Three Things to Know
Evaluating Dog Population Management (DPM) programs has traditionally faced hurdles due to data collection and resource limitations. This study sought to assess the Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP), an annual DPM initiative in various Indigenous Australian regions, utilizing readily obtainable primary data (like sterilization rates and repeat usage) and secondary data (such as dog attack and euthanasia rates).
Over its 2016-2019 span, ICCAHP saw positive trends including a growing proportion of already-microchipped and already-sterilized dogs, alongside rising repeated participation. Despite this, sterilization uptake was strongest in the first year and then lessened.
Significantly, researchers observed substantial reductions in dog attacks and euthanasia rates in local areas with three or more years of ICCAHP involvement, a trend not mirrored statewide. However, the study cautions that these improvements cannot be solely attributed to the ICCAHP program.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
Evaluating the effectiveness of dog population management (DPM) initiatives is often difficult due to data collection and resource limitations. This study addresses that challenge by offering a methodology that uses easily collectible primary and secondary data to provide valuable insights.
Specifically, researchers recommend conducting a dog census before DPM begins and repeating it every five years or less, depending on budget. They suggest collecting primary data such as the percentage of already microchipped and sterilized dogs, as well as repeat visitor rates. This can be supplemented with secondary data from local shelters and veterinarians, including shelter intake, euthanasia rates, and dog attacks. When gathered over multiple years, primary data can also serve as a performance benchmark, tracking metrics like the number of dogs presented to the progrma per 1,000 population and sterilization uptake.
While this methodology doesn’t establish direct causation, it offers crucial insights for improving and optimizing DPM programs.
The Full Picture
Dogs are important companions but can pose risks to public health, safety, and environmental hygiene, particularly through bites and the spread of rabies. Effective DPM helps maintain dog welfare, reduce disease transmission, and minimize dog attacks, especially in remote Australian communities where access to veterinary care is limited.
Yet, evaluating the impact of DPM programs remains challenging due to limitations in data collection methods. This study, titled “Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact”, used a natural experiment to assess a DPM intervention’s effectiveness in improving community safety, animal welfare, and public engagement, while also examining the usefulness of existing secondary data sources for ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
Study Methods
This study evaluated the Indigenous Community Companion Animal Health Program (ICCAHP), a dog population management (DPM) intervention conducted by RSPCA NSW between 2016 and 2019 in Aboriginal communities across New South Wales. Communities were selected based on high dog ownership rates, socioeconomic disadvantage, and identified need. The program provided free veterinary services — including desexing, vaccination, microchipping, and treatment — to eligible residents. Education sessions on dog care and safety were also delivered in schools.
The intervention was tailored to each community and often included the setup of temporary veterinary field hospitals in remote areas. Local councils were encouraged to participate to help build community trust and provide support services like free registration and microchipping.
To assess the program’s impact, researchers used three types of data:
- ICCAHP participation data (e.g., dog demographics, sterilisation, microchipping, repeat visits),
- Secondary data from local government sources (e.g., dog attack reports, shelter intakes, euthanasia, and reclamation rates, standardized per capita), and
- Qualitative interviews with ICCAHP participants about their experiences and perceived changes in their dogs.
Study Results
Between 2016 and 2019, the ICCAHP treated 1,633 dogs from 916 households across 13 Aboriginal communities in New South Wales. Most dogs were young crossbreeds, with a balanced male-to-female ratio. Female dogs were more likely to be sterilised.
Participation Data Collected From Program
The proportion of dogs already microchipped increased significantly from 27% to 46% over the course of the program, particularly in communities with sustained ICCAHP engagement. Similarly, the percentage of already-sterilised dogs rose from 14% to 23% overall, and from 23% to 37% when only adult dogs were considered. Uptake of sterilisation was highest in the first year of the ICCAHP in each community, declining in subsequent years. Repeat participation increased over time, with 31% of dogs in Community 7 being return visitors by the fourth year.
Qualitative Feedback from Participants
Interviews with 85 participants showed strong support for the program—87% shared positive feedback, emphasizing the program’s accessibility, no-cost services, and helpful staff. Many felt the program addressed a critical need, particularly where transport and vet access were limited. Some participants highlighted community-wide benefits like fewer roaming and nuisance dogs.
Few negatives were reported; some mentioned a lack of awareness due to poor promotion. Suggestions for improvement included more frequent services and expanded educational outreach, especially in schools. Of those who had dogs treated in previous years, 28% noticed improvements such as better health, reduced roaming, and quieter behavior.
Secondary Data From Other Sources
Across the state, dog attack rates and shelter statistics remained relatively stable between 2012 and 2019. However, in local areas with three or more years of ICCAHP participation, dog attacks and euthanasia rates significantly decreased.
Reductions in dog attacks are likely due to fewer roaming dogs and more sterilised dogs, with sterilisation linked to smaller roaming ranges and fewer health issues. While sterilisation of individual dogs has been associated with increased aggression in some studies, overall, sterilised dogs are less implicated in attacks and enjoy better health and longevity.
Euthanasia rates also plummeted—by 98% in Area 2, 79% in Area 1, and 65% in Area 8. This is sometimes due to fewer dogs entering pounds, and in others due to more dogs being rehomed, with rehoming rates rising to 80% in some areas.
Shelter intake did not change significantly overall, although some communities saw substantial reductions. However, the researchers cautioned that these trends cannot be directly attributed to the ICCAHP.
Designing Performance Benchmarks
Based on the data collected, the authors propose three performance benchmarks for DPM success:
- 100 dogs per 1000 population presented to the program,
- 50 dogs per 1000 population sterilised,
- ≥50% sterilisation uptake.
In addition, the authors recommend conducting a dog census prior to interventions to gather baseline data on population size, reproduction, welfare, and to track changes over time—ideally every five years if more frequent surveys aren’t feasible.
Conclusion
This study demonstrates that routine, low-cost data collection can effectively monitor and evaluate Dog Population Management (DPM) interventions like the ICCAHP, which was associated with significant reductions in dog attacks and council pound euthanasia rates. These improvements suggest enhanced community safety, better animal welfare, and stronger community engagement.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Street Dogs > Dog Population Management > Monitoring & Evaluation
Year of Publication:
2020
External Link:
Ma GC, Withers A-M, Spencer J, Norris JM, Ward MP. Evaluation of a Dog Population Management Intervention: Measuring Indicators of Impact. Animals. 2020; 10(6):1061. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061061