5.3.1.1 Food Bank Programs

Food bank programs provide pet food to companion animals at no cost to their owners. These programs can be set up as independent pet food banks or in collaboration with human social services such as food pantries, soup kitchens, or homeless shelters. Limited published literature exists to document the impact of food bank programs, but one survey of staff members showed a high perceived client value of pet food banks (Rauktis et al. 2017). Further support for this perception was found in a recent study in which 60% of sheltering organizations surveyed offered a food bank program, and 60% of these organizations felt that it was their most used program (Russo et al. 2021).

The positive impact of a food bank program for the pet is clear: it addresses the pet’s basic needs while also preventing relinquishment due to an owner’s inability to provide adequate nutrition. Food‐insecure pet owners may choose to feed their pet at the expense of their own nutrition (Rauktis et al. 2017); thus, pet food banks not only help the client via preservation of the human‐animal bond but can also support that client’s nutritional well‐being.

Because pet food bank programs can be developed in conjunction with human food services, these programs can be an ideal opportunity for animal welfare organizations to begin or enhance collaboration with community partners. These community partnerships can then form a framework for other community outreach programs.

The resource commitment in establishing a pet food bank is generally quite reasonable, particularly when done in collaboration with community partners. Pet food banks are often established using donated pet food, which otherwise might be turned away or discarded by the shelter due to the health advantage of feeding shelter animals a consistent diet. Resources are necessary to ensure the physical space that is required to store food prior to distribution and to maintain the donated pet food inventory, including monitoring food expiration dates. Time must also be devoted to the actual distribution of the food. However, with some variation based on the scope of the program, these resource investments are relatively small.

5.3.1.2 Pet‐Friendly Housing Support

In addition to help with the basic need of nutrition, pet owners may need support in addressing the fundamental need of shelter, both for themselves and for their companion animals. This need is often particularly acute for clients living in rental housing. In one study, only 53% of rental accommodations were pet friendly, and of those only 11% allowed large‐breed dogs. According to the same study, most landlords of pet‐friendly housing required an additional pet deposit, and average rents for pet‐friendly units were 20–30% higher per month than the overall average (Carlisle‐Frank et al. 2005). In another study, 44% of renting pet owners reported having been declined as renters based on pet ownership, and 82% rated the process of finding their current residence as “difficult” (Power 2017).

Shelters can reduce relinquishments by providing pet‐friendly housing support. This support can include accessible information on local renting laws to inform clients of their rights as tenants, both in private and public housing units (Huegel and MacMillan 2014). Support can also include a database of pet‐friendly rental units and/or landlords. However, because not all pet‐friendly units are advertised as such (Power 2017), developing a robust database requires the use of multiple research methods to identify landlords who allow companion animals and to clarify any restrictions on species and/or size. Such a database needs to be regularly updated.

Effective housing support programs reduce shelter relinquishment caused by housing restrictions while benefiting the pet and owner by maintaining the human‐animal bond. They can also provide much‐needed housing security for pet owners who choose not to relinquish their companion animal(s), despite restrictions. As with food bank programs, pet‐friendly housing support presents another opportunity for collaboration with key stakeholders in the community, including attorneys, housing‐assistance programs, and other social service programs. Such connections can serve as another avenue for shelters to build a framework of community collaboration and provide a comprehensive support network in the community.

The resources needed to implement housing support programs vary based on their scope. Simple programs may only provide access to information linked on the organization’s website. Housing support that includes the development and maintenance of a pet‐friendly housing database or advocacy for pet‐friendly housing in the community requires a modest additional resource investment by the organization.

5.3.1.3 Rehoming Advice and Resources

If rehoming a pet is unavoidable, direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming services can prevent relinquishment and the need for sheltering. In one study exploring the rehoming of cats and dogs, 37% of respondents who had rehomed a pet within the last five years had given their pet to a friend or family member as compared to 36% who rehomed by taking their pet to a shelter (Weiss et al. 2015). Eleven percent of respondents rehomed their pet directly to a person not previously known. These findings suggest that owners may be willing, and even prefer, to directly rehome their pets, thus avoiding relinquishment to a shelter altogether.

The shelter’s role in facilitating direct rehoming can include posting photos and information about available pets on an organization’s website, offering tips for successful rehoming, or referring clients to credible organizations that focus on direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming. Shelters typically do not process directly rehomed animals as admissions or placements; thus, appropriate disclosure is necessary to ensure that adopters are aware that the shelter’s normal evaluation processes have not taken place. However, direct rehoming allows the new adopter to receive information about the pet right from the previous owner. This information is potentially even more valuable than information learned about an animal’s behavior in the unfamiliar and stressful environment of the shelter.

A simplified process, with direct communication between a previous and future owner, is just one benefit of rehoming services. Additionally, the animal’s welfare is enhanced by avoiding relinquishment to the shelter and, ideally, entering a well‐counseled and well‐prepared home. The organization avoids a shelter admission through a system that requires minimal resources to establish.

Of course, direct home‐to‐home transfer of ownership is not ideal for every circumstance. In a survey of sheltering organizations, while 55% of organizations offered rehoming advice and resources, only 36% of those organizations considered them highly used (Russo et al. 2021). However, given the low resource investment and potential benefits, direct rehoming services are still a valuable safety net program for appropriate scenarios.

5.3.1.4 Lost‐and‐Found Programs

In 2018, approximately 50% of all canine and feline admissions into sheltering organizations were animals identified as stray or at‐large (Shelter Animals Count n.d.). Safety net programs that aim to prevent companion animals from becoming lost or facilitate reunification of stray pets with owners are vital to reducing shelter intakes and shelter length of stay.

Safety net programs targeting the stray pet population ideally include efforts to avoid the animal entering the shelter as a stray in the first place, including escape prevention initiatives. Some such programs aid in the construction of appropriate fencing for dogs. Others provide pet owners with information about how to secure gates and doors, how to train dogs to come when called, and how to recognize behavioral factors that may lead to escape attempts.

If a free‐roaming companion animal is found, proper identification can facilitate reunification with their owner in the field by the finder or animal control officer, avoiding intake into the shelter. In one study of cats and dogs adopted with a free collar and identification, 94% of those pets were still wearing identification at follow‐up approximately eight weeks later (Weiss et al. 2011). Reunification can be further facilitated by implanting microchips, which can increase reunification rates to twice those of unmicrochipped dogs and over 20 times those of unmicrochipped cats (Lord et al. 2009).

Shelters should maintain a thorough and up‐to‐date lost‐and‐found pet database and avoid unnecessary barriers to reunification such as heavy fees. An organization’s website and social media outlets are ideal platforms to post photos and descriptions of found animals. Coordination and sharing of lost‐and‐found information with other community sheltering organizations is vital to ensure a robust reunification system.

Both preventive and reunification efforts are of clear benefit to pets and clients by helping to avoid the animal running at‐large, impoundment, and the loss of the animal from the family. These efforts can also have a measurable effect within the community by reducing public safety and nuisance concerns related to free‐roaming companion animals. In addition, stray pet safety net programs can provide the initial opportunity for connection with the client to encourage use of other services, such as accessible veterinary and behavioral care. In particular, owners reunited with a lost pet may want resources to address factors that led to the animal’s loss, such as a reproductively intact status or an incomplete understanding of normal pet behavior.

Lost‐and‐found safety net programs are critical, and often required, operational components of organizations taking in stray animals. However, initiatives to prevent escape and facilitate reunification should also be considered by organizations not mandated to admit stray animals. Programs that go above and beyond the minimum lost‐and‐found standard of care, such as public microchipping clinics, can be an ideal opportunity for collaboration between private and municipal organizations in the community.

5.3.1.5 Temporary Sheltering

While safety net programs generally strive to keep animals in their homes, there are some circumstances in which temporary separation is necessary. Clients may be unable to care for their animals on a short‐term basis for a variety of reasons, including disasters, health concerns, or domestic violence. The importance of care for the family pet in these times of crisis is emphasized by the inclusion of provisions for pet‐directed response in the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Bazan 2005) as well as by literature supporting the importance of companion animal safety in the decision‐making of those affected by domestic violence (Ascione et al. 2007; Collins et al. 2018; Taylor et al. 2019). See Chapter 21 for more information on temporary sheltering as a component of disaster response.

Animal welfare organizations may voluntarily initiate or be called upon by governmental or human social services to aid in temporary sheltering of animals. Effective temporary sheltering programs avoid permanent relinquishment by facilitating reunification once clients’ circumstances allow them to safely resume caring for their pet. Ideally, even this temporary separation would be avoided through co‐sheltering of people and companion animals, but logistics and client circumstances often make co‐sheltering impossible. As an alternative, the use of foster care for these animals is ideal to avoid the medical and behavioral detriments of sheltering as well as to avoid shelter crowding. Regardless of whether displaced animals are sheltered in foster homes or in a shelter’s kennels, legally approved agreements and thorough guidelines should be set up for temporary sheltering programs to create clear expectations for all participants and to avoid ambiguity regarding the duration and extent of care.

Temporary sheltering programs require a fair investment of resources on the part of a sheltering organization to oversee the program and ensure adequate housing/caregiving without detrimental impact to the existing shelter population. However, their benefit to the client and animal has the potential to be significant. Times of crisis are likely to be periods in which maintenance of the human‐animal bond is critical for the client’s emotional health. Without these programs, clients may avoid seeking help for themselves due to fear about their pets’ well‐being (Ascione et al. 2007). Program oversight can be greatly aided by collaboration with governmental or non‐profit human social services, allowing the animal welfare organization to focus primarily on animal care. Because of these connections, the benefits of a temporary sheltering program extend to the organization and community by strengthening a community framework of support for pet owners.

5.3.1.6 Humane Education

Humane education programs are a popular community outreach method for animal sheltering organizations. While often less directly applicable to relinquishment prevention, these programs still fall into the broad category of safety net programs by fostering a community that values and understands responsible pet ownership. Traditionally, these programs have focused on humane education for children. School‐ or camp‐based humane education programs have a documented positive impact on children’s knowledge of animal husbandry and emotional needs (Muldoon et al. 2016; Tardif‐Williams and Bosacki 2015). In addition, there is evidence of the enhancement of prosocial behavior and empathy in children participating in these programs (Samuels et al. 2016). However, information is lacking regarding the impact of educational programs geared toward adults and the impact of these programs on pet retention.

The benefits of humane education programs for pets and clients vary widely with the scope of the program, and the impact is often less easily measured than for other safety net programs. However, there is value in the connection between the organization and community fostered by these programs and in their potential to enhance the visibility of the organization within the community. Humane education programs are also an excellent opportunity for collaboration between the sheltering organization and community groups such as schools, camps, childcare settings, and adult education programs. Depending on the community and the structure of these programs, these programs can also provide a revenue source for the animal welfare organization.

Like the benefits gained from the implementation of a humane education program, the resource investment required varies widely based on the scope of the program. Single visits by shelter staff to a classroom require minimal resources, while in‐house educational programs such as after‐school programs or camps can be resource intensive. Development of extensive humane education programs requires careful assessment of the available resources of the organization and existing community programs. However, as resources allow, humane education programs can be highly rewarding for shelter staff and volunteers and act as another building block in the connection between the shelter and the community.

5.3.2.1 Spay‐Neuter Services

Surgical sterilization services for owned animals have become commonly established programs to reduce pet overpopulation by avoiding unwanted litters and preventing behavioral and medical concerns associated with an intact reproductive status. Effective spay‐neuter programs can successfully increase the prevalence of altered animals in the community (Dolan et al. 2017; Frank and Carlisle‐Frank 2007). A corresponding decrease in shelter relinquishment in communities with accessible spay‐neuter programs has also been documented (Scarlett and Johnston 2012; White et al. 2010), though this reduction was only consistently identified for cats and not dogs. Research findings also support the reach of non‐profit spay‐neuter programs to animals that would not otherwise receive veterinary care (White et al. 2018) and show that client race and ethnicity are not barriers to program utilization (Decker Sparks et al. 2018; Poss and Bader 2008; Schurer et al. 2015).

Accessible spay‐neuter services benefit the pet by enhancing animal health, avoiding unwanted litters, and preventing nuisance behaviors (American Veterinary Medical Association n.d.). When successful, these programs also positively impact the community through reduction of relinquishment, nuisance behaviors such as vocalization or urine marking, and, potentially, the incidence of serious dog bites, for which intact dogs are overrepresented (Patronek et al. 2013). Effective spay‐neuter outreach also reduces pet overpopulation, a clear benefit for communities experiencing a significant homeless pet overpopulation. Even for communities with unmet adopter demand for puppies and kittens, effective spay‐neuter outreach is an important population‐level strategy to reduce disparity in the access to these services. Accessible spay‐neuter services also allow for thoughtful consideration of where new pets in the community are obtained, such as through animal transport (thus addressing pet overpopulation in other communities) or through responsible breeders. With careful program design and outreach, these programs can be an opportunity for collaboration with the local veterinary community. Practitioners can refer clients unable to afford full‐cost sterilization or may participate in providing low‐cost or free sterilization services.

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join