Data and facts about how shelters can refine their intake practices.
Jump to: Overview | Capacity for Care | Intake Practices
Highlights
Overview
Capacity for Care (C4C)
Jump to: Managed Intake Impact | Implementation of C4C in Canada
Impact of Managed Intake in Canada
External link:
Hobson SJ, Bateman S, Coe JB, Oblak M, Veit L. The impact of deferred intake as part of Capacity for Care (C4C) on shelter cat outcomes. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2023;26(1):68-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1894148
Cat Relinquishment Outcome
- Of the 298 cats whose owners contacted the Guelph Humane Society for relinquishment:
- 43% (129 cats) had unknown outcomes.
- 31% (93 cats) were eventually relinquished to the Guelph Humane Society.
- 15% (45 cats) were re-homed by their owners.
- 10% (31 cats) were retained by their owners.
| Mean Relinquishment Wait (Days) | # of Scheduled Relinquishment Appointments | % of Category with Scheduled Appointments | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Owner Retained (n=31) | 25.7 | 10 | 32.3 |
| Rehome (n=45) | 23.3 | 10 | 22.2 |
| Relinquish(n=93) | 15.1 | 76 | 81.7 |
| Unknown (n=129) | 26 | 48 | 37.2 |
Communication and Contact Patterns
- Following an initial relinquishment inquiry:
- Shelter intake staff contacted the cat owner after a median of 1 day (ranging from 0 to 81 days).
- Owners contacted the Guelph Humane Society a median of 1 time (ranging from 1 to 4 times).
- Guelph Humane Society staff contacted cat owners a median of 1 time (ranging from 0 to 3 times).
Research Summary | Back to Top
Implementation of C4C and Impact in Canada
External link:
C.L. Karsten, D.C. Wagner, P.H. Kass, K.F. Hurley,An observational study of the relationship between Capacity for Care as an animal shelter management model and cat health, adoption and death in three animal shelters, The Veterinary Journal, Volume 227, 2017, Pages 15-22, ISSN 1090-0233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.08.003
Impact
- The calculated optimal population was consistently lower than the pre-implementation average in-shelter population for nearly every month across all three shelters. On a yearly average, it was lower by 44% at Shelter A, 28% at Shelter B, and 17% at Shelter C.
- Comparing the calculated optimal population to the post-implementation average in-shelter population, all three shelters met their goal for at least 75% of the year.
- Isolation populations decreased at all three shelters after C4C implementation: by 84% at Shelter A, 46% at Shelter B, and 39% at Shelter C.
- The overall average length of stay decreased by 31% at Shelter A, 11% at Shelter B, and 9% at Shelter C.
- Cats had a higher probability of adoption after C4C implementation at all three shelters (Shelter A Odds Ratio (OR) 1.32; Shelter B OR 1.7; Shelter C OR 1.82).
- Cats had a lower probability of being euthanized or dying after C4C implementation at all three shelters (Shelter A OR 0.50; Shelter B OR 0.52; Shelter C OR 0.32).
Research Summary | Back to Top
Intake Practices
Jump to: Survey of Current Intake (Texas)
Survey of Current Intake Practices in Texas
External link:
Cranford, M., Bing, A., Cisneros, A., Carroll, A. D., Porter, H., & Stellato, A. C. (2023). Cross-sectional survey exploring current intake practices for dogs admitted to animal shelters in Texas: a descriptive study. Frontiers in veterinary science, 10, 1296425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2023.1296425
Intake Process
- Scheduling Surrenders:
- 72% of participants always schedule surrenders, except for emergencies.
- 27% of participants never schedule surrenders.
| Information collected from owners | Frequency (Percentage) |
|---|---|
| General | |
| Dog age | 61 (97) |
| Dog breed | 60 (95) |
| Dog sex | 62 (98) |
| Duration of ownership | 46 (73) |
| Reason for surrender | 62 (98) |
| Bite history | 56 (89) |
| Number of daily walks | 8 (13) |
| Time left alone | 17 (27) |
| Housetrained | 51 (81) |
| Crate trained | 43 (68) |
| Type of food | 26 (41) |
| Household | |
| Number of adults | 16 (26) |
| Number of children | 22 (35) |
| Behavior toward people | 53 (85) |
| Behavior toward children | 56 (90) |
| Number of other pets | 37 (60) |
| Type of other animals | 46 (74) |
| Behavior toward other animals | 55 (89) |
| Type of dwelling | 15 (24) |
| Where dog sleeps | 26 (42) |
| When dog stays when alone | 27 (44) |
| Where dog primarily lives | 33 (53) |
| Behavioral | |
| Fearful tendencies | 45 (78) |
| Stranger-directed aggression | 44 (76) |
| Owner-directed aggression | 45 (78) |
| Dog-directed aggression | 52 (90) |
| Resource guarding | 43 (74) |
| Separation anxiety | 36 (62) |
| Handling sensitivity | 24 (41) |
| House-soiling issues | 33 (57) |
| Excessive vocalization | 19 (33) |
| Destructiveness | 34 (59) |
| Noise-phobic | 20 (34) |
| Chasing behavior | 24 (41) |
| Escape artist | 39 (67) |
| No information collected from owner | 2 (3) |
| Medical | |
| Gastrointestinal issues | 22 (39) |
| Musculoskeletal issues | 19 (33) |
| Skin conditions | 24 (42) |
| Metabolic | 16 (28) |
| Respiratory issues | 19 (33) |
| Cardiovascular issues | 20 (35) |
| Neurological issues | 17 (30) |
| Acute pain | 19 (33) |
| Chronic pain | 19 (33) |
| Vision | 22 (39) |
| Hearing | 23 (40) |
| No information collected from owner | 16 (28) |
Intake Examination Personnel
- Personnel Roles:
- 36% of participants reported animal control officers conducting intake exams.
- 30% reported animal care workers.
- 14% reported veterinary technicians.
- 5% reported veterinarians.
- 14% reported other job titles.
- Number of Personnel:
- 54% of participants reported having 2-3 personnel present during intake exams.
- No participants reported having more than 3 personnel present.
- Continued Education:
- 61% of participants reported that intake personnel are required to complete continued education related to dog behavior and welfare.
- 28% reported that they are not required.
- 10% reported that they are not encouraged or have no opportunity.
Intake Examination Approach
- Approach Method:
- 64% of participants reported approaching dogs indirectly (crouching or kneeling).
- 49% reported approaching dogs directly (standing or walking towards them).
- Pre-Exam Acclimation:
- 57% of participants reported giving dogs time to explore the exam room before starting.
- In-Exam Attention:
- 76% of participants reported giving dogs lots of attention during the exam (e.g., treats, petting, soothing voice).
- Exam Location:
- 41% of participants never conduct exams outside.
- 51% sometimes conduct exams outside.
- 8% always conduct exams outside.
- Exam Techniques for Large Dogs:
- 53% of participants conduct exams with large dogs untethered on the ground.
- 45% of participants conduct exams with large dogs tethered to a wall.
- Exam Techniques for Small Dogs:
- 39% of participants conduct exams with small dogs on a table without a traction surface.
- 28% of participants conduct exams with small dogs on a traction surface.
- 19% of participants conduct exams with small dogs untethered on the ground.
- 15% of participants conduct exams with small dogs tethered to a wall.
Intake Examination Details
- Medical Assessments:
- Skin conditions: 86%
- Respiratory issues: 59%
- Musculoskeletal issues: 54%
- Neurological issues: 51%
- Intestinal issues: 37%
- Cardiovascular issues: 14%
- Underweight: 78%
- No tests: 10%
- Disease Testing:
- Parvovirus: 47%
- Heartworms: 36%
- Fever: 24%
- Medical Treatments:
- Vaccinations (DHPP, bordetella, rabies, canine influenza): 85%
- No vaccination: 15%
- Flea/tick control: 56%
- Deworming: 72%
- Microchipping: 38%
Post-Examination
- Post-Examination Housing:
- Adoption floor: 45%
- Available space: 20%
- Isolated room: 7%
- Intake room kennel: 3%
- Other rooms: 25%