The Pyramid of Saving Lives -- what the 90% looks like

At the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference that was held in Las Vegas back in October, I had the pleasure of listening to Dr. Ellen Jefferson, of Austin Pets Alive, speak.

While I was familiar with Austin's story, it was great to hear from someone who's boots were on the ground, creating success in Austin.

As a part of her presentation, she presented the chart to the left (and it is with her permission I'm sharing it).  I love this chart because I think it is a really clear way to demonstrate what it looks like to achieve no kill in an open admission shelter. The data on the chart, while Dr. Jefferson acknowledges is "not scientific", I think does give a feel for what a shelter population looks like -- based on her experience in Austin. The numbers in Kansas City were very similar.

So, starting at the bottom of the pyramid you have the 50% that were already being saved. When Austin Pets Alive really started working toward No Kill, the shelter had a save rate of 50% -- so they didn't necessarily need help with those animals. They were highly adoptable, and were, in fact, being adopted. In Kansas City, the save rate was about 60% when we took over, so we were in pretty similar shape.

APA then recognized that there was another 10-15% of the population that was healthy, highly adoptable, and fairly easy to find homes for. The targeted that group first as a way to make the highest impact in lives saved with the fewest amount of resources (which were very scarce at the time).

They then identified another 10-15% of the population that were desireable dogs and cats, with minor needs. These may be animals with fairly fixable issues like ringworm, or needed slight behavior modification, etc.

They then identified approximately 5% of the population that were underage kittens and puppies that needed foster care, bottle feeding, etc in order to become old enough to be adopted.

There was then 5% of the population that were critically ill (mentally or physically) or injured. At the top were 10% of the population that were chronic, with behavioral or health problems that an animal would never fully recover from.

I really like this chart because I think it's an easy to think about No-Kill in terms of the 90% saved goal -- with the assumption that 90% are easily savable, and the other 10% are clearly not saveable.

However, it's a lot less clear than that.

While 80% or so fall under the desirabe/easily savable category, the remaining 20% (ish) falls under a graduating scale of health and behavioral issues that range from treatable with extra time/work/resources and not ever treatable. Many are highly adoptable after a significant amount of training, or medical work (like treating parvo, or recovery from amputations, gun shot wounds, etc). Others may never be fully healthy.

This graduating scale is often why you see many shelters that are working to get to No Kill hit 80% save rates fairly quickly, but struggle to get to the last 10% and you see a growing list of shelters with about 85% save rates -- including shelters like KC Pet Project and Manatee County, FL. While some smaller shelters are able to help these animals more quickly, because the 10% equals about 10-20 animals, for a shelter like Austin, the animals in this grey area equal about 1600 animals -- which is a lot of resources (veterinary, foster homes, financial and time) to come up with. It's also why you don't see "no kill overnight" happening (yet) in large shelters.

So while 90% (or higher) is achievable, it may take some time to develop the financial/personnel/capital resources to make it happen.

Thanks to Dr. Jefferson for letting me share this and I'm curious if this chart mirrors what you're seeing in your own communities in your open-admission shelters. It sure resembled what we see here in Kansas City, as well as in Austin.

 

Comments

[mikken]

What does this say for shelters where they don't even manage the first 50%?

[Brent]

Yeah, it essentially says they're not even trying.

[EmilyS]

I don't get why you are talking about "90%"

Why should any shelter invest resources in the top 10% (assuming that's honestly defined, which of course is the key) or force the next 5% to suffer? Those 2 categories define "no kill" as saving 85% not 90% or certainly not 95% as some tout.

Saving all the 85% that can/should be saved is an entirely laudable goal and a great achievement if accomplished. Again, assuming that the "chronically/severely challenged" animals are truly irredeemable as opposed to animals that could/should be placed in the "desirable with minor needs" category.. and those that are "pit bulls" automatically deemed to be unadoptable by some socalled "no kill" shelters.

If the goal is to save and find homes for all animals that CAN be saved, and if a shelter truly does that, it doesn't really matter what the actual percentage is. In management theory terms, the number or percentage saved is an "output". It's easily determined which is why people like to use it. But it doesn't really tell whether success is achieved. If a shelter receives 100 dogs of which 70 are truly too damaged to live and it find homes for the rest, it's only saved 30%. But it's achieved its "outcome" of saving all savable animals. And it should be judged by THAT measure not by the number alone.

Knowing the numbers, and being able to describe and categorize them as this chart does is extremely valuable. But it's not the end of understanding what success is.

[Brent]

Emily,

In large part I agree. The goal is (or at least should be) to save all the ones that are savable, regardless of what that percentage is. No doubt that there are some shelters out there that are at 87/88% and are truly no kill, while I also know of some closed admission shelters that are at 95% and really shouldn't be killing anything (ie, why take it in if you're not going to save it?)

I personally like the "90%" goal though, as I think it's a solid benchmark that helps identify shelters that are declaring pit bulls, feral cats, animals with any medical issues at all (like Ringworm)etc "unadoptable" and then declaring themselves "no kill" of "adoptable" animals -- which is also BS. So I definitely think of the 90% as a benchmark, but not as a sole indicator.

As for the last 15% (and remember, these numbers are also just estimates and not scientific), I do think there are a fair number of those that are savable with some significant rehab (either physical or behavioral). I think Parvo pups fall in this category. But it's certainly not all are going to be savable, and many not without significant resource use.

And no, I'm not comfortable at all with the 95% being so easily thrown around. While this number may be achievable for some (as they have shown), I don't know that this is a very realistic number for the vast majority of open-admission shelters unless there becomes a significant increase in the number of rescues/sanctuaries that form to handle very challenging cases.

[twocents]

Some put cats with FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus) in the last (top) 10 percent category while others do not. Some places, including "rescue" groups still automatically have these cats killed, often based on their particular veterinarian's opinion.

While the cats will always be FIV positive, I believe they should be offered for adoption along with education so people can make an informed decision. Automatically killing pets who are not suffering who may live a normal life seems outdated.

[Brent]

Agree completely two cents...