Three Things to Know
Capacity for Care (C4C) is a philosophy and methodology for maintaining manageable animal populations within facilities. This research explores its implementation from the perspective of shelter staff, six out of seven of whom experienced their shelters both before and after C4C.
Shelter staff clearly identified significant animal welfare benefits under C4C, including a reduction in disease, shorter lengths of stay for animals, and increased diversion of animals away from the shelter when owners were offered alternatives. They also reported feeling their workload was more manageable.
However, implementation faced challenges. Some shelters were constrained by contracts and bylaws, which hindered their ability to manage stray intakes effectively and run Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs. Additionally, shifting the mindset of both internal staff and the public proved difficult, underscoring the need for consistent education and communication about the reasons for and benefits of C4C.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
Interviewees rightly highlighted the need for greater public responsibility in pet management, including rehoming. This philosophical shift can be challenging for both the public and long-term staff to fully grasp. Transparency, consistent communication, and ongoing education are crucial for resetting expectations and ensuring this continuous journey is successful.
The Full Picture
Capacity for Care (C4C) is a shelter population management strategy aimed at keeping animal intake within a facility’s capacity to improve animal welfare. While previous studies have shown that C4C can reduce euthanasia rates, length of stay (LOS), and intake numbers — especially for adult cats — research has largely focused on these indirect indicators of welfare.
However, little research has explored the direct perspectives of staff or clients involved in C4C. This study, titled “Shelter Worker’s Experiences and Perceptions of Capacity for Care (C4C)”, aims to fill that gap by examining shelter staff experiences with managed intake, their views on staff buy-in, and their perceptions of community members’ reactions during the relinquishment process.
Study Methods
This study involved staff from Canadian humane societies practicing elements of Capacity for Care (C4C). Participants involved in cat intake (e.g., intake coordinators, animal care staff) were recruited via email. A survey was conducted including nine questions assessing which C4C elements were used and perceptions of its benefits. In addition, interviews explored staff experiences with C4C, perceptions of how it is viewed by colleagues and the community, and the benefits and challenges of managed intake.
Study Results
Seven participants from five Canadian shelters using Capacity for Care (C4C) practices were surveyed and interviewed. Six of the seven participants had been employed before C4C implementation and had learned about the program through various sources such as experts, online training, or staff discussions. All shelters used surrender appointments, and many also used waitlists, stray cat intake management, TNR, working cat programs, and housing enhancements like portalized cages and hiding spaces.
Participants rated the difficulty of C4C implementation moderately (median score of 5/10). Key challenges included communication during changes, gaining staff support, and public resistance. Despite these challenges, all participants believed C4C had positive effects on the shelter, staff, and cats, with most also viewing it as beneficial to the community.
Interview analysis revealed that participants found that C4C significantly improved both cat and staff wellbeing, shifted responsibility to pet owners in a positive way, and increased awareness of shelter outcomes — though it also brought challenges related to public understanding, staff adjustment, and concerns about untracked outcomes.
A shift in sheltering philosophy
C4C reduced cat stress and illness (e.g., fewer upper respiratory infections) and shortened length of stay (LOS). All participants described increases in live outcomes and adoption, better housing and intake / adoption processes, and efficient animal flow. The use of waitlists also allowed time for owners to explore alternatives, which often prevented unnecessary intake. Many scheduled relinquishments were never completed because owners found other solutions or chose to keep their cats.
Participants also discussed how managed intake influenced interactions with the public. Many cat owners were distressed about relinquishing their pets and worried about euthanasia, but appreciated being informed about alternatives. Staff used managed intake as a valuable opportunity to educate owners on rehoming options and behavioral solutions, and to reinforce that limited intake capacity helps prevent unnecessary euthanasia.
Internally, many felt that C4C improved their workplace environment by creating more manageable workloads and enhancing the quality of care for cats. Participants also noted that more structured intake improved shelter organization and planning, which further benefited both staff and animals.
However, some staff believed owners often saw the shelter as a last resort, and C4C can cause desperation or distress. Concerns were also raised that in some cases, deferring intake could lead to abandonment or misreporting cats as strays.
Sources of Challenges with Managed Intake
Implementing managed intake as part of the Capacity for Care (C4C) model brought several challenges, categorized into three main areas:
Contractual and legal barriers: Two shelters reported that municipal contracts requiring them to accept all stray cats made it difficult to control intake, while one shelter cited local bylaws prohibiting free-roaming cats, which conflicted with trap-neuter-return (TNR) efforts.
Community resistance and communication challenges arose when cat owners faced appointment or waitlist requirements for relinquishment, clashing with expectations for immediate intake. To address this, participants recommended sustained public education and communication. Strategies included news releases, social media, and explaining that intake limits were essential to prevent euthanasia. Educating owners on behavioral solutions and alternatives during waitlist periods also proved beneficial.
Internal Shelter Challenges: Staff struggled with deferring intake despite visible empty cages, creating tension and moral discomfort. In addition, reaching internal consensus on C4C protocols was difficult for some teams, especially among longer-tenured staff. Managing unexpected disruptions in the animal flow (e.g., adoptions falling through) also posed operational difficulties.
Despite these challenges, participants saw them as opportunities for staff education and program reflection. All agreed that ongoing education—for both staff and the public—was essential for successfully implementing and sustaining C4C.
Conclusion
This study was the first to explore how shelter staff perceive managed intake of cats as part of the Capacity for Care (C4C) framework. Participants reported that C4C led to clear improvements in animal welfare, including reduced stress, illness, and length of stay (LOS) for cats. These improvements, in turn, contributed to reduced stress for staff, who felt more empowered to provide high-quality care. However, the challenges surrounding managed intake highlighted the importance of clear communication, community education, internal alignment, and the need to reconcile external obligations with shelter capacity limits.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
–
Year of Publication:
2023
External Link:
Hobson S, Bateman S, Coe JB, Oblak ML. Shelter Worker’s Experiences and Perceptions of Capacity for Care (C4C). J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2023;26(1):39-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888705.2021.1910033