OUT THE FRONT DOOR

The  city of Taylor, Texas, is located in Williamson County about 30 miles northeast of Austin. It has a population of about 15,000 people. Williamson County and Taylor are part of the Austin metro area. Animal control and sheltering is provided for the city by a municipal agency, the Taylor Animal Shelter. A city official sent me the shelter’s 2012 statistics. Total intake was 315 animals, with 283 impounded by animal control and 11 owner surrenders. The live release rate was 93% for the calendar year. The shelter reports transferring 30 animals in 2012, who went to the Austin Humane Society. The shelter credits its success to “great community volunteers and staff, wonderful partnerships with other shelters and rescue groups and an outstanding community.” Feral cats in Taylor receive TNR from the Shadow Cats organization, a non-profit rescue that is headquartered in nearby Round Rock. Shadow Cats returns ferals to their colonies after TNR or attempts to place them as barn cats if they cannot return to a colony. They also have a sanctuary where cats that are sick with chronic illness can live out their lives. Taylor is located in an area that is very safe for shelter animals. Williamson County and the city of Austin both have live release rates over 90%. The city of Georgetown, which is located in Williamson County, has a live release rate of about 85%. Taylor, TX, is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

Shelby County Kentucky, has a population of about 42,000 people and is located just east of Louisville. Shelby County Animal Shelter & Control is the municipal shelter for the county. The shelter states on its Petfinder site that it accepts “all unwanted and stray animals in our county” and performs “neglect and abuse investigations” for the county. Shelby County No-Kill Mission is a non-profit that works closely with the shelter. Its director and co-founder is Kelly Jedlicki. This June, the shelter will celebrate its fifth year of saving more than 90% of the animals it takes in. Shelby County was the first community in Kentucky to achieve the 90% rate. The shelter does not post its statistics online, but Rusty Newton, the shelter’s director, sent me the statistics by e-mail. The shelter keeps its statistics on a fiscal-year basis, from July through June. In fiscal year 2010-2011, the shelter took in 1651 dogs and cats and had a live release rate of 95%. In fiscal year 2011-2012, the shelter took in 1486 dogs and cats and had a live release rate of 98%. So far in the 2012-2013 fiscal year the shelter has maintained its 98% live release rate. The shelter did not report any owner-requested euthanasia or animals died or lost in shelter care. Shelby County, KY, is counted in the blog’s Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

This post is the first in what will be an occasional series trying to identify trends in the statistical data I’ve gathered in the course of doing this blog. In today’s post, I answer some frequently asked questions. 1. Is it easier for small towns to achieve a high live release rate than for big cities? I did a statistical analysis on this question on my previous blog, comparing the average population size of the successful 90%+ communities to the average size of U.S. jurisdictions as a whole, and found that the 90%+ communities I listed actually had higher populations than the average for the U.S. as a whole. What people often don’t realize when they think of this question is that there are very few big cities compared to small cities and towns, so if population size does not have any influence at all on shelter success one would expect to see many more successful small communities than large ones. 2. How long will it be before all the shelters in the U.S. get to a 90% live release rate? I had to laugh when I saw a recent article stating, apparently in all seriousness, that at the current rate of success it would be 500 years before all shelters in the U.S. achieved the 90%+ mark. The author of the article, Pat Dunaway, tried to extrapolate the future date from the existing number of 90%+ shelters and the years since the first 90%+ shelter came into existence, but she forgot one crucial thing — algebra. Her crucial mistake was to assume that the graph of shelters achieving 90%+ was a straight line over time, which is wildly inaccurate. The rate of growth is not quite logarithmic, but it’s far higher than linear. The truth is that if one wanted to try to extrapolate a date for all shelters to be at 90% or more based on historical data, one would have to use some pretty fancy mathematics, including calculus. Adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing aren’t going to do it. We would also have to have identified all the 90%+ shelters currently in existence, which we aren’t even close to having done yet. File this one under “Embarrassing Mistakes Made By People Who Are Out Of Their Depth.” 3. Speaking of historical data, what municipal shelter in the U.S. was the first to achieve a 90%+ live release rate, and when did it occur? The short answer is — we don’t know, because many times shelters don’t announce it to the world when they are successful, and even when they do report we do not generally have independent verification. Among all the shelters I’ve studied where data is available, though, the first shelter to report a 90%+ save rate appears to have been Otsego County, Michigan, where credible reports give 1999 as the date that they achieved a 90%+ live release rate. A related question is what shelter has the longest winning streak — i.e., the longest period of time up to the present with a documented live release rate of 90% or more. Otsego County is also a contender in this category, with a documented streak going back to 2007 (they may very well have been at 90% or above every year since 1999, but were not able to supply me with statistics from 2001 through 2006 when I inquired). The Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, which has full statistics posted on its website, also shows a 90%+ live release rate going back to 2007. 4. Why do so many highly successful shelters hide their data? I’ve been told several times by officers of highly successful shelters that they do not want to make their success public because they are afraid of having people from other jurisdictions drop off animals in their jurisdiction or try to surrender animals to their shelter. The unfortunate effect of this is that there are many highly successful shelters that are not getting the recognition they deserve. 5. Is there one secret to success used by all the shelters listed on the blog? The short answer to this question is “no.” Some shelters achieve high live release rates by a high rate of adoptions, while others depend almost totally on out-of-state transfers. Some shelters are independent, while others could not succeed without their rescue partners. I frequently speak to shelter officials, and it’s rare for one of them to tell me that the shelter follows any particular program. On the other hand, many of the shelters I write about have characteristics in common, including a hardworking, dedicated director and lots of community engagement. 6. Why should we trust statistics that the shelters themselves report? My answer to this question is that we should not blindly trust any statistics provided by a shelter, because at this point we do not have any industry standard on how to collect and present statistics. Nor do we have any way of independently verifying the accuracy of statistics. Instead, we should look at the statistics provided by a shelter as just one tool to use in evaluating that shelter. That’s why it concerns me when I see people mischaracterize my blog as a list of “no kill” communities or shelters. It is no such thing. Instead, it is a list of shelters that report saving 90% or more of intake. 7. What relationship does the list on this blog have to the list posted on the No Kill Advocacy Center website? The NKAC cites my blog (with some additions and deletions) as the source for a list of communities that they call the “90% Club.” I am not in contact with the NKAC and I’m not responsible for any claims that the NKAC and its officers make about the number of successful communities in the U.S. If you doubt that there are 500 cities and towns saving 90% or more of shelter animals, take it up with them, not me! Although I will say that there are certainly more communities at a 90%+ live release rate (possibly far more) than I’ve identified so far.

[NOTE: The Worth Watching category lists communities whose animal shelter systems are doing substantially better than average, but have not reported a sustained (for one year or more) 90%+ live release rate. These communities are not counted in the running total in the blog’s subtitle. For more about the Worth Watching category, see the Worth Watching page link in the blog’s header.] Logan County, in northeastern Colorado, has 23,000 people. The county seat, Sterling, has a population of 18,000 people. The Logan County Humane Society (LCHS) is a private non-profit that provides animal control and sheltering for the city and, informally, for the county. I called the shelter and was told that owner surrenders are accepted on a space available basis, with immediate intake if it’s an emergency situation. In 2012, LCHS reported an intake of 468 animals, with a live release rate of 91%. If animals who died or were lost in shelter care are included with euthanasias, the live release rate was 87%. Although LCHS reported a live release rate above 90% for 2012, I’m listing the community as Worth Watching instead of in the right sidebar, because the shelter official I spoke with told me that LCHS might have a slightly lower live release rate in 2013. LCHS started a trap-neuter-return program in 2013, and the program started with a colony of cats that had more very sick members than most. Several of those cats were euthanized. I’ll check on Logan County again after the full 2013 numbers are in and perhaps will be able to add it to the right sidebar at that time.

[NOTE: The Worth Watching category lists communities whose animal shelter systems are doing substantially better than average, but have not reported a sustained (for one year or more) 90%+ live release rate. These communities are not counted in the running total in the blog’s subtitle. For more about the Worth Watching category, see the Worth Watching page link in the blog’s header.] Rabun County is located in the northeast corner of Georgia in a mountainous area. It is a very rural area, with a population of 16,000 people. The county seat and largest town is Clayton, with 2000 people. Up until 2012, Rabun County provided funding to the Boggs Mountain Humane Shelter for animal sheltering in the county. In July 2012, local news outlets published stories accusing the shelter director, Lowanda Kilby, of killing dogs after taking money from their owners on the promise that she would find new homes for them. The board fired Kilby and she was subsequently indicted on theft and other charges. The Boggs Mountain Humane Shelter board announced in August of 2012 that it could not continue to run the shelter due to a lack of donations. Shannon Conrad, a business owner in Rabun County, organized a new non-profit, Rabun Paws 4 Life (RP4L), and in October 2012 the county commissioners approved the new group to take over the shelter. RP4L had a grand opening on December 8, 2012. RP4L has been posting its statistics on its website every month since April 2013. (If the link to statistics on the RP4L website does not work for you, substitute the name of the month you want to see for “April” in the URL linked above.) The shelter reports a live release rate of over 90% in each month.

A group of organizations involved in animal sheltering, including large mainstream organizations such as HSUS, Maddie’s Fund, and the ASPCA, has just released a draft whitepaper with this stated purpose:  “to identify meaningful ways to realize California’s policy ‘that no adoptable [or treatable] animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home.'” The whitepaper makes 23 recommendations overall, several of which apply to intake policies. Notably, the whitepaper recommends that all shelters should establish an appointment system for owner surrenders (see recommendations 1 and 2), that shelters should use their discretion to decline to accept animals when full (see recommendation 3), and that shelters should not impound healthy cats unless the shelter is not euthanizing cats (see recommendation 13). The whitepaper sets forth the many advantages of appointment systems for owner surrenders, such as scheduling intake at a time when the shelter can best handle it and allowing the shelter to get information about the pet. It points out that intake can actually be reduced by an appointments policy, because an appointment provides an opportunity to refer the owner to resources that can help the owner retain the pet. The whitepaper recommends providing the owner with “an honest appraisal of the likely outcome for their pet if it enters the shelter (adoption vs. euthanasia).” The recommendation for an appointment policy includes two exceptions — if an animal is unhealthy or if there is “an urgent situation or risk to the animal or community” then no appointment should be required. The whitepaper further recommends: “Shelters should balance optional intake [] with their proven capacity to maintain humane conditions and positive outcomes for new intakes and the animals in their care.” In other words, if the shelter is full, the shelter should consider refusing optional admissions (such as healthy, non-emergency owner surrenders). In addition, the whitepaper recommends that shelters should not impound healthy cats, or if they are impounded, should return them to where they are found. The recommendation is crystal clear: “No healthy cat, regardless of temperament, should be admitted by an animal shelter if the admission of that cat would cause the death of that cat or another cat in the shelter.” The whitepaper is only a draft at this point, and it was developed to apply to the situation in California, but nevertheless the issuance of this report seems to me to be a watershed moment. In the past several years progressive shelters have been experimenting with creative new policies such as Help Desks, appointments for owner surrenders, and waiting lists to reduce the number of animals surrendered. These shelters have found that many owners would like to keep their pets and just need to be referred to help for behavior problems, vet bills, or finding pet-friendly housing. Shelters have found that if they are full and ask owners to wait to surrender their pet, most owners will agree because they want to help the shelter help their pet. These new recommendations codify what progressive shelters have been seeing for years — owners will behave responsibly when asked. We now have some of the largest animal welfare organizations in the country recognizing that these progressive owner-surrender policies work and recommending that they become standard practice. The recommendation that shelters not impound healthy cats, and return such cats when impounded (unless the shelter is in a position where it does not have to euthanize cats), is an even bigger groundbreaking advance. The report points out that outcomes are much worse in California shelters for cats as compared to dogs, and that shelters are not doing cats any favor when they impound them only to kill them. People expect cats to roam and, when a cat disappears, they often do not think to check the shelter until the hold period has expired and the cat has been killed. The whitepaper notes that return-to-owner rates for cats are extremely low — around 2% nationally. In fact, “cats are at least 13 times more likely to return home by means other than the shelter.” Up until now, relatively few of the shelters that I’ve researched have had a policy of not impounding community cats. Hopefully the release of this whitepaper will encourage more shelters to take this step. It’s exciting to think that, by this one change in policy, the number of cats killed in shelters each year could plummet. Another important step forward that could result from this whitepaper is that it may finally end the debate over “open admission.” There is a segment of the animal-shelter community that insists that shelters should accept every animal presented to them, upon demand, with no conditions and no questions asked. They define this as “open admission,” and they label all shelters who do not have this policy as “limited admission.” They blame “limited admission” shelters for the high kill rates found in many “open admission” shelters, on the theory that open admission shelters are overwhelmed with animals turned away by limited admission shelters. We now have this whitepaper from a large group of animal welfare agencies, including HSUS, the ASPCA, and Maddie’s Fund, that essentially says this idea is nonsense and that “open admission” is bad policy.

Austin is a city of 843,000 people located in the hill country of Texas. It is the capital of Texas and the county seat of Travis County, which has a total population of 1,024,000 people. The Austin Animal Center (AAC) is the municipal shelter for Austin and the unincorporated parts of Travis County. Field services are under the AAC Animal Services Department, although Travis County has an officer assigned to animal cruelty investigations. AAC describes its admission policy for owner surrenders as follows: “The center is an open-intake shelter serving [] Austin and Travis County. We accept any animal from our jurisdiction that needs shelter regardless of age, health, species, breed or behavior, and no matter whether it is a stray or an owned animal.”  People who want to surrender an animal are asked to attempt to rehome it themselves first, and if that is unsuccessful to make an appointment. Austin has a contractual public-private partnership with a private non-profit, Austin Pets Alive! (APA), which pulls a large number of animals from the city shelter. APA has a program called Positive Alternatives to Shelter Surrender to help people keep their pets or rehome their pets themselves. APA has a subsidiary, American Pets Alive!, that offers webinars and yearly conferences for shelter personnel and reform advocates. The Austin Humane Society (AHS), a private non-profit, takes in some owner surrenders. AHS also has a large TNR program for feral cats which has served more than 30,000 cats since it was started in 2007. In 2011 Austin became the largest city in the United States to report a 90% or greater live release rate, with AAC at a 91% live release rate for the year. APA collated the city shelter’s outcome reports for the fiscal year 2011-2012, and noted a 5% kill rate during that time. In 2013, the ACC started posting detailed statistics on its website every month for cat and dog intakes and outcomes, with reports analyzing and comparing the statistics. For the entire year, ACC took in 17,921 dogs and cats, which is an intake of about 17 cats and dogs per 1000 people in the ACC service area. (This number would be higher if intake by APA and AHS were counted.) The live release rate for the year was 93%. The 93% figure is unchanged if the 93 animals who died in shelter care are included with euthanasias. AAC reported adopting out 7318 dogs and cats during the year and transferring 6272 dogs and cats to APA and to ACA’s rescue partners. Austin, Texas, was originally listed by this blog on April 22, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 calendar year statistics.

Montclair is a township of 38,000 people in New Jersey, about 12 miles from New York City. A private non-profit in Montclair, the Pound Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) of Montclair, ran the Montclair shelter until 2008, when the township took it over. The shelter is now called the Montclair Township Animal Shelter (MTAS). In addition to providing animal sheltering for Montclair, MTAS also provides sheltering for the nearby townships of Nutley (population 28,000), and Verona (13,000). MTAS provides animal control services for all three townships. MTAS has a trap-neuter-return program for feral cats, a lost and found page, a volunteer program, and adoption promotions. I was told in a phonecall to the shelter that they accept owner surrenders from the three townships they serve on a space-available basis. The state of New Jersey collects statistics from animal shelters, and I requested a copy of the statistics that MTAS reported to the state for 2012. The shelter reported taking in 432 animals during the year. The live release rate was 91%.

We all know the importance of the live release rate in evaluating a shelter’s performance. There is another very important statistic that is often overlooked, however, and that is the average length of stay. A shelter that has an average length of stay of 10 days has twice as much effective shelter space as a shelter that has an average length of stay of 20 days. And the animals are twice as well off, because they are spending half the time in the shelter environment, which can be stressful unless the shelter is very well designed. It’s unfortunately rare to see the live release rate on a shelter’s website, but it’s almost unheard-of to see average length of stay. We need to make average length of stay part of the regular statistics that are kept and reported. This would allow us to identify shelters that are doing well on this metric and shelters that are doing poorly. It would allow us to recognize shelter directors who have been able to maintain a short length of stay along with a high live release rate, and to seek their advice on how other shelters can decrease length of stay. There are several factors that influence how long an animal stays in the shelter, including stray-hold time (which is generally mandated by law), medical protocols, behavior evaluation, and marketing. The best shelters manage to combine high live release rates with a short length of stay. Maddie’s Fund has been a leader in identifying factors that affect length of stay and devising protocols for reducing length of stay. For example, check out this webcast. One question is whether to include time in foster care as time in the shelter. I think foster care time should not be included because foster animals, although they may require some support from the shelter, are not taking up space and they are in a home environment. Plus, a foster home often turns into a permanent home. It’s hard to think of anything else that could improve shelter productivity as quickly as cutting down on average length of stay. I think average length of stay is worth more attention than it’s getting, but certainly a first step in raising the profile of this metric is to begin to routinely capture the data as part of shelter statistics.

Cedaredge (population 2300) and Orchard City (3100) are located in Delta County in western Colorado. Development in the county has been primarily along two river valleys, following the Surface Creek and North Fork rivers. Much of the rest of the county outside the river valleys is mountainous and very sparsely inhabited. Cedaredge and Orchard City are in the Surface Creek valley, which is served by the Surface Creek Shelter (SCS), located in Cedaredge. Cedaredge has its own animal control, which takes in dogs only. SCS is managed by a non-profit, the Friends of Cedaredge Animal Control (FCAC). I was told by a shelter official that FCAC has a memorandum of understanding to impound the dogs picked up by Cedaredge animal control. In addition to Cedaredge dogs, SCS takes in non-feral stray cats, stray dogs, and owner-surrendered dogs and cats from the residents of Surface Creek valley, including Orchard City. SCS charges a small fee for owner surrenders and usually has a waiting list, but they make exceptions to the waiting list when needed. There are rescues in the county who do TNR for feral cats. Statistics submitted to the Colorado Department of Agriculture by FCAC for 2012 show that SCS’s intake, including strays and owner surrenders, was 313 cats and dogs. The live release rate was 95% (94% if animals who died or were lost in shelter care were counted in with euthanasias). The North Fork area of Delta County has also been doing very well at animal sheltering, but their animal shelter system is undergoing some big changes. Therefore I’m not listing those communities at this time.

Lamar is a city of 7800 people located in southeastern Colorado. Lamar has its own animal control and a municipal shelter, the Lamar Animal Shelter (LAS). The Lamar animal control site states: “Since late 2008, early 2009, the Lamar Animal Shelter and the Code Enforcement Officers have striven to avoid euthanizing animals which come into the shelter.“ The Second Chance Animal Rescue Foundation (SCARF) is also located in Lamar. SCARF has no physical shelter, but houses animals in foster homes. A volunteer with SCARF told me that they rescue animals from a six-county area in southeastern Colorado. Both LAS and SCARF take in owner surrenders from Lamar on a space-available basis, and SCARF networks with other rescues for owner surrenders. LAS only takes in dogs, but SCARF takes in both dogs and cats. SCARF has a trap-neuter-return program for feral cats and two big spay-neuter clinics each year. Statistics from the Colorado Department of Agriculture show that LAS had an intake of 329 dogs in 2012, with a live release rate of 99.7%. Two dogs died or were lost in shelter care, and when they are included with euthanasias the live release rate for LAS was 99.0%. SCARF took in 385 cats and dogs, with a 100% live release rate. The Lamar Animal Sanctuary Team (LAST) also reports to the state. They took in 79 strays and owner surrenders in 2012, with a 100% live release rate.

Fairfax County, which is located in northern Virginia within commuting distance of Washington, DC, has 1,082,000 human residents. The public animal shelter in Fairfax County achieved a 90%+ live release rate in 2013, and Fairfax County is now the largest jurisdiction listed as a 90%+ community by this blog. The Fairfax County Animal Services Division (FCASD) is the municipal agency providing animal control and sheltering for the county. The Fairfax County Animal Shelter (FCAS) is part of FCASD. FCAS describes itself as an “open access” shelter for owner surrenders. In December of 2012 construction was completed on a shelter expansion that doubled FCAS’s square footage. FCAS got a new director in November 2012, Tawny Hammond. One of Hammond’s initiatives for the shelter in 2013 was to increase the number of pit bull adoptions. They succeeded in nearly doubling the number of pit bull adoptions. (Although the article in the link mentions restrictions on pit bull adoptions, Fairfax County does not have breed-specific legislation determining dangerousness). FCAS has also begun to include pit bulls in their transports into the shelter. FCAS has a trap-neuter-return (TNR) program that has been operating since 2008 and has provided TNR to over 3000 cats. The shelter does not count feral cats in its impounds or dispositions. Cats are considered free roaming in Fairfax County and animal control officers therefore do not impound healthy stray cats. There are several other organizations in the region that should be noted. The City of Fairfax, an independent city of 23,000 people, has its own animal shelter which operates independently of FCAS. Owner surrenders and a small number of  strays are taken in by the Humane Society of Fairfax County (HSFC). The Friends of the Fairfax County Animal Shelter raise funds for FCAS, volunteer at the shelter, and help with marketing. FCAS sent me their statistics for 2013. Their intake was 3747 animals (not counting animals presented for owner-requested euthanasia). This is an exceptionally low intake of 3.5 animals per 1000 people. There are several reasons for the county to have a low intake. One of the most obvious explanations is the county’s policy not to impound stray cats. Another reason is that HSFC takes in some owner surrenders and a few strays. FCAS has a robust pet retention program, which no doubt keeps many potential owner surrenders in their homes. Another possible explanation is the county’s very high median household income (third highest in the United States in 2012). Studies have shown that wealthier families are more likely to spay and neuter their pets. Whatever the full range of explanations might be, FCAS has achieved a very low intake. FCAS’s live release rate for 2013 was 92% (based on statistics sent to me by a shelter official). This includes 1120 animals returned to their owners, 1777 adoptions, and 376 transfers out. If owner-requested euthanasias are included in total euthanasias, the live release rate drops to 82% (see discussion below). The 31 animals who died in shelter care, if added to euthanasias, do not change the live release rate. HSFC has not made their statistics available yet for 2013, but in 2012 they reported a 99% live release rate to the state of Virginia with an intake of 551 animals. The City of Fairfax houses their shelter animals with a local veterinarian and does not report to the state. I noted above that FCAS’s live release rate for 2013 drops to 82% if owner-requested euthanasias are included in total euthanasias. This drop of 10 points is really an artifact of the shelter’s extremely low intake per 1000 people. The typical yearly intake for a shelter serving 1,082,000 people would be in the range of 16,000 to 32,000 animals. If FCAS took in that number of animals, then the 454 owner-requested euthanasias they had in 2013 would represent only about 2% of intake, a much more typical number. One thing we must keep in mind as shelters succeed in decreasing their intake is that it will cause changes in the statistics we generally see. I communicated at length with a shelter official about FCAS’s policy as to owner-requested euthanasia, and the policy is to restrict the practice to animals who would be euthanized for severe aggression or untreatable illness if they were impounded. The shelter official told me that in 2014 they are going to require that the shelter veterinarian examine every animal where euthanasia is requested by the owner and verify that euthanasia is required. Ultimately, FCAS officials would like to move this service out of the shelter and to a clinic setting where it could be provided for low-income people along with other essential veterinary services.