no kill equation

Losing Prejudices Reunites Families

Posted by

0

Reuniting Lost Pets With Their Families Represents a Huge Opportunity to Save Lives and Reduce Costs

Owners reclaiming their pets saves lives. Pets returned to owners do not get killed at shelters. Additionally, returning dogs to their owners boosts save rates since dogs who might fail shelter behavioral tests could safely live with the family these dogs already trust. Similarly, cats who might be killed for being incorrectly classified as feral could leave the shelter alive with their family. Thus, returning stray pets to their owners increases life saving.

Owners reclaiming their pets, particularly dogs, saves shelters significant costs. 80% of reclaimed stray dogs at Kansas City’s open admission no kill shelter occur within 5 days of arriving at the shelter. Similarly, 80% of lost dogs in California shelters reunite with their families within 4 days of entering the shelter. While animals getting adopted/transferred to rescue or killed may impact these quick turnaround times (i.e. the dog or cat may not get reclaimed by owner after a long time since they are out of the shelter), most shelters cannot hold animals for extended periods of time. As a result, shelters can most quickly get stray animals, which must be held 7 days in New Jersey for owner reclaim, out of shelters alive by finding the pets owners. Finding stray pets owners therefore saves significant costs associated with housing, adopting, or killing dogs or cats.

Many shelters return few lost pets to their owners. Currently, many of New Jersey’s large urban shelters only return approximately 20%-30% of stray dogs and around 2% of stray cats to owners. Nationally, owner reclaim rates are also similar. While some cats may be feral and have no owner, the percentage of stray owned cats returned to owners likely is still very low. Given about 2/3 and 80% of our dogs and cats are strays, respectively, at some of New Jersey’s large urban shelters, boosting owner reclaim rates will significantly increase life saving and reduce shelter costs.

Licensing is a Seductive Mirage

Licensing is often seen as the go to solution for owners to find their lost pets. Certainly, animal shelters will return licensed dogs wearing their tags to their owners. In fact, shelters have to do little work when a dog is licensed. Not surprisingly, shelters have strongly advocated pet licensing for a long time.

While I’m not aware of precise dog licensing rates for New Jersey municipalities, logic suggests dog licensing and microchipping rates should be higher in wealthier areas. For example, St. Huberts – Madison served the well to do towns of Bernardsville, Chatham Boro, and East Hanover in 2012 and returned virtually all stray dogs and nearly 80% of stray cats to their owners (all three towns require cat licenses). Similarly, Tyco Animal Control, which serves 22 wealthy North Jersey towns returned 88% of all stray dogs (Tyco Animal Control typically does not accept regular owner surrenders) to their owners in 2012. Despite killing more dogs than they adopted out, Tyco Animal Control still saved 96% of its impounded dogs in 2012 by virtue of its high return to owner rate. Thus, licensing and microchipping are wildly successful in saving lives and reducing shelter costs in wealthy areas.

Calgary’s successful licensing model has long been advocated to increase return to owner and live release rates. Licensing is a key component of Calgary’s “Responsible Pet Ownership” initiative which challenges the community to license their pets, spay/neuter, and be good pet owners in general. Calgary’s licensing program uses various incentives, such as discounts at retail stores, and no fee promotions for first time pet licenses. Calgary also imposes a steep $250 fine on owners of unlicensed pets. Like the wealthy communities in North Jersey above, Calgary has high licensing compliance rates and returned 84% and 47% of stray dogs and cats to their owners in 2012. As a result of these high reclaim rates, Calgary saved 95% and 80% of stray dogs and cats during this period. Unfortunately, we do not know Calgary’s total save rate since owner surrenders go to Calgary Humane Society, which kills for space, and does not report its live release rate. Additionally, licensing revenues fully fund animal control and sheltering for Calgary’s stray pets. As a result of Calgary Animal Services’ success, other cities are looking to emulate the Calgary model.

Calgary significant differs socioeconomically from poor areas of the United States with high kill rates. Calgary has had the highest per capita income of major Canadian cities going back to at least 1980. Additionally, the economy grew and diversified significantly since the 1980s. Calgary’s population also is among the most educated of all Canadian cities and over 2/3 of people over 25 have attended college. Additionally, 73% of Calgary household owned homes compared to only 23 percent in Newark, New Jersey. Calgary had a very high dog reclaim rate of around 45% in 1985 before the city aggressively pursued dog licensing efforts. In fact, the pace of dog reclaim rate increases was virtually indistinguishable from the mid-late 1980s (before aggressive dog licensing efforts began) to periods after. Also, dog reclaim rates just about reached today’s levels by the mid 1990s. The city’s cat reclaim rates remained flat from before cat licensing began in 2006 until now. Ironically, Bill Bruce, the man largely credited with the success of Calgary, joined the Calgary’s Animal Services in 2000 after the high dog and cat reclaim rates were achieved. Thus, high licensing rates in Calgary like the wealthy communities served by St. Huberts and Tyco Animal Control are more reflective of socioeconomic status than policy choices.

The Calgary licensing model should not be followed by large United States cities with high poverty rates. Poor people have an extremely difficult time caring for their pets and insisting they pay licensing fees will not help them nor will they likely comply. Simply put, asking poor pet owners in low income cities to solely fund animal control and sheltering is unfair and not likely to succeed. If poor pet owners must solely fund animal control and sheltering, governments should use a pet food/supplies tax to allow these pet owners to pay in small bits throughout the year instead of all in one shot. Also, some minority groups poor experiences with animal control in the past may lead to low licensing compliance rates as well. Additionally, like most animal control mandates strict enforcement of licensing may lead to more impounds and shelter killing. Finally, large resources devoted to an unlikely to succeed licensing endeavor may divert resources from other life saving initiatives.

Providing Outreach and Support in Poor Communities Will Increase Reclaim Rates

Communities can achieve the benefits of licensing by conducting strong outreach efforts. Licensing’s two primary benefits, other than raising funds, are identifying lost dogs and ensuring pets are vaccinated for rabies. Recently, geographic information systems have been used to target areas generating large numbers of shelter impounds. Additionally, groups such as Beyond Breed in Brooklyn, Spay/Neuter Kansas City, and Downtown Dog Rescue in Los Angeles go into these underserved communities and provide much needed support. If we were to step up such efforts and offer free microchips, identity tags, and rabies vaccines, we would achieve what licensing efforts seek. Literally, driving around these communities in a service van and going door to door could go a long way to getting identification on the community’s animals and increasing rabies vaccination rates. I’d suggest even offering free goodies, such as ice cream, to draw people in to start important conversations. Animal welfare groups could engage Petco Foundation and Petsmart Charities and request identity tags since their retail stores offer these tags at relatively affordable prices. Given people in these underserved communities rarely shop at Petco and Petsmart, the stores would not lose any significant revenues from such an endeavor. Thus, building a relationship within the community can start getting lost pets home.

Local governments and animal shelters must break down barriers to reuniting owners and lost pets. Unfortunately, many shelters presume stray animals are mostly “dumped on the streets” by their owners and do not make any real effort to get these animals home. However, Kathy Pobloski, Director of Lost Dogs Wisconsin and writer of Wisconsin Watchdog blog, provides the following reasons why owners fail to reclaim lost pets:

  1. The owner didn’t know the animal was at the shelter
  2. The owner can’t afford to reclaim the pet
  3. The owner has no transportation
  4. The owner has outstanding warrants or is illegal so doesn’t want to go to a government agency
  5. The owner has a language barrier
  6. The owner does not have internet access or the ability to effectively search for their dog

Most of these barriers can be torn down with effective outreach. For example, the same community programs used to tag and microchip dogs can also educate pet owners to immediately go to the local shelter.  Similarly, community outreach can inform pet owners that they can reclaim their pets and not be reported for potentially being an illegal or undocumented resident. Also, shelters can have volunteers distribute fliers widely in areas with high numbers of strays to inform people their lost pets may be at the shelter. Additionally, shelters should have people who speak foreign languages, allow volunteers to transport lost pets back to their owners, and be flexible on redemption fees if the owner cannot afford them. In fact, redemption fees can total hundreds and even thousands of dollars in some cases. Over the long term, shelters as well as animal advocates should lobby local governments to drop redemption fees altogether. Shelters are funded by taxes and people should not pay a ransom fee to return a family member. When a child is lost, we don’t make the parents pay a redemption fee. We shouldn’t do so either with people’s furry kids either. Finally, shelters can make pleas for animal advocates to form lost pet search groups, such as Lost Dogs Wisconsin and Lost Dogs Illinois, which have remarkable track records in reuniting pets to their families.

Animal control officers should make every effort to redeem pets they find in the field. Nevada Humane Society, which has a return to owner rate of nearly 60%, has its animal control officers check for tags and microchips in the field, examines lost pet reports, and asks people in the area if they know the stray animal’s owner.  By finding the owner in the field, the animal never even goes to the shelter reducing sheltering costs and stress to the animal.

The Wisconsin Watchdog blog posted a “how to” guide for shelters to increase their return to owner rates. Tips include immediately posting stray dog photos to shelter web sites and Facebook pages (Lost and Found Pets New Jersey is another great place for shelters in this state). Additionally, Wisconsin Watchdog recommends having specific volunteers check lost pet reports and help owners coming to shelters to find their lost pets. Also, they recommend giving guidance to owners on how to find their lost pet who is not at the shelter. Shelters should read and implement all the recommendations.

Nationally, animal welfare groups should use a single web site for posting and searching for stray pets coming into their facilities. These groups should heavily promote this web site so the general public posts their animals there to facilitate owners finding their lost dogs at shelters. In fact, one such web site already exists. Thus, national animal welfare groups and local shelters should strongly advocate the use of a specific web site by the public and shelters.

Strategically, these specific actions by shelters will boost reclaim rates in the short term. Over the long-term, greater numbers of pets with identity tags and microchips through community outreach efforts should increase reclaim rates to the very high levels seen in wealthy places. At the end of the day you have to work for positive changes and this means engaging and supporting your community. Unfortunately, their are no free lunches unless your shelter serves a wealthy community.

Disrespecting Your Shelter’s Hometown Leads You Down the Wrong Road

Posted by

0

Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s Assistant Executive Director, who is the organization’s number 2 ranking person and representative in many media interviews, posted an insulting joke about Newark’s residents on his personal Facebook page recently. The photo is identical to the following image except “New Jersey” replaces “Ohio “and” “Newark” takes the place of “Michigan.”

Ohio Shadowy place

Additionally, several of Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s employees also commented about how much they liked the photo. Associated Humane Societies – Newark operates a large animal shelter in Newark and receives up to $632,000 in animal control contract fees from the city of Newark.

This behavior demonstrates a clear disrespect for Associated Humane Societies’ community. Telling your shelter’s hometown they live in a “shadowy place” and “you should never go there” is deeply insulting. If you lived in Newark, would you want to support this shelter? Perhaps, this attitude towards the city’s residents along with a past scathing investigation and poor performances in Office of Animal Welfare inspections in 2009 and 2011 led to the popular Cory Booker administration’s displeasure with Associated Humane Societies.

The remark sends the message to people outside of Newark to not visit the shelter since the facility is in a “shadowy place” that “you must never go” to. The “you must never go to Newark” message makes even less sense when you consider  Associated Humane Societies, to the best of my knowledge, does not adopt out dogs at its off-site events (i.e. you have to go back to the shelter in Newark to adopt the animal you meet outside of the shelter). As a result, the Assistant Executive Director of Associated Humane Societies’ Facebook post hurts the cause of his shelter’s animals.

Unfortunately, Associated Humane Societies’ attitude toward its hometown has an even more detrimental effect on shelter policy. In an article last year, the same Assistant Executive Director stated he wanted more stringent spay/neuter laws and backyard breeder bans to reduce Associated Humane Societies unacceptably high kill rates. KC Dog Blog, which is written by Kansas City’s no kill open admission shelter’s Board President, clearly demonstrates how Kansas City’s pit bull mandatory spay/neuter policy increased impounds and kill rates. Additionally, KC Dog Blog also documents most large animal welfare organizations, such as the ASPCA, Best Friends, Humane Society of the United States (via the California Sheltering White Paper), No Kill Advocacy Center and the American Veterinary Medical Association oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws. Such laws increase impounds and shelter killing and also waste limited resources which could be used more productively. The main barrier to spay/neuter is cost for poor folks and mandatory spay/neuter laws with their punitive fines simply exacerbate the problem. Similarly, breeding bans, which sound great, are also ineffective and drain limited resources as evidenced by Long Beach, California’s 30 year breeding ban’s failed efforts at achieving a no kill community.

The “irresponsible public” argument and resulting attitude communicated by Associated Humane Societies represents a huge obstacle to creating a no kill community. While the shelter’s personnel may have negative experiences with the public, those interactions are not representative of the entire population. Newark most likely is more responsible than the average American community. Associated Humane Societies – Newark took in approximately 8 dogs and cats per 1000 residents in its service area during 2012. Unfortunately, we do not know what the city of Newark’s per capita intake rate is since Associated Humane Societies impounds dogs and cats from numerous other communities. However, the nearby urban communities of Elizabeth, Paterson plus surrounding towns and Jersey City – Hoboken took in approximately 7 dogs and cats per 1000 people. Nationally, Maddie’s Fund states the average community impounds 14.5 dogs and cats per 1000 people. Thus, Newark likely impounds around half the number of animals as the average American community on a per capita basis. Therefore, “shadowy” Newark is likely more responsible than many less “shadowy” places.

Associated Humane Societies – Newark’s animals would benefit greatly from a significant change in attitude. While Associated Humane Societies prefers to blame the not so irresponsible public for killing shelter animals, the blame lands squarely with the shelter. Associated Humane Societies – Newark needs to stop fighting successful no kill policies and enthusiastically implement these programs to quickly move animals from the shelter into loving homes. Personally, I’d suggest following KC Pet Project’s model which made Kansas City a no kill community 18 months after taking over the shelter. As recently as 2008, this shelter killed more than 60% of its impounded animals. However, KC Pet Project now saves roughly 90% of its animals despite taking in around twice as many dogs and cats in total and per capita as Associated Humane Societies – Newark.  KC Pet Project accomplished this without Associated Humane Societies’ vast financial resources and with an undersized and outdated primary shelter having only one third of the recommended capacity.

Associated Humane Societies should also implement targeted spay/neuter and pet owner support programs to help struggling pet owners in areas with higher impound rates. For example, the ASPCA’s Operation Pit in New York City and Monmouth County SPCA’s Pittie Project programs offer free spay/neuter, vaccinations and microchips to pit bulls. Spay & Neuter Kansas City provides another great example of not only substantive programs, but a helpful and nonjudgmental attitude towards the people requiring help. This organization literally goes door to door in some of the poorest neighborhoods to help struggling pet owners. As a result of these programs and relationship with the community, Spay & Neuter Kansas City assisted over 15,000 people with spay/neuter surgeries, veterinary services, and pet outreach programs in 2013.

Let’s drop the “shadowy” jokes about people and get onto helping folks and their animals. That is how you save lives!

Jersey Animal Coalition Debacle Reveals Deep Rifts With The Community

Posted by

0

The Office of Animal Welfare’s and South Orange Board of Health’s Jersey Animal Coaltion inspection report and related NJ SPCA investigation into possible animal cruelty unleashed a tremendous reaction from the local community. Maplewood Online has a message board which discusses local news and events. While the posters are anonymous and content cannot be verified, the sheer volume and passion of responses is quite telling in my opinion.  The negative reactions are also consistent with Jersey Animal Coalition’s Google Reviews. Clearly, many people had some very poor experiences with the shelter’s management.

Jersey Animal Coalition’s relationship with the town of Maplewood also has been rocky. Under Jersey Animal Coalition’s lease with South Orange, Jersey Animal Coalition only pays $1 to rent the facility in exchange for taking in all stray “house pets” brought in by South Orange’s and Maplewood’s animal control officers. “House pets” are defined as “cats, dogs and similar domesticated animals normally kept in the home.” Jersey Animal Coalition contends feral cats are not their obligation while Maplewood believes Jersey Animal Coalition must take in feral cats. Maplewood compromised and agreed to not bring in feral cats which couldn’t be safely handled. Under the arrangement, Jersey Animal Coalition agreed to take feral kittens since such kittens could be socialized and eventually adopted. However, in August, 2012, Jersey Animal Coalition changed course and refused to take these kittens in. In that same month, Maplewood instituted a stray cat feeding ban and a very regressive feral cat policy.

Jersey Animal Coalition’s feral cat policy is inconsistent with the no kill equation. Community involvement and trap, neuter release are two key no kill equation programs. While not accepting feral cats is preferable to impounding and killing them, the shelter should passionately fight to implement trap, neuter release (“TNR”) programs. Personally, I am concerned about the fate of feral cats under Jersey Animal Coalition’s policy. For example, do the towns animal control officers take feral cats who are injured, sick or subject to residents complaints to get killed elsewhere?  If TNR programs are illegal, the shelter should use barn cat programs to send feral cats to live outdoors as a substitute to trap, neuter, release. Based on Jersey Animal’s Coalition’s service area’s approximate population of 40,000 people and nearby Montclair and Union animal shelter’s per capita cat intake rates, I estimate Jersey Animal Coalition should take in approximately 140 cats per year. However, Jersey Animal Coalition’s 2012 “Shelter/Pound Annual Report” submitted to the New Jersey Department of Health only reported 40 cats impounded (given the shelter’s lack of impound records I’m not sure how they even came up with this number). If we assume the 100 cat difference between expected and actual impounds are feral cats, then Jersey Animal Coalition should be able to place this small number through a barn cat program. In reality, the number of feral cats needing placement would be smaller since some of those 100 cats would be kittens who could be socialized and adopted. Thus, Jersey Animal Coalition could have solved the feral cat problem if it simply implemented a barn cat program like other successful no kill communities.

Luckily, Maplewood may have had a change of heart. In February, 2014 Maplewood’s Township Committee voted unanimously for its Health Officer to work with a TNR group to develop a course of action. Unfortunately, Jersey Animal Coalition’s management does not appear to have a significant role in this effort. Additionally, South Orange apparently still has a regressive feral cat policy.

Jersey Animal Coalition’s handling of the feral cat issue also demonstrates poor management of the relationship with the municipalities. If Jersey Animal Coalition did not want to impound feral cats, then the organization should have clearly spelled that out in the lease. The towns health departments have a keen interest in managing feral cats. For example, the towns deal with residents complaining about large colonies of intact animals. Jersey Animal Coalition basically said “you are on your own” after signing the lease and accepting approximately $285,000 of funding to help build the shelter along with paying virtually no rent for a 5,400 square foot facility on a sizable property. To add further insult to injury, the shelter transported hundreds of dogs, most of which were out of state puppies, each year into the shelter per their “Shelter/Pound Annual Reports” while refusing to accept many of their own community’s cats.  As a result, the two towns would have every right to hold some ill will towards shelter management.

Most disturbingly Jersey Animal Coalition’s poor performance apparently decreased the community’s and the Maplewood Health Department’s support for no kill shelters. On Maplewood Online, several people pointed to Jersey Animal Coalition’s inspection report as proof no kill open admission shelters do not work.  Similarly,  Maplewood’s Health Department blamed Jersey Animal Coalition’s no kill policy for overcrowding at the shelter. Unfortunately, Jersey Animal Coalition caused confusion on what no kill is by asserting it is a “100% no kill shelter.” No kill simply means no killing and returns euthanasia to its true definition. No kill shelters do euthanize about 1%-10% of impounded animals for severe medical or behavioral reasons.  Apparently, Jersey Animal Coalition is confusing no euthanasia with no killing and a no kill shelter with a sanctuary. Proper sanctuaries provide refuge for unadoptable animals and offer large outdoor areas for the animals to enjoy. On the other hand, Jersey Animal Coalition’s long term residents spend years living in inadequate sized kennels with no documentation showing legally mandated exercise is provided. Thus, the community has every right to think no kill shelters are a bad thing if Jersey Animal Coalition is the only no kill shelter they know.

Jersey Animal Coalition’s debacle provides an important lesson to no kill advocates. We no longer can stand by quietly when shelters describing themselves as no kill fail to deliver. In my opinion, Jersey Animal Coalition did not properly implement all 11 no kill equation programs. No kill advocates need to develop some sort of certification program, such as peer review in the accounting and legal professions. Currently, the Out the Front Door Blog is the closest thing we have to this. Luckily, Jersey Animal Coalition never made it to the listing of no kill communities. Also, no kill advocates must push for frequent high quality inspections, such as those done by New Jersey’s Office of Animal Welfare. Unfortunately, shelters need more regulation and even self-described no kill shelters cannot always be trusted to do the right thing.

No Kill Shelters – Much More Than Not Killing

Posted by

0

No Kill Is Very Possible

No kill shelters are often misunderstood by the general public. I initially believed no kill shelters were sanctuaries where animals rarely were adopted and lived out their natural lives. Thoughts of biting dogs and bizarre people who worked with them filled my mind. As I became more familiar with animal welfare, I believed all no kill shelters were highly selective in the animals they took in. After all, these shelters must be limited admission to not kill since pet overpopulation is gospel in animal welfare circles. Additionally, many of the self-proclaimed local no-kill shelters fit that stereotype taking in mostly easy to adopt animals.

My world turned on its head when I learned high volume open admission shelters across the country became no-kill. Additionally, data from pet industry and other studies suggest far more homes exist than the number of adoptable pets killed in shelters each year. In fact, pet industry studies suggest only 1/3 of people obtaining pets are adopting and provides much room for shelters to increase market share. In New Jersey, we would have to obtain an even smaller share of the market to end shelter killing due to our shelters taking in much fewer animals per capita than the nation as a whole. Thus, more than enough homes exist for us to save all the dogs and cats killed in shelters each year.

Another myth about no kill shelters is that euthanasia is not done. The term no kill means literally “not killing” and returns euthanasia to its original meaning of “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Thus, hopeless suffering sick animals and dogs posing a serious threat to humans (who would suffer living in a kennel their entire life) would be euthanized.

The number of animals meeting “euthanasia” criteria will decrease over time. Advances in medical and behavioral science fields are increasing the number of animals saved each year in shelters. Additionally, sanctuaries and hospice care are gaining momentum for life saving alternatives for vicious dogs and terminally ill, but not suffering animals.

Saving 90% of all animals is generally considered the criteria where shelters are euthanizing rather than killing animals. Nathan Winograd developed this mark based off of the best performing shelters at the time, and extrapolating dog bite rate data and infectious disease rates in cats. Subsequently, Nathan Winograd and others suggested a higher rate, such as 95% or more, may be more consistent with no kill now based on advances in the field over the last decade. Personally, I believe a save rate of 95% would be more consistent with no kill for New Jersey’s open admission shelters since stray puppies who are at high risk of disease rarely come in. However, 90% remains the standard most recognize for an open admission shelter to qualify as no kill.

Key No Kill Programs

No Kill open admission shelters operate on a fairly simple principle. Think of a bucket, where animals you impound is water coming in and water coming out through a hole are the positive outcomes of your animals. To save all the animals you can:

1) Reduce the flow of water coming into the bucket

2) Increase the flow of water coming out of the bucket

The various programs below, widely known as the “No Kill Equation”, operate on these two principles. Various organization emphasize some more than others, but the key is to ensure your positive outcomes equal the number of animals you take in.

Volunteers
Volunteers are a key element to any successful shelter. Volunteers can fill all aspects of shelter operations from animal socialization and enrichment, kennel cleaning, marketing, adoption counseling, public relations, fundraising, etc. Given the financial realities of most animal shelters, substantive volunteer programs are essential to a successful no-kill shelter. Do not be fooled by token volunteer programs done for public relations reasons only.
TNR

Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programs help feral cats who cannot be adopted into a home for behavioral reasons. Feral cats are released into a colony with a human caretaker who provides food and veterinary treatment. Barn cat programs are similar to TNR except they are on a much smaller scale with one to a few cats going to one location.

Foster Care
Fostering at risk animals, such as neonatal kittens, puppies, and behaviorally stressed adult animals gets vulnerable animals out of the shelter. This program is run through the shelter with volunteers fostering animals temporarily until the animals can be adopted. Some very large shelters in our area do not have this program which unnecessarily results in the loss of lives. Additionally, foster care can also involve transferring animals to independent rescues who adopt the animals out.

Comprehensive Adoptions
Comprehensive adoption programs include innovative marketing, special incentives, great customer service, and frequent off-site adoption events.

Medical and Behavior Rehabilitation and Prevention
Shelters must have modern vaccination, handling, cleaning, socialization and care policies to prevent illness.  Additionally, state of the art rehabilitative efforts are required for animals needing medical or behavioral treatment.

Pet Retention
Pet retention is a key and overlooked program. While not as exciting as getting an animal adopted, keeping animals in their home has the same effect. Counseling pet owners surrendering their pets, having a hotline for troubled pet owners to call, and actively supporting good pet owners needing help are all elements of a succesful pet retention program.

Public Relations and Community Involvement
Working with the community and being viewed as a partner rather than an adversary is key. The community’s positive view of a shelter will increase donations, adoptions, and other shelter efforts.

Proactive Redemptions
Reuniting lost pets with their owners is generally the quickest way to get animals out of a shelter alive. Unfortunately, many shelters do not actively try and reunite strays with their owners. Shelters actively searching for owners can significantly increase save rates.

Low Cost, High Volume Spay & Neuter
No-cost and low-cost, high-volume spay/neuter programs decrease the number of animals bred. Often cost is a major barrier for people who want to spay/neuter their animals. The key is to make this service affordable to people who need it,  which are usually economically disadvantaged individuals. Do not be fooled by labels such as “low-cost” when such services are not affordable to the people who need them most.

Compassionate, Hard-Working Shelter Director                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Leadership is the most important part of all these programs. With a terrible leader, the programs above cannot be accomplished. The leader must be passionate, hard-working, and believe in the cause.