Strategies for Successful Animal Shelters

By Laura A. Reese

Strategies for Successful Animal Shelters is the first book to assess the relationship between shelter traits, activities and critical outcome variables, such as live release or save rates. This book provides a data-based evaluation of shelter processes and practices with explicit recommendations for improved shelter activities. Using a survey of licensed animal shelters, case studies, and data on state inspections, complaints, and save rates, this book provides an assessment of the activities, processes, and procedures that are most likely to lead to positive outcomes for a variety of animal shelters.

The book also contributes to community debate around animal sheltering and provides best practices, methods and means to assess local shelters to ensure the highest level of animal welfare. It is a valuable resource for animal shelter professionals and rescue groups, as well as students in disciplines such as animal science, animal welfare and shelter medicine.

• Offers best-practice recommendations and how they are used in animal shelters
• Analyzes which shelter traits, programs and activities are most strongly associated with optimal outcomes, including live release rates
• Includes an assessment of future research and activities to optimize animal welfare within shelters

• Language: English
• Publisher: Academic Press
• Release date: Oct 30, 2018
• ISBN: 9780128163757

Laura A. Reese

Dr. Laura A. Reese currently serves as the director of the Global Urban Studies Program and is a professor of Urban and Regional Planning and Political Science at Michigan State University, United States. She received her PhD in political science from Wayne State University, United States. She has written and contributed to hundreds of journal articles and publications, and has coauthored more than 10 books to date. Dr. Reese has been a board member of the Humane Society of Livingston County, has provided shelter services research support to the Humane Society of Huron Valley, the Detroit Department of Health, and the Detroit Animal Care and Control. Dr. Reese has provided training for local officials on economic development and for shelter and animal control professionals on dog bite prevention and shelter practice.

Book preview

keel.

1

The Difference a Shelter Makes

A Tale of Two Aces

Abstract

There is surprisingly little research on animal sheltering and no studies that quantitatively assess the relationships between shelter traits and activities and critical outcome variables such as live release or save rates. The research presented in this book is based on the population of licensed shelters in Michigan and addresses this gap in extant knowledge about animal sheltering by answering the following five questions: (1) What shelter traits, programs, and activities are most strongly associated with optimal outcomes such as live release rates? (2) What are the best practice recommendations in animal sheltering? (3) What is the extent of the use of best practices in animal shelters? (4) What should animal shelters be doing to foster better outcomes? (5) What avenues should future research on animal sheltering take? It speaks to the operation of animal shelters and their activities and outcomes. In this sense it provides critical information to shelter professionals. Through the assessment of current practice and development of questions for future research, it also speaks to researchers and academics in the areas of animal welfare. Finally, it contributes to community debate around animal sheltering and provides a means of assessing local shelters for concerned community members and animal welfare advocates.

Keywords

Animal sheltering; animal control; animal welfare; shelter models

Dear Ace, you came into my lobby, crouched behind my door and stared blankly at the wall, shaking. I could see your pain—I fed you, warmed you and you rewarded me by finally looking into my eyes, and for a moment, we shared your pain. I reached for the phone, thinking that I could find you a better life… Instead I sent you to your death. Please forgive me. You did not die in vain, nor will you be forgotten. This I promise you. Your last but far from only friend.

Mark, Ace Hardware, Detroit, 11-10-11

In November 2011, an emaciated pit bull-type dog was found outside of an Ace Hardware store in Detroit. A concerned citizen called City of Detroit Animal Control (DAC). The dog, known as Ace, quickly became a media cause célèbre and pleas to Save Ace and offers of adoption from individuals and rescue groups flooded in. Yet, Ace was euthanized within the state-mandated, 4-day holding period for stray dogs, in violation of a court injunction ordering a hold on euthanasia of pit bulls at DAC, even in the face of publicity that spread around the world (https://detroitdogrescue.com/aces-story/). The incident pitted a host of nonprofit rescue groups and licensed animal shelters against the city bureaucracy. Media coverage highlighted not only the plight of stray and feral dogs in Detroit, but also the policies and practices at DAC, the city’s municipal animal shelter. DAC’s policy at the time was to euthanize pit bull-type dogs in all cases where an owner could not be found; live release rates for other types of dogs and cats were also uniformly low. Euthanasia rates for all animals at the shelter topped out at 97% in 2013 (www.michiganpetfun.org/save-rate-reports-awards/2013-save-rate-report-and-awards/): conditions for animals in the shelter were beyond inhumane (www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/07/blood_drips_from_detroit_anima.html). Disease was rampant, dogs were unable to fully stand and move in their cages, food was thrown on the soiled floor, and one employee was fired for allegedly feeding a live puppy to a snake (http://forum.kingsnake.com/law/messages/7880.html). Even if Ace had been on a stray hold for the mandated time period, his life at DAC would not have had a happy ending.

Ace, 2001, Detroit.

Ace, 2015, HSHV.

Early in January 2015 another stray dog named Ace arrived at the Humane Society of Huron Valley (HSHV), which serves as the open intake shelter for Washtenaw County. His time at the shelter was spent in a large kennel with outside access, he received at least four walks a day including time in a big outdoor play yard, he had toys and a raised bed, he entered the shelter’s training program to enhance his adoptability, and also spent time in one of the shelter’s foster homes. With a save rate exceeding 90% he was in little danger of euthanasia and was ultimately adopted. The fact that he was likely a pit bull mix had no bearing on his experience since HSHV was one of the first shelters in the state to regularly offer bully mixes for adoption. The experiences of these two Aces could not have been more different, largely as the result of the differences in the animal shelters to which they arrived.

In late December 2015, DAC hired a new director and was renamed Detroit Animal Care and Control (DACC). Animals began leaving the shelter for adoption through other shelter and rescue transfer partners. Even though DACC remained in its old building until the fall of 2016, the lives of its animals began to change dramatically. Volunteers assisted staff in cleaning, animal care, and enrichment activities. Dogs were taken outside, medical care was provided, and toys, treats and blankets were added to the kennels and cleaned appropriately. The kill rate dropped 30% in the first few months. As of fall of 2017 the shelter (now located in a newer building donated by another nonprofit shelter), is one of the most improved in the state. The differences among individual animal shelters and in the same shelter over time can literally mean life or death to the animals in their charge. This book focuses on the traits, processes, and activities of animal shelters that determine whether animal welfare is achieved, in other words, whether the Aces of this world have the first or second experience.

Research Focus

There is surprisingly little research on animal sheltering and no studies that quantitatively assess the relationships between shelter traits and activities and critical outcome variables such as live release or save rates. The research presented in this book is based on the population of licensed shelters in Michigan and addresses this gap in extant knowledge about animal sheltering by answering the following questions:

1. What shelter traits, programs, and activities are most strongly associated with optimal outcomes such as live release rates?

2. What are the best practice recommendations in animal sheltering?

3. What is the extent of the use of best practices in animal shelters?

4. What should animal shelters be doing to foster better outcomes?

5. What avenues should future research on animal sheltering take?

While the book focuses on answering the forgoing research questions, it is important to recognize that animal sheltering knowledge and best practice recommendations are always in flux. New research on veterinary practices, animal enrichment and training, stress reduction in shelters, reasons for animal relinquishment, adoption preferences, and so on is constantly becoming available. Thus, the findings and recommendations presented here represent the state of sheltering best practice at one point in time. In addition, what are agreed to be best practices may be unreasonable for small or financially limited shelters. For many such shelters, only incremental improvement can be expected, leaving them far from ideal or state of the art. Improvement rather than perfection is a more reasonable objective.

Ongoing research on both theory and practice is critical and potential future research questions are discussed at the end of the book. It is also important to note that while the language used in this book is one of best practices there is rarely only one best way to accomplish any task, in this case, the sheltering of animals and the promotion of animal welfare. What works for one shelter may need to be changed or tweaked to be useful in another. And, any best practice recommendations need to be flexible enough to meet shelters where they are at. There are minimum standards of care that all shelters should provide; beyond that, variation is reasonable and may even be desirable. As will become clear from the case studies, each animal shelter is in a different place on the path to implementing guidelines and recommendations and achieving their goals. Indeed, even the goals may vary from emphasizes on public safety and education, to sheltering and adoption, to providing assistance in keeping animals in their homes, to the creation of a no kill nation.

Definitions

The nomenclature for animal welfare facilities recognizes several definitions of terms for shelters based on their mission, function, and financing. The definitions may vary by state and even local context. Moulton, Wright, and Rindy (1991) identified three types of shelters: public shelters which they referred to as animal controls, private shelters (humane societies), and private agencies with public contracts to provide animal control services. As noted by Clancy and Rowan (2003, p. 16): the term shelter encompasses a wide range of entities, from an animal control facility that serves thousands of animals per year to the private citizen who rescues a few strays a year. The situation in Michigan is complex since the terms animal shelter and humane society are used variously by different types of organizations. However, the private citizens rescuing a few strays noted above are very unlikely to opt to go through the state licensing process since it requires substantial investment in infrastructure and implies adherence to facility guidelines that a home rescue is not typically able to meet. Describing an organization as a private shelter is also misleading given that most humane societies and rescues are nonprofits.

Animal shelters licensed by the state of Michigan can be either open or limited intake. The former refers to an entity that takes in all animals from a particular geographic service area, such as a county or a city. Limited intake shelters can pick and choose among the animals they admit based on space, nature of the animal (breed for example), the adoption market for their area (e.g., whether small dogs are preferred or there is an aversion to or ordinances forbidding pit bulls), and health or age status. In some cases, there are limited access humane societies such as the Humane Society of Livingston County (HSLC) and the Capital Area Humane Society that operate in the same area as County Animal Control organizations (Livingston County and Ingham County Animal Control, respectively). In these two cases, most stray animals go to the county animal control. Owner relinquishments are accepted at both entities but again, the humane societies can choose among the cases and often there are waiting lists. Both of these humane societies take animals on transfer from low resource or over capacity shelters because their missions include assisting animals generally, as opposed to just those in their communities. The county facilities do not typically accept transfers because of capacity constraints emanating from their open intake status.

Some shelters have contracts with municipal entities to provide animal care and control services. For example, the HSHV is the open intake shelter and holds the contract for Washtenaw County. HSHV is a nonprofit organization and raises money through donations and fund-raising events, its public veterinary clinic, and adoption revenue to fund activities not covered in its contract with Washtenaw County. Individual cities can also contract with HSHV to provide sheltering services. This blending of public and nonprofit funding and service provision is difficult to disentangle although the nonprofit financial reports (Form 990s) identify revenue sources.

Some entities such as DACC serve as the municipal shelter for a single city. Because Detroit also is the location of one of the nonprofit Michigan Humane Society (MHS) facilities, activities are shared between the two entities. For example, DACC, was, at the time of this writing, forbidden by local ordinance to offer animal adoption services; thus, they had to be mostly transferred to partner shelters and rescues for adoption. DACC handles stray animals in the city, while MHS accepts strays and owner relinquishments. Both entities have cruelty investigators and receive animals on bite quarantines and bailiff holds (although most such animals—typically dogs—go to DACC). DACC is also prohibited from receiving donations directly because of an ordinance designed to limit the potential for graft in the city. As a result, they have created a nonprofit, Friends of DACC, to receive donations and organize volunteers. A similar nonprofit Friends of organization holds the contract for running the city of Dearborn’s animal care and control shelter. Hence the nature of and relationships between licensed shelters in Michigan are complex with a good deal of individual variation.

Narrative Examples

DACC and the HSHV, along with the HSLC, a limited intake nonprofit, will be used throughout the book to highlight differences in both organization and practice among shelters in the state of Michigan. Because DACC is prohibited from adoptions of the animals in its care, it relies on transfer partners to pull animals and offer them for adoption. Both HSHV and HSLC are transfer partners for DACC, receiving both dogs and cats. Generally, these partners (along with many, but not all, other partners) prefer not to accept pit bull-type dogs since they have large numbers in their own service areas and these dogs tend to take longer to be adopted. Transfers are a critical part of the changes at DACC that have allowed them to reduce their kill rates significantly.

The shelters are connected in other ways as well. They all have at least several volunteers in common and the veterinarian at HSLC performs specialized surgeries for HSHV. HSHV and HSLC also share dog trainers on contract to address behavioral concerns for particular animals, provide training classes to the community (HSHV), and to conduct training with shelter personnel on dog handling. As will be discussed more fully later in the book, these networks among shelters are critical to the animal welfare mission in the state.

Table 1.1 provides a summary of a number of basic traits of the three shelters. There are important differences in their organizational models. DACC is a municipal shelter serving the City of Detroit and is a division of the municipal health department. It serves as the open intake shelter for the city and receives the bulk of the city’s stray animals. There are two other nonprofit shelters in Detroit (Michigan Humane Society Detroit Animal Care Campus and Michigan Anti-Cruelty Society) that focus on animal relinquishments, cruelty and rescue cases, and animals being held as part of legal actions. Most animals on bite quarantines are at DACC.

Table 1.1

aHSHV, 2016 available on website, HSLC 2015 from Charity Navigator, DACC 2016 from city budget.

bRevenue for 2015 for the HSLC is substantially higher than in previous years when its total budget was around $400,000 or less. Significant increases in contributions and in investment income increased the 2015 revenue figures. In all years prior to 2015 the shelter was operating at a loss, with 2015 being the only year with a modest profit.

HSHV is a nonprofit shelter with a contract to provide animal control and welfare services for Washtenaw County and thus operates as an open intake shelter for anyone in that service area. It accepts strays, owner relinquishments, bite holds, and cruelty and rescue cases. HSLC is a limited intake nonprofit that accepts relinquishments and found animals on a waiting list from Livingston County but also pulls animals from struggling shelters in other areas of the state. It does not have cruelty and rescue services; these are provided by Livingston County Animal Control which is the open intake shelter for the area. HSHV operates a Love Train transport program that brings in dogs, primarily puppies, from southern shelters and rescues. It also accepts a limited number of animals from other local shelters such as DACC. HSLC receives transfers from a number of in-state shelters, such as DACC, primarily taking adult dogs and