The Costs and Economic Benefits of No Kill Animal Control
Why running a humane shelter saves lives and money
I recently published No Animal Left Behind, an article with over 20 studies explaining the science behind running a humane shelter. The article can be used to determine whether local pounds are meeting their obligations to animals and where they are falling short. The article also offers free resources to hold those “shelters” accountable.
For example, many of those studies conclude that “Even in well-managed and funded facilities, dogs are likely to encounter an array of stressors including noise, unpredictability, loss of control… disruption of routines…” and unfamiliar people and surroundings. Without rigorous efforts to remedy these issues, many dogs fail their behavior evaluations, which are notoriously unreliable to begin with. By contrast, these dogs will likely pass if provided enrichment, including those initially, though falsely, deemed “potentially quite dangerous” by shelter staff.
These enrichment activities include allowing dogs out of the cage/kennel for human interaction, dog-dog play, at least four walks a day, letting dogs see people and dogs in shelters by removing visual barriers that block such access, and group housing.
Similarly, shelters that do not have a “mental health” component (touch, talk, play) in concert with a “physical health” component (vaccination on intake, prompt and necessary veterinary care, cleaning/disinfection) undermine the well-being of cats and put them at risk of getting sick and being killed. Unless housed in a large, free-roaming cat room, cats should be allowed out of the cage/kennel for human interaction, playing, and running at least twice daily. Moreover, cats should be gently petted and talked to daily.
You can read No Animal Left Behind, which includes a summary and links to all the studies, by clicking here.
Some of the feedback to the article involved questions about the cost of implementing the findings. In addition to my achieving a No Kill community running animal control despite a per capita intake rate twice the national average and per capita taxpayer funding that was a fraction of what others spent (roughly 90 cents per person), running a humane science-based shelter is cost-effective.
Although those costs vary, impounding, holding, and ultimately killing an animal and disposing of the body cost approximately $135.00 ($84 for impoundment and $51 for killing and disposal). The process is revenue-negative.
As most shelter costs are fixed, by contrast, keeping animals alive does not dramatically increase costs. And since it takes roughly the same time to clean a kennel as it does to kill an animal, staff increases often prove unnecessary, with the added financial benefit that cleaning requires less-skilled, less-expensive labor and can be augmented through volunteer support.
Moreover, the programs and services of the No Kill Equation are cost-effective. Some rely on private philanthropy, such as utilizing rescue groups that shift care costs from public taxpayers to private individuals and groups. In 1998, for example, California passed a law making it illegal for public (and private) shelters to kill animals when qualified rescue groups were willing to save them. Accordingly, the number of animals saved, rather than killed, increased from 12,526 to 99,783 — a lifesaving increase of nearly 700%. That increase corresponds with yearly cost savings of $4,450,107 for killing and destroying remains, plus additional savings relative to the cost of care.
Other programs, such as adoption, bring in revenue. Still, others, such as sterilizing rather than killing community cats, are less expensive and, over the long term, result in exponential savings by reducing births.
Finally, a six-year study examined the economic impact of a city passing a No Kill ordinance. The ordinance included three main components:
An “immediate moratorium on the [convenience killing] of animals if there were available kennels at the municipal facility”;
Implementation of the No Kill Equation; and,
A mandated minimum placement rate of 90% (since increased to 95%).
As a result, dog adoptions increased by 67% and cat adoptions by 49%. Conversely, dog killing declined by 94%, and cat killing by 91%. The city placed 95% cats and 98% dogs during the study period.
Meanwhile, the total value of spending on those newly adopted pets at local veterinarians, grooming facilities, daycare centers, pet stores, and other local businesses was $157,452,503, with an investment of just over $30,000,000 — a return of over 400%. These economic benefits included $49,307,682 in additional spending by individuals on local veterinary and pet care services and $25,333,237 in extra expenditures on other pet-related expenses.
In addition to spurring spending, creating jobs, and increasing sales tax revenues, it also attracted new businesses: Google’s decision to build a new office tower is directly attributable to the city’s No Kill plan. Google executives noted that “it is attractive to a young, vibrant, pet-loving workforce.”
By passing No Kill legislation, hiring compassionate and capable leaders willing to embrace the cost-effective and revenue-producing programs and services that make No Kill possible, and employing best practices consistent with the highlighted studies in No Animal Left Behind, communities that provide funding within national norms can place upwards of 99% of all intakes.
Love the pic of dogs playing by the doggie pool! Looks like my own yard.