Onerous Adoption Requirements and the Rescue Movement

Over the past couple of weeks, I've written a lot about rescues/shelters and their decisions to deny potential adopters while animals die in the shelters.  It's a topic that really bugs me -- and one, based on the comments I got on the posts, is very divisive among animal welfare groups.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person who is disturbed by the overly strict guidelines many rescues are putting out there.

This post from Kerri Fivecoat-Campbell at K9 Chronicles is yet another example of how many rescues/shelters continue to deny homes for pets....while pets die in their shelters.

Her conclusion is a series of questions I think we all need to have serious conversations about:

Is it better to have a lower return rate or a higher rate of people being turned off rescue by being rejected? How many more animals could be pulled from kill facilities if there was more room in rescues and no kill facilities due to fewer rejected applications?

Thoughts?

Comments

[YesBiscuit!]

On the one hand, I understand that rescues are spending time, effort and money to get these dogs ready for adoption. They don't want to "blow it" by placing the dog where it's likely to fail, for a fee that doesn't add up to peanuts in comparison to their expenses.
On the other hand, as long as millions of pets are being killed in shelters every year, I'm definitely leaning toward the less screening/more adopting side of things.
Personally, I find a home inspection insulting. I also find having to endure multiple phone interviews by different people insulting.
Here's my thinking: Do a basic application in writing. Call the references provided. Call the applicant and TALK. (Don't put them through another application form via phone). Develop a friendly relationship with the applicant (most people love to e-mail you photos of their last dog for example). Decide if you think the applicant is sincere and would be a suitable match for the dog (not the PERFECT match, just not a bound-to-fail match). If it's a go, adopt the dog out in a timely manner for a reasonable fee that doesn't prevent good people with low incomes from rescuing a pet.

[Rosemary]

On the other hand if you don't actually visit the home you have no way of knowing whether it is dramatically different from the prospective adopter's description (e.g. "secure" fence is 2 feet high).

When I do home visits I am looking for reasons to accept people who don't match all our criteria but demonstrate that they've thought about sensible workarounds. I do fail people who are dead set on doing something really dangerous (like leaving small children alone with large dogs).

Do shelters with high kill rates typically reject many applicants? We keep dogs as long as a year if we have to.

I think there is sometimes a genuine problem with some people in rescue who don't get along with other humans and view everyone who doesn't love dogs as much as they do as a potential abuser. Anyone who feels like that isn't suitable for the job of front-desk rehoming but I'm not convinced this is happening on a grand scale.

A major part of our work is providing low-cost veterinary treatment for animals owned by people who can't afford ordinary vet fees and some of these are animals we've adopted out to them. There are limits on the amount of support that it's possible to give to owners who love their animals but need help with caring for them.

[EmilyS]

well, pit bulls ARE a special case, like it or not.

I can understand completely the concerns of any pit bull rescue.. especially the high-profile ones... about adopting out a marginal dog or adopting to less-than-stellar home.

Imagine the PR disaster if a dog from Best Friends, or Bad Rap, or any of the others, got into trouble/

But I agree completely that some requirements are absurd.

[Jamie]

I think that Kill shelters should have very little screening process beyond making sure the prospective owner is not abusive. I knew a lady who was turned down from a high kill shelter because she did not have a fenced in yard. She lived on a 40 acre ranch! Come on! I don't know if that puppy they wanted was killed or not, but I found her a puppy through our rescue work and he is a happy little guy with a loving home.

I can definitely see Rosemary's point about funds. I work at a veterinary clinic and there are many times an animal is killed for lack of funds on the part of the owner, not due to any true euthanasia. I wish we had a system to help these animals but right now we don't. We had a pug killed due to an eye prolapse, a rottweiler puppy and a boxer killed for having a broken femur, a cat killed due to a large infected abscess, and too many puppies to count killed for contracting parvo. So I appreciate the concern that people who adopt should be able to monetarily care for their adopted pet...but if the only alternative for that dog or cat is to be killed for being homeless, I would prefer that animal be placed in a home.

I have far more sympathy for rescues that have more elaborate adoption criteria. When I rescue dogs and cats personally they come into my home, become part of my family and, honestly, I can be quite picky. It's the only way I can continue to rescue. Have I had adoptions go bad? Yes.

I have taken a few chances on people I was initially unsure about that have worked out great, so I am not as dogmatic as some others may be. I guess I would rather put an animal in a home and help support that adopter to make things work then to hold onto an animal until I find the perfect home.

Heck! To some rescues my home would be far from ideal, so I can sympathize with adopters who have been turned down for arbitrary reasons.

[Whattheagility.wordpress.com]

I think there's a balance, but I also agree with Rosemary on the "personalities" of many rescuers being potentially detrimental to the process.

I can see how a home check would be offensive if the person doing it has an assumption before even walking in the door, and is looking for reasons not to adopt out the animal to the prospective adopter. Or, I can see how an easy going person who initiates positive conversation while casually and discreetly confirming that all is as it was presented on the application could make the experience very pleasant.

I know from personal experience (albeit it limited) that many/most/the majority(?) of rescue groups do not "train" their fosters or volunteers extensively on how to handle the "Sales and PR" side of the adoption process. Its undoubtedly tough to go through a mismatch and have everyone come out feeling okay about it. At the risk of offending people, I think its fair to say most people are in rescue because they are die hard dog lovers. And many die hard dog lovers aren't exactly the best people people.

Hopefully as animal welfare and rescue groups become more mature in a business sense, the training can follow...

[Karen]

Getting rid of the attitude that all adopters are potential abusers would help. Why put them through the third degree? A reference from their vet and a couple of neighbours sorts the suitable owner/secure yard question surely. Do a drive-by if you're really paranoid.
As to costs, why not sell pet food & products, crafts, pet portraits and photography, grooming services, day care, and anything else you like at your shelters?
Have fun days, fun shows, online competitions etc., surely a dollar can be raised doing this? And a number of adoptees promoted. You mightn't end up in the same league as Donald Trump but you will place a heap of animals and turn a bit of a profit as well.

[Jamie]

Yes, I want to emphasize what Karen mentioned. We have gone soooo long hearing that the killing in shelters is due to the "irresponsible public" and if only the "public" would help out we wouldn't have killing. So we automatically set ourselves up as the enemy of the "public" to whom we are trying to adopt! There are members of the "public" who are irresponsible, greedy, neglectful or even abusive, but we need to realize that the majority are not. The paradigm is beginning to shift in many peoples' minds, but it can be hard to reject something you may have gone your whole life believing. Especially when major animal welfare groups still erroneously argue this point (despite their millions of followers).

We need to look for reasons to say yes.

[Lori]

I shared a link to your last post on this topic with my Facebook friends and heard this from my cousin:

I still don't know why the Great Dane rescue never responded to our application for the puppy -- not even to try to match us with a different dog in their care. After waiting to hear back from them and getting no reply, my next step was to begin researching BREEDERS in our state and neighboring states. We wanted a Great Dane and were going to get one whether the rescue felt we were an acceptable home or not.

In the end, my cousin & her husband decided against travelling great distances to buy a dog and instead chose to eventually adopt an Aussie puppy instead, but not everyone would have been turned off by distance or cost of buying from a reputable breeder and for those who are turned off by that, there's always internet breeders & substandard commerical breeding facilities to fulfill a need.

My question for the folks who want to continue to "super screen" candidates is this -- at what point does increased total lives saved/adopted negate the negative consequences of an increase in returns?

For example, if you would normally have 1 in 50 dogs returned under your current process and you adopt out 200 dogs each year, would it be worth changing your screening process if you could increase your adoption rate by 25% (to 250 per year) with a DOUBLING of your return rate (to 1 in 25). This would mean that instead of having 4 returns and 196 successful matches, you would have 10 returns and 240 successful adoptions.

In the example above, adoption rates increased only 25% and return rates increased by 100% but it saved an extra 44 lives. I have no idea how much of an increase you would see in adoption rates (or return rates), but it seems like something worth considering as a trial program for a year or two to see if there is a significant net positive effect using a less rigorous screening process.

[Rosemary]

It's possible in the Great Dane example that the reason for non-response was that the rescue got an overwhelming number of requests to adopt that particular puppy and had nothing to do with screening.

We've had a couple of single breed rescues (mostly where a puppy farm went broke) which generated enormously more offers of homes than we had puppies to place. That's wonderful on one level but I'm fairly sure it left a lot of people thinking we'd refused them because we had silly criteria for rehoming.

[Lori]

I agree that lots of apps on a puppy is a likely cause for my cousin not getting the Great Dane, however, I think rescues are really dropping the ball by not following up with applicants -- especially if they have plenty of other dogs of the same breed in their care. Why not follow-up to see if one of the adult dogs might be a good match for families who are interested in the breed?

[Brandiw]

On another note, less careful screening will result in more returns and when animals are returned, foster care has to be found for them. The rescue I volunteer with rarely has returns, but when it does, that returned animal has to go into spot that would have gone to an animal from the local shelter. Our group isn't that big, so a return that takes up a spot is a big deal.

I'm not saying that some rescues don't turn away good adopters and their screening is too intense, I'm just saying that I can see the problem with an uptick in returns as well.

[Lori]

I don't think any is saying that there is not a negative consequence to an increase in return rates. Some of the things that are in question are:

- how many extra lives do you need to save to make it worth dealing with an increase in return rates? In the example above, return rates increased by 100% and adoption rates increased by only 25% which sounds scary until you realize that it meant only 6 more returns each year than they had with the strict screening and yet an additional 44 lives were saved.

- how many rescues with strict yes/no, black/white screening process actually know the numerical effect of their "superior" process?

They should be able to look at their records to know the average number of adoptions (& returns) with yes/no, black/white screening, but have they ever tried a screening process that looks for reasons to say yes to an adoption and allows shades of grey (such as acknowledging that a fenced yard is not a guarantee of adequate exercise or perfect safety)?

I would be willing to bet that a lot of the rescues & shelters that have yes/no, black/white screening don't actually know that their process is superior and results in a higher save rate.