Inequitable Flow of Animals in and Out of Shelters: Comparison of Community-Level Vulnerability for Owner-Surrendered and Subsequently Adopted Animals

Abstract

There is increasing awareness among animal shelter professionals regarding the role of shelters in perpetuating inequities in pet ownership, although the relationship between owner vulnerabilities and animal shelter services is largely understudied. Currently, there is no literature comparing the sociodemographic conditions of communities where surrendered animals originate and communities where they are adopted. The present study compared the “flow” of surrendered animals between originating communities (incoming) and communities where they were adopted (outgoing; n = 21,270). To analyze community-level vulnerability, we used the Canadian Index of Multiple Deprivation (CIMD), which has four dimensions of social vulnerability. We found that three of the four CIMD dimensions were significantly different between surrendering and adopting communities (Ethnocultural Composition, Situational Vulnerability (SV), Economic Dependency, but not Residential Instability). For further investigation, we also grouped our analysis by intake groups (small animal n = 2,682; puppy n = 973; dog n = 3,446; kitten n = 6,436; cat n= 7,733) and found multiple relationships for which the incoming and outgoing CIMD quintiles were different. For example, for both puppies and kittens, the median outgoing SV quintile ranks were statistically significantly lower (less vulnerable) than incoming quintile ranks, with the effect size being moderate (puppy r = 0.31, kitten r = 0.30; p ≤ 0.0025), supporting the concern of the flow of certain animals from more vulnerable to less vulnerable communities. The results of this research provide a basis for understanding potential inequities in the use of shelter services to surrender or adopt an animal. Furthermore, these methods allow animal shelters to assess community needs and create interventions to reduce intake and increase adoption of animals. Finally, these data provide further support that animal sheltering is best considered from a One Welfare perspective.

Owner demographic factors are associated with suitable pet rabbit housing provision in the United Kingdom

“…The relationship between demographic variables and animal welfare has been highlighted as warranting further research to understand the distribution and determinants of disease, drivers of health‐seeking behaviour and preventative care taken by the owner and enabling practitioners to adapt local policies to prevailing demographics 28 . This is important in order to understand and address inequities in animal welfare and access to human–animal interactions 29 . For example, it has been used to investigate the development and assessment of interventions to address the uptake of dog training classes in deprived areas, where non‐course fee‐related barriers have been shown to be likely, 30 to target neutering vouchers at owners whose cats would remain entire without a voucher and assess further risk factors for non‐redemption, 31 and to highlight the inequitable flow of shelter animals from more vulnerable to less vulnerable communities 29 …”

“…This is important in order to understand and address inequities in animal welfare and access to human–animal interactions 29 . For example, it has been used to investigate the development and assessment of interventions to address the uptake of dog training classes in deprived areas, where non‐course fee‐related barriers have been shown to be likely, 30 to target neutering vouchers at owners whose cats would remain entire without a voucher and assess further risk factors for non‐redemption, 31 and to highlight the inequitable flow of shelter animals from more vulnerable to less vulnerable communities 29 …”

“…29 For example, it has been used to investigate the development and assessment of interventions to address the uptake of dog training classes in deprived areas, where non-course fee-related barriers have been shown to be likely, 30 to target neutering vouchers at owners whose cats would remain entire without a voucher and assess further risk factors for non-redemption, 31 and to highlight the inequitable flow of shelter animals from more vulnerable to less vulnerable communities. 29 Recently, there has been some exploration regarding the human-animal relationship for rabbits and their welfare; for example, owners with higher rabbit pain perception scores were more likely to provide freeroaming (be that indoors or outdoors) compared to outdoor hutch housing, 32 and rabbits in low socioeconomic status areas were less likely to be vaccinated. 22 Nevertheless, there remains limited research on pet rabbits (as opposed to farmed or laboratory-focused studies) and there is scope for further research into their welfare.…”

The Evolving Role of Triage and Appointment-Based Admission to Improve Service, Care and Outcomes in Animal Shelters

“…Even more troubling, the burden of these negative consequences falls disproportionately on marginalized community members and their pets (21). The status quo system has resulted in animals from less affluent and more vulnerable communities being admitted to shelters at a higher rate, and leaving shelters alive at a lower rate in comparison to more affluent areas (22)(23)(24)(25). This disparity has been linked to a variety of socioeconomic factors including poverty, housing insecurity, and ethnocultural factors (24,26,27).…”

“…The status quo system has resulted in animals from less affluent and more vulnerable communities being admitted to shelters at a higher rate, and leaving shelters alive at a lower rate in comparison to more affluent areas (22)(23)(24)(25). This disparity has been linked to a variety of socioeconomic factors including poverty, housing insecurity, and ethnocultural factors (24,26,27). When intake is unplanned and chaotic, there is limited opportunity to understand and remediate a problematic situation, e.g., by offering short term care for pets of people experiencing a housing crisis, help with medical, food or other urgent care needs, spay/neuter services or other support to reduce intake and stabilize the valued connection between people and pets (28).…”