Three Things to Know
Although around 40% of Americans adopt animals from shelters, many others purchase them or receive them from friends and family. Researchers sought to determine if income influences differences in adoption and relinquishment sources.
The study revealed that high-income individuals (>$150k) are more likely to interact with the shelter system, both adopting and relinquishing pets. Conversely, low-income individuals primarily rely on friends and family for both acquiring and rehoming dogs.
Shelters can better serve low-income individuals by acknowledging and supporting their existing informal networks. This involves providing free or low-cost veterinary services, training, and pet food, helping dogs remain in familiar environments rather than entering the shelter system.
For Dog Welfare Practitioners
For shelter professionals: if informal networks for acquiring and relinquishing pets exist in your community, consider tapping into these resources by encouraging owners to explore rehoming options within their networks before turning to the shelter.
To effectively engage with your community, it’s crucial to understand its true needs. Beyond traditional shelter services like adoptions and relinquishment, consider expanding your offerings. Building them requires new capabilities, such as partnering with veterinarians for affordable services and collaborating with pet food vendors. Additionally, working with other local nonprofit organizations can amplify your impact and address a wider range of needs.
The Full Picture
In the U.S., most people acquire dogs from shelters, rescue groups, friends, or breeders. When rehoming a dog, friends and family are the most common choices, followed by shelters.
Previous research has identified factors influencing dog acquisition, including socioeconomic status, breed preference, and personal values. Gender also plays a role, with women more likely to adopt from shelters. However, most studies have focused solely on acquisition or relinquishment, overlooking the broader picture and the potential impact of social networks.
The study, “Where Do They Come From and Where Do They Go? Socioeconomic Patterns in Dog Acquisition and Rehoming,” addresses these gaps by analyzing both acquisition and disposition of dogs through a large-scale survey, emphasizing the role of social networks in these processes.
Study Methods
The study, conducted in seven diverse U.S. communities participating in the Humane Animal Support Services (HASS) project, involved a web-based survey from June to July 2021. To gather data on pet acquisition and disposition without initial bias, the survey did not explicitly disclose its focus on animal ownership. Participants provided information on pet origins, reasons for leaving the household, and their subsequent destinations.
Study Results
A total of 5809 dogs and 4010 dogs were analyzed for acquisition and disposition, respectively.
Acquisition
Dog acquisition methods varied significantly by income group. Across all groups, acquiring dogs from friends or family decreased with increasing income, dropping from 43% in the lowest-income group (<USD 15k) to 19% in the highest-income group (>USD 150k). Conversely, purchasing dogs rose from 18% to 37%, and adopting from shelters or rescue organizations increased from 15% to 32% with rising income.
These patterns were consistent across study communities, with minor regional variations. In all locations, the share of dogs acquired from friends or family decreased with income, while purchasing and adoption shares increased, particularly for purchasing. Acquisition through found/rescued dogs or previous pets remained stable across income groups.
This trend likely reflects a reliance on informal networks due to resource constraints among lower-income individuals.
Disposition
The ways dogs left households showed less variation across income groups compared to acquisition methods. For dogs given away, income groups displayed more distinct patterns regarding destinations. Lower-income respondents (<USD 15k) primarily gave dogs to friends or relatives (80%), with only 15% surrendering them to shelters. In contrast, higher-income groups (>USD 150k) gave 57% of dogs to friends or relatives and surrendered 40% to shelters.
Interestingly, only 13% of dogs owned by lower-income respondents (<USD 15k) were put to sleep, compared to 24% of the high-income group (>USD 150k). This discrepancy likely reflects the financial barriers faced by lower-income individuals when accessing euthanasia services.
Implications for Shelters
The study suggests that shelters often serve higher-income individuals, who have more resources, more effectively. On the other hand, lower-income groups receive fewer benefits from the shelter system and rely on community-based networks. To address this disparity, shelters could consider the following strategies:
- Target High-Resource Groups: Focus adoption campaigns on individuals who might otherwise purchase from breeders or pet stores.
- Increase Accessibility: Reduce barriers for lower-income adopters, such as lowering fees or simplifying adoption processes.
- Support Informal Networks: Provide resources such as healthcare, behavioral training, and spay/neuter services to help pets remain within their communities, reducing the need for shelter intake.
It’s essential to recognize that while lowering adoption fees may attract more lower-income individuals, it could also lead to a shift from informal network-based pet sharing to shelter adoption. This could potentially increase the number of dogs entering the shelter system. Instead of solely focusing on adoption metrics, shelters may consider supporting pet owners within these informal networks with services like healthcare, behavioral training, and spay/neuter to help keep pets in their original homes.
Conclusion
This study illuminates the significant impact of income on dog acquisition and relinquishment in seven diverse U.S. communities. Key findings indicate that lower-income individuals heavily rely on informal social networks, such as friends and family, for acquiring and rehoming dogs, operating largely outside the formal sheltering system. In contrast, higher-income individuals are more likely to engage with shelters for both adoption and rehoming. Shelters may benefit from shifting their focus from solely providing adoptions to supporting informal networks built by lower-income groups and helping animals maintain connections to familiar environments.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Shelter Dogs > Improving Rehoming Success > Enlarging Adoption Pipeline
Year of Publication:
2024
External Link:
Kremer T, Neal SM. Where Do They Come From and Where Do They Go? Socioeconomic Patterns in Dog Acquisition and Rehoming. Animals. 2024; 14(9):1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14091378