reaching far enough or being ambitious enough in its planning. Alternatively, any excess income could be applied to lower per diem rates.

Adjustments may be needed to bring budgets into expectations, particularly the expectancies of the parent organization. For instance, the parent organization may have provided a subsidy amount for the new fiscal year, but the animal program’s preliminary budget shows a need for a greater subsidy. The animal program then has the options of making the case for a greater subsidy, reexamining revenues and expenses to reduce the animal program budget, or increasing rates to reduce the deficit. Rate increases can certainly help close the deficit, but the animal program management team must be sure that users can absorb such an increase. Rate increases that are too precipitous can reduce utilization and actually increase deficits. Negotiations among the animal program management team could help clarify and lead to adjustments that serve all. It is essential that all parties agree to the final budget, including the parent organization, researchers, and animal program management staff.

Monitoring

The budget monitoring process is just as critical as the budget development phase. As the fiscal year progresses, timely budget reports should be shared and reviewed by all stakeholders. How do actual expenses and revenues compare to what was predicted? Are there problem areas that stand out and need to be modified? The animal care program management team should feel ownership of the budget and be willing to monitor and react to issues. Potential overages should be evaluated as to root causes, and affected parties should work on resolutions. Above all, upper administration should be aware of any issues and planned responses as soon as possible.

Cost Accounting

Budget planning, development, and monitoring are the financial processes that guide the operation of the animal care program for a defined period of time. Another financial process, cost accounting or cost analysis, analyzes the animal program’s budget details to determine accurate and defensible charges for services provided by the program. A cost accounting accumulates and evaluates actual expenses for a completed fiscal year, categorizing and matching expenses to the type of service or activity provided. A cost accounting represents an effort to set reasonable rates for such activities as animal housing, technical services, and other charges based on those actual expenses. In addition, this exercise is required for institutions that receive federal funds, with a prescribed methodology for assigning and calculating those costs. The organization’s accounting system logs, classifies, and summarizes the financial activity of the animal care program. The cost analysis manipulates this historical information from the accounting system, allocating expenses to cost centers and arriving at a per item cost for providing services to researchers (Silverman 2009).

Cost accounting activities for an animal program are guided by the following principles:

• Billing rates must be based on actual animal program costs.
• Billing rates for identifiable services that involve significant activities of the animal care program must be established.
• Billing units should logically represent the service provided.
• All rates and the overall animal program should be operated as closely as possible to a “break-even” basis. Adjustments should be made to compensate for surpluses or deficits (variances).
• All costs associated with providing an animal service should be included in the total cost of each service.
• The costs must be treated consistently as either direct or support costs.
• The assignment of costs to cost centers and the allocation of support costs to direct cost centers should be based on beneficial relationships.
• Animal programs cannot charge a “profit” to federal programs; that is, they cannot continually charge more for services than the cost to provide.
• All users should be charged consistently at full rates (or the revenue should be imputed).
• Revenue and costs should be compared at least annually to identify surpluses and deficits for each service.

Federal guidelines do not require the animal program to break even each year as long as overall adjustments are made to maintain rates as close to costs as possible, and an institution can subsidize rates; that is, it can use institutional funds to lower rates below actual costs.

Cost accounting is especially relevant to those institutions receiving federal funds for research involving animals, as these institutions are required to perform a periodic cost analysis of their animal program. A document published in 2000 by the NIH, the “Cost Analysis and Rate Setting Manual for Animal Research Facilities,” provides guidance to animal programs for carrying out such a cost accounting and determining reasonable rates to charge researchers for services. Note that such rates are subject to federal audit if federal grants or contracts are involved. Therefore, close collaboration between an institution’s animal program and it grants and contracts office is encouraged to make sure all intramural parties are involved in setting and assessing those rates.

A key component of the cost analysis process is the cost center, which is defined as identified activity areas to which expenses are allocated. Cost centers can be direct activities that are chargeable to researchers (barrier mouse cage per diem, veterinary technical services, etc.) or indirect support activities, such as cage wash, animal health care, and feed and bedding. Both personnel and nonpersonnel expenses should be carefully evaluated for proper allocation to the appropriate cost center.

The effort survey asks staff to track their activities for a period of time during the fiscal year to identify which cost centers their efforts are devoted to, that is, which species they perform animal husbandry activities for, when they provide animal health care, when they devote time to administrative tasks, and so forth. This provides a snapshot of personnel activity in the cost accounting process and allows personnel expenses to be allocated to the various cost centers. Ideally, the animal care program should sample employee efforts multiple times during the fiscal year so that a true picture of staff effort is recorded. Effort surveys can be administered in many ways; an employee can keep track of effort by a simple paper worksheet, or the animal program may develop an online application easily accessible to all employees. Whatever the method, the intent is to understand where employee effort is devoted and use the results to rationally allocate personnel expenses to the correct cost center.

Nonpersonnel expenses for the fiscal year in question must also be allocated to the identified cost centers. Ideally, the animal program’s financial system permits the categorization of expenses when the cost is incurred. Otherwise, someone will have to go through all expenses retrospectively and categorize them under the appropriate cost center, which can be a time-consuming effort.

An alternative cost analysis approach may be more appropriate if the program is engaged in continuous improvement of its operations in order to identify and eliminate unnecessary activities and expenses while improving quality. In such programs, staff activities may change, perhaps even several times in the same year, as efficiencies are realized in some tasks while additional time and emphasis are assigned to others, like more staff training or the introduction of a new animal species. Consequently, time-and-motion or other activity studies, such as how many cages each technician changes or washes on average every day, are less reliable for consistent costing because they may not be performed in a consistent manner. In this case, programs divide annual cost category totals by the expected census for each animal unit (e.g., mouse cage) to arrive at a per diem rate for each species and husbandry scenario.

One challenging area of expenses, particularly for university-based and government animal programs, is indirect costs. Indirect costs are identified as those costs incurred for common or joint purposes that cannot be specifically associated with an activity. Indirect costs usually refer to central overhead expenses incurred by the parent organization, and include utilities, central administrative offices (human resources, procurement, etc.), and building maintenance. Organizations receiving federal funds are reimbursed for these indirect, or facilities and administrative (F&A) costs, in addition to direct reimbursement for awarded grants. It is important that the animal program follow its organization’s guidelines and not include any costs in the cost analysis that may be already included in the organization’s overall F&A costs. Lang, in a 2009 article, notes the challenge of categorizing indirect and direct costs for the animal program and makes a case for including a number of animal program activities that are difficult to associate with a specific activity (e.g., regulatory issues and overall veterinary care) in the organization’s F&A calculations (Lang 2009). Activities related to regulatory compliance, as well as animal procurement, are specifically prohibited from cost-setting exercises establishing per diem rates under federal policy. Conversely, the NIH Rate Setting Manual does allow for internal support costs within an animal program. Due to budget constraints, upper management may be looking to spread more allowable indirect space costs across functional groups, such as the animal program.

Once all personnel and nonpersonnel expenses are allocated to the cost centers, the internal support cost centers (cage wash, animal health care, feed and bedding, etc.) must be further allocated to the chargeable cost centers via a reasonable method.

For instance, total costs of cage wash may be allocated to the various species based on a study of cage wash activities. If 20% of all cage wash effort is devoted to rat cage per diem, then 20% of cage wash expenses will be allocated to the rat cage per diem.

An accurate census-taking system is key to any charge-back program. This may be manual or automated (bar coding or radio frequency identification [RFID] tags) and must involve a frequent animal or cage count by species, type of housing, and investigator.

Total costs for the chargeable cost centers are then divided by the number of service units or other activities provided during the fiscal year. This will produce the actual per unit cost for providing daily animal care to the mix of species in the program, or the hourly cost for items such as veterinary technical services. An example of the final step of the cost analysis process is as follows:

Table

Total expenses allocated to the mouse barrier cost center $2,300,000

These calculations show that it costs this animal program $1.40 per cage per day to house mice in a barrier cage. The animal care program should compare this developed cost to its current rates and make adjustments accordingly. Perhaps central administration feels this rate is too high for researchers and may provide a subsidy to reduce the per diem. Whatever decisions are made, both the animal program and parent organization should remember that billing rates must be based on actual costs, all rates and the overall animal program should be operated as closely as possible to a break-even basis, and a profit cannot be charged to federal programs; that is, they cannot continually charge more for services than the cost to provide.

Grants, Other Sources of Revenue, and New Services

Some animal care programs are reacting to challenging fiscal times by seeking nontraditional sources of funding. The federal government, as well as nongovernmental agencies, offers grants and other awards that can help upgrade facilities or support research into laboratory animal issues. For instance, the NIH, through its Office of Research Infrastructure Programs, provides a limited number of animal facility improvement grants to upgrade animal facilities and equipment.

The funding agency usually requires a detailed application requiring significant details of proposal, as well as information about the institution’s research environment. Animal program management should be willing to devote significant time to an application, as grant writing is an intensive effort. Once the grant is submitted, the funding agency will review proposals and choose those that best respond to the agency’s grant criteria. Once awarded, the animal care program must follow the funding agency’s requirements and timelines closely, making sure funds are expended as outlined in the grant proposal and within the time period of the grant. Many institutions have significant grant administration programs, and animal care management should utilize these resources to prepare the grant application and properly administer the grant if the animal program is lucky enough to receive an award.

Animal care programs may also provide services to outside organizations for supplemental sources of income. The animal care program should ensure there is capacity within the program and that all institutional users’ needs are met first, before considering outside collaboration. The animal care program should also review institutional guidelines regarding collaborations with external organizations before providing services to outside groups. Many research institutions are considered not-for-profit, and unauthorized outside agreements could jeopardize that status, particularly if the arrangements do not meet the institution’s research or education missions. Nevertheless, outside agreements that meet guidelines can be fruitful for both the animal program and the outside group. The animal program’s parent institution may have contract and grants specialists that can guide management through the correct steps for establishing such a relationship.

The animal care program should be cognizant of the needs of the researchers it serves and be willing to provide new services. This can both help the research community and provide a source of increased support for the program. More researchers are utilizing genetically altered mice models, and some newer animal users do not have the time or experience to carry out all the needed research steps. Many programs have realized that there are unmet needs and have added a number of new areas of expertise, including breeding services, technical and surgical assistance, transgenic cores, and gnotobiotic facilities.

The animal program should develop a business plan before embarking on any new initiatives. This business plan should include an evaluation of the interest within the research community and possible usage; a survey of other organizations already providing such services, getting an idea of pricing and organization; a proposed structure of the new program, and how it will be initiated and developed; and projected expenses and revenues over a 3- to 5-year period. New programs will be especially challenging to estimate, as there may be little historical data and many unknowns. Costs should be estimated on the high side, and revenues should not be overly optimistic. Any new initiatives should be reviewed and approved by the parent organization before proceeding.

Technology

Program managers are tasked with ensuring that their animal program has a solid financial footing. To accomplish this, they must understand and address business and research issues that impact their fiscal needs. Increasingly, technology has empowered problem solving and enables new opportunities and approaches to modernize and streamline all key management functions, allowing the highest level of productivity and effectiveness in managing and tracking fiscal resources.

The unique capability of emerging technologies is already in use in some aspects of animal care and use. There are many of these tools that are changing the way we manage animal facilities. Two of the technologies are RFID and global positioning system (GPS). Both are currently available within the health care field and appear capable of decreasing operating costs but may require significant initial capital investment. The RFID application in the animal research facility is readily being used for animal census, whereas GPS technology might be more beneficial for tracking equipment throughout the facility, such as racks and other accountable equipment (McGrady et al. 2010).

Technology is constantly evolving and can be applied within vivaria. Technology is available to remotely connect to an animal room and use video cameras to check the health status of animals. Sensors to notify robots that a cage is wet or has an elevated ammonia level may become the norm and could dispatch an automated robot to change the cage. Globalization, software, and the Internet are having a synergistic effect on how we all live and work. Software is providing more services via the Internet every day, and the actual physical location of those servers and software matter less and less. It is estimated that by 2026, nearly all data needed by the end user will be accessible at all times. Smartphones and other highly portable devices with a web browser can access this data in the cloud. The ability for the animal facility to store its data in the cloud and have it accessible via a web browser can help improve facility overall operations. This type of technology is enabling animal facilities and program management to work seamlessly together in tracking expenses (Doughman 2016).

Program managers will need to keep their fingers on the pulse of this technology and determine its cost-effectiveness. Managers should develop a systematic approach in investigating the full range of emerging technologies, see their potential possibilities, understand their uncertainties, compare the technologies, and select the ones to focus on and continually review new information and choices. Thoroughly evaluating those possibilities is key to making good choices about where and when to invest (Evans 2009; see also https://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/rate_setting_manual_2000.pdf).

Glossary Of Financial Terms

allocation

assignment or distribution of costs or expenses to cost centers as part of the cost accounting process

benchmarking

comparing an organization’s programs, strategies, and so forth, to peer organizations

budget

an estimate of costs, revenues, and resources over a specified period, reflecting a reading of future financial conditions and goals

capital equipment

items of considerable value and durability that are used in the animal care program. Accounting rules usually consider objects costing more than $5000 and having an extended lifetime as capital equipment

cost accounting or cost analysis

the accumulation, examination, and manipulation of cost data for the purpose of setting animal program per diem and other rates

cost center

a defined area to which costs are allocated in the cost analysis process. Includes direct activities that are chargeable to researchers (mouse per diem) or indirect support activities, such as cage wash

effort survey

asks staff to track their activities for a period of time during the fiscal year to identify which cost centers their efforts are devoted to, that is, which species they perform animal husbandry activities for, when they provide animal health care, when they devote time to administrative tasks, and so forth

financial or fiscal management

the planning, directing, monitoring, organizing, and controlling of an organization’s monetary resources

fiscal year

the 12-month period an organization defines as its budget year. The U.S. federal government’s fiscal year is October 1 to September 30, while many organizations use a July 1 to June 30 year

goals

an observable and measurable desired end result to be achieved during a defined time frame

planning

the identification of goals and objectives to be achieved, along with a strategy to achieve them

return on investment

the time required to recoup through reduced operating costs the investment in a major capital item

revenues or support

payments or fees that help support the expenses of an animal care program. Sources can include per diem charges, fees for technical services, grant funds, and institutional subvention

zero-based budgeting

a method for preparing budgets that starts from scratch each year with no preauthorized funds. Each activity must be justified on a basis of cost–benefit, no present commitments existing, and there being no balances to carry forward

References

• Alford, J.2001. Fiscal management. In Management of Laboratory Animal Care and Use Programs, ed. M.Suckow, 243–255. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• Baker, D., Kearney, M.2015. The need for econometric research in laboratory animal operations. Lab Animal44 (6): 217–220. [PubMed: 25989555]
• Doughman, E.2016. What will vivarium technology look like in 2026?Animal Laboratory News. http://www​.alnmag.com​/articles/2016/03/what-will-vivarium-technology-look-2026.
• Evans, N., Ralston, B., Broderick, A.2009. Strategic thinking about disruptive technologies. Strategy & Leadership37 (1): 23–30.
• Lang, C.2009. The cost of animal research. Lab Animal38 (10): 335–338. [PubMed: 19773778]
• McGrady, E., Conger, S., Blanke, S., Landry, B., Zalucki, P.2010. Emerging technologies in healthcare: Navigating risks, evaluating rewards. Journal of Healthcare Management55 (5): 353–364; discussion 364–365. [PubMed: 21077584]
• National Institutes of Health, National Center for Research Resources. 2000. Cost analysis and rate setting manual for animal research facilities. https://grants​.nih.gov​/grants/policy/air​/rate_setting_manual_2000.pdf.
• National Research Council. 2000. Strategies That Influence Cost Containment in Animal Research Facilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www​.nap.edu/catalog​/10006/strategies-that-influence-cost-containment-in-animal-research-facilities. [PubMed: 23035312]
• Silverman, J.2009. Managing the Laboratory Animal Facility. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.