Three Things to Know
To approve adoptions, shelters and rehoming organizations conduct questionnaires, interviews, and home visits. Researchers aimed to comprehensively assess the attributes used to disqualify applicants and determine whether these attributes are supported by scientific evidence.
Researchers only found empirical evidence supporting increased risks of dog bites for children and increased relinquishment risks for younger adopters, those with lower financial means, apartment dwellers, and owners who keep dogs outdoors. However, the impact of factors like education and garden status on adoption outcomes remains unsubstantiated by research.
There’s a growing trend towards conversation-based approaches to screening, aiming to find the best match between adopters and dogs rather than relying on rigid policies or application-based barriers. By adopting this approach, organizations can eliminate unnecessary barriers that may be discriminatory or lack scientific support.
The Full Picture
While many organizations evaluate dogs prior to adoption, research indicates that these assessments often lack reliability and validity, and may not accurately predict successful placements. An alternative approach focuses on identifying risk factors for dog relinquishment, dog-related injuries, and factors impacting a dog’s overall well-being. By utilizing standardized questionnaires or pre-adoption interviews, dog rehoming organizations, such as shelters, can assess both dog and adopter characteristics to develop policies that minimize the likelihood of “high-risk” adoptions.
This study, titled “Can This Dog Be Rehomed to You? A Qualitative Analysis and Assessment of the Scientific Quality of the Potential Adopter Screening Policies and Procedures of Rehoming Organisations,” aims to qualitatively analyze these screening policies. The study seeks to understand current practices employed by shelters, assess their scientific basis, and identify other potential factors influencing the screening process.
Key Questions
The study analyzed adopter screening practices among UK dog rehoming organizations by addressing four main research questions:
- What are the “most important” characteristics: criterias most highly valued by organizations.
- What are the “disqualifying” criteria: characteristics that would prevent a potential adopter from being eligible for adopting a dog.
- What scientific evidence is there to support assessing the most important characteristics: Assessed the scientific validity of screening criteria by reviewing research on factors affecting relinquishment, dog well-being, and human safety.
- How are adopter screening assessments implemented: Examined the practical implementation of screening processes, including standardization and the weighting of different factors.
Study Methods
This study investigated the screening practices of UK dog rehoming organizations, primarily from the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes (ADCH) directory. Data was collected between August 2012 and March 2013 through a survey that inquired about various screening methods, including:
- Standardized questionnaires
- Interview processes and question consistency
- Criteria and scoring for factors like time away from home and housing type
- Meeting household members
- Home visits and specific adoption criteria.
Study Results
Of the 82 rehoming organizations surveyed, home visits were the most commonly used screening method, employed by 81 (99%) organizations. Self-administered questionnaires were used by 67 (82%) organizations. Interviews were conducted by 69 (84%) organizations, but only 30 (43%) provided insights into the factors assessed during these discussions.
1. What are the “most important” characteristics?
Researchers identified ten key themes in the “most important” information collected by shelters: accommodation, awareness of needs, demographics, dog information, dog reaction, education, expectations, experience, family, and work/lifestyle. In addition, 36 sub-themes emerged under the ten key themes.
2. What are the “disqualifying” criteria?
Of the 82 organizations surveyed, 40 (48.78%) used a scoring system with specific disqualifying criteria for potential adopters. However, 35 (42.68%) did not employ such criteria, and 7 (8.54%) did not disclose their scoring approach.
The analysis revealed that 30 of the 36 sub-theme characteristics could potentially disqualify an individual from adopting a dog. Some of these characteristics, such as garden access and time spent alone, were required by multiple organizations. This suggests a lack of consistency among organizations in their screening practices and criteria.
3. What scientific evidence is there to support assessing the most important characteristics?
The researchers reviewed academic literature to identify scientific evidence supporting the “most important” and “disqualifying” characteristics used in adopter screening. They found that only eight of these characteristics were backed by scientific research.
Studies have shown that the presence and age of young children are significant factors in dog bite incidents. Younger children, especially those under five, are at a higher risk of being bitten. However, it’s important to note that the relationship between age and bite risk is complex. While age is a factor, the level of supervision and interaction between the child and the dog may also play a crucial role.
The remaining four characteristics were associated with increased relinquishment risk:
- Financial Means: Lower-income households and those on public assistance were more likely to relinquish pets due to financial constraints.
- Accommodation Type: Apartment dwellers faced higher relinquishment risks, potentially due to space limitations.
- Adopter Age: Younger adopters, especially those under 25, were more likely to rehome dogs unsuccessfully.
- Housing Preferences: Owners who kept dogs outdoors full-time had higher relinquishment rates, suggesting a preference for indoor-only housing.
Even though many organizations emphasize specific characteristics in potential adopters, a significant portion of the “most important” and “disqualifying” criteria lacks empirical backing. This includes commonly considered factors, such as garden presence, dog time alone, and specific educational qualifications. More research is needed to determine their true significance and to ensure that screening practices are evidence-based. Additionally, the potential for bias in screening criteria and the role of social justice in adoption processes warrant further investigation.
In addition, rehoming organizations often emphasize characteristics such as “knowledge of breed needs,” “force-free training,” and “good pet history,” but there’s a notable lack of scientific evidence supporting their direct impact on adoption success. Despite the absence of strong scientific backing for some of these “most important” characteristics, organizations may prioritize them based on practical experience and anecdotal observations. This suggests a need for further research to explore the relationship between these factors and positive adoption outcomes.
On the other hand, research suggests that many relinquishments stem from a lack of owner knowledge about dog care and behavior, as well as impulsive decisions that lead to unrealistic expectations of dog ownership. Thus, adoption screenings could benefit from a stronger focus on potential adopters’ understanding of dog care and behavior, as well as their expectations regarding the time and resources involved.
4. How are adopter screening assessments implemented?
The study found that rehoming organizations employ a variety of approaches to assess potential adopters. Almost half of the organizations use a strict pass/fail system with specific criteria that must be met to pass, while others take a more holistic approach, evaluating the overall suitability of the adopter for a particular dog.
Home visits, interviews, and self-administered questionnaires are common screening methods. While 95% of self-administered questionnaires have a standardized format, interviews and home visits can vary in structure and personnel. Some organizations utilize trained home checkers, while others rely on volunteers.
This raises concerns regarding the practical application of screening assessments, particularly issues arising from subjectivity and a lack of standardization. Home visits and interviews, which often vary in structure and are conducted by different individuals, can introduce inconsistency in the evaluation process. Even among organizations with standardized home visits, subjective judgments regarding the adopter’s suitability remain prevalent. The division of labor in the screening process, with different individuals handling separate parts, further increases the risk of inconsistent assessment. To improve the reliability of adoption decisions, it is crucial to address these inconsistencies and develop more standardized screening procedures.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that rehoming organizations invest significant resources in screening potential adopters, but many of the factors considered lack strong scientific evidence. While some characteristics, such as the presence of young children and financial constraints, have been linked to increased risks of dog bites and relinquishment, the evidence for others, such as garden size or specific educational qualifications, is limited.
Furthermore, the quality and consistency of screening processes are often questionable. The reliance on subjective judgments and inconsistent application of criteria can lead to unreliable decisions. Given these limitations, it may be beneficial for organizations to reconsider their approach to screening.
Rather than focusing on rigid criteria, they could prioritize a more flexible and supportive approach, emphasizing education and support for potential adopters. Such an approach, advocated by organizations like the Humane Society of the United States, prioritizes open dialogue between the potential adopter and a representative to find the best match for both. This could involve providing information on responsible dog ownership, offering training and behavioral advice, and providing ongoing support after adoption. By shifting the focus towards education and support, organizations can help ensure that dogs are placed in appropriate homes and that owners are equipped to provide them with a good quality of life.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Increasing Rehoming Success > Adopter Screening > Overview of Shelter Practices
Year of Publication:
2020
External Link:
Griffin KE, John E, Pike T and Mills DS (2020) Can This Dog Be Rehomed to You? A Qualitative Analysis and Assessment of the Scientific Quality of the Potential Adopter Screening Policies and Procedures of Rehoming Organisations. Front. Vet. Sci. 7:617525. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2020.617525
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.617525