Three Things to Know
Researchers aimed to determine if communities with varying socioeconomic and social vulnerability levels exhibit distinct intake and adoption patterns. The goal was to identify strategies for shelters to better serve their communities.
The study found that intake levels were significantly higher in areas with the highest social vulnerability. This effect was particularly pronounced for stray and seized/confiscated animals, emphasizing the need for further examination of spay/neuter programs and animal control policies in these areas.
The study revealed that adoption rates were equally high in both low and high social vulnerability areas. This suggests that with appropriate policies and support, individuals from high-vulnerability areas are willing to adopt animals from shelters.
The Full Picture
Animal shelters in the U.S. strive to increase the number of animals leaving their care alive by examining the reasons behind animal surrender and adoption. Previous research has shown that socioeconomic factors significantly impact both relinquishment and adoption. Financial difficulties, unstable housing, and limited access to resources often lead to higher surrender rates.
Similarly, adopters’ socioeconomic and demographic characteristics influence adoption patterns. Individuals with higher education levels were found more likely to adopt from shelters. However, this trend may be influenced by systemic biases within the shelter system, where implicit racial biases can affect shelter practices and create barriers to equitable treatment for both animals and people.
A 2021 Canadian study revealed significant differences in surrender and adoption patterns across various dimensions, including economic dependency and situational vulnerability. In this study, titled “Examining the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Animal Shelter Intakes and Outcomes: Patterns and Implications,” researchers aim to assist American shelters in developing programs that better serve their communities by identifying trends in animal surrender and adoption linked to social vulnerability. By understanding these patterns, shelters can address biases, promote equity, and allocate resources effectively to improve outcomes for both animals and their human companions.
Study Methods
Researchers collected data from seven diverse animal shelters across the United States, including Missouri, South Carolina, California, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, and New York. These shelters, part of the Human Animal Support Services (HASS) project, represent a mix of municipal and non-profit organizations serving both urban and rural communities. Annual intake at these shelters ranges from 2,000 to 10,000 animals.
Two datasets were created:
- Adoption Dataset: This dataset included 42,291 animals with both intake and adoption addresses successfully geocoded. It was used to analyze the movement of adopted animals between different levels of social vulnerability.
- Intake Dataset: This dataset included 85,515 animals (both adopted and non-adopted) with geocoded intake addresses. Non-adoption outcomes included return to owner, transfer to another facility, and euthanasia.
Researchers utilized the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which assesses community vulnerability across the country. The country was divided into five quintiles, with each quintile representing 20% of the population. Quintile 1 represents the least vulnerable areas, while Quintile 5 represents the most vulnerable.
By using geolocation information, researchers aimed to understand the social vulnerability of the areas where intake and adoption events occurred.
Study Results
Researchers compiled a comprehensive list of all communities with at least one intake or adoption event. They found that 22.5% of these communities were classified as the least vulnerable (Quintile 1) according to the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI). Conversely, 21.5% were classified as the most vulnerable (Quintile 5). This indicates that the seven selected shelters served communities equally across the entire spectrum of social vulnerability.
However, a deeper analysis of intake and outcome data revealed additional details.
Intakes
The analysis revealed a clear trend: areas with higher social vulnerability had significantly higher intake rates, even after accounting for the number of households. This pattern was consistent across all studied shelters, although the degree of disparity varied. For instance, while there were 9 intakes per 1000 households in the least vulnerable areas (Quintile 1), this number surged to 61 intakes per 1000 households in the most vulnerable areas (Quintile 5).
This disparity was primarily driven by stray and seized/confiscated animals, which accounted for over 60% and 13% of total intakes, respectively. These findings suggest that targeted programs to reduce stray intakes from highly vulnerable areas could significantly impact overall shelter intake numbers. In particular, the high number of stray kittens entering shelters highlights the importance of community cat programs like TNVR.
Owner-surrendered animals showed a less pronounced disparity between intake and adoption SVI levels. While they were more likely to originate from higher-vulnerability areas, the effect was less significant compared to stray and seized animals.
Interestingly, evidence suggests that many owned animals in low-income areas are rehomed informally, such as through friends or family, rather than being surrendered to shelters. This trend decreases as household income increases, where shelter surrenders become more common. This implies that while supporting low-income pet owners is crucial, evaluating the effectiveness of community safety net programs should not solely rely on reduced surrender rates.
Furthermore, considering the likely small population of truly unowned, free-roaming animals, many “stray” animals may have had previous care. This suggests that programs assisting struggling pet owners could indirectly impact stray intake numbers, providing a broader approach to reducing overall shelter intakes.
Owner Surrender
The analysis revealed significant differences in surrender reasons based on social vulnerability (SVI). Animals from high-SVI areas were more likely to be surrendered due to housing restrictions, financial constraints, and medical needs. This suggests that increasing pet-friendly housing and providing financial and medical support could significantly reduce surrenders in these areas.
In contrast, behavior issues and owner preferences were more prominent reasons for surrenders in low-SVI areas. This indicates a need for behavior modification resources in these communities.
It’s important to note that these findings don’t imply less responsible pet ownership in high-SVI areas. Instead, they highlight the systemic challenges faced by these communities, including racial and ethnic disparities in animal control and welfare.
The analysis also showed that younger animals, especially kittens and puppies, were more likely to originate from high-SVI areas. This underscores the need for targeted spay/neuter programs in these areas to reduce the intake of young animals.
Outcomes
The analysis of animal outcomes revealed consistent patterns across different SVI levels. Animals from higher-SVI areas were not euthanized at higher rates than those from lower-SVI areas, suggesting that medical and behavioral challenges were not more prevalent in these communities. This is notable given the known challenges faced by individuals in high-SVI areas in accessing veterinary care. However, it’s important to consider that overall euthanasia rates from the selected shelters were low, and the data doesn’t account for the time and resources required for medical or behavioral interventions.
Regarding adoptions, the distribution was relatively equitable across SVI levels. There were 11 adoptions per 1,000 households in the least vulnerable quintile and 14 in the most vulnerable. This challenges the assumption that individuals in higher-SVI areas are less likely to adopt from shelters.
This trend contrasts with previous research suggesting that lower-income individuals are more likely to acquire pets informally. The discrepancy may be due to differences in sample populations, higher rehoming rates in high-SVI areas, or effective community safety net programs and progressive adoption practices employed by the studied shelters.
Conclusion
Animal shelters continue to face significant challenges in balancing community needs, reducing intake numbers, and increasing adoption rates. This study sheds light on the complex relationship between animal shelter operations and social vulnerability.
A disproportionate number of animals, particularly strays and seized animals, originate from highly vulnerable communities. This emphasizes the need for targeted interventions, such as expanded spay/neuter programs and TNVR initiatives, to reduce shelter intake.
Surprisingly, adoption patterns appear relatively equitable across different levels of social vulnerability. This suggests that the studied shelters effectively engage individuals from diverse backgrounds in the adoption process.
Overall, this study underscores the importance of addressing systemic factors that contribute to animal homelessness and highlights the potential of targeted interventions to improve outcomes for both animals and their communities.
Miscellaneous
Data From Study:
Shelter Dogs > Optimizing Shelter Operations > Reducing Shelter Intake
Year of Publication:
2024
External Link:
Neal SM, Kremer T. Examining the Relationship Between Social Vulnerability and Animal Shelter Intakes and Outcomes: Patterns and Implications. Animals. 2024; 14(22):3166. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14223166