5 Safety Net Programs

       Erin Doyle and Seana Dowling-Guyer

5.1 Introduction

      Shelter relinquishment is closely linked to behavioral health in companion animals. Behavioral challenges are a major risk factor for pet relinquishment (Dolan et al. 2015; Weiss et al. 2014). In addition, relinquishment represents an inherent challenge to the behavioral well‐being of a surrendered pet, disrupting routine and security for the pet and exposing the animal to the stressors of a shelter environment (Hennessy 2013). (See Chapter 6 for more information on behavioral risks for relinquishment.) Safety net programs include any program or service that reduces risk factors for relinquishment (Weiss 2015). They include intake diversion programs administered at the time of a potential relinquishment and proactive outreach into the community. All safety net programs operate with the common goal of supporting pet ownership and strengthening the human‐animal bond. This chapter will present an overview of the impact and benefits of safety net programs, program types, and guidelines for program selection, implementation, and evaluation.

5.2 Benefits of Safety Net Programs

      Safety net programs come in a variety of formats, but all have the same goal of facilitating pet retention. Their impact is the direct effect or outcome of the program—that is, increased pet retention. Benefits, on the other hand, are broader, positive effects that contribute to an improvement in the pet‐owning environment. A safety net program’s impact on the goal of reducing pet relinquishment should be a measurable effect, while a program’s benefits may extend beyond the immediate goal of keeping pets in homes to broader positive changes for the pet, owner, sheltering organization, and community.

      Pets derive direct benefits from safety net programs through accessible resources necessary for their welfare, such as basic needs, veterinary care, and behavioral support. Provisioning these resources and services directly improves an animal’s health and welfare while reducing the risk of relinquishment. Keeping animals out of shelters through programs that support pet ownership also eliminates the stress of transition and inherent stressors of a shelter environment on the animal.

Pet owners also benefit from safety net programs. Programs that support pet ownership facilitate pet retention, decrease the stress related to an inability to meet the needs of the pet, and eliminate the need for a difficult relinquishment decision. Continued pet ownership may also allow owners to enjoy the benefits of improved physical and mental health (McCune et al. 2014; Wells 2019). In addition, safety net programs provide support services that can enhance the owner‐pet relationship. Informational resources can improve an owner’s understanding of the pet’s needs and enable an owner to better meet those needs (Kidd et al. 1992; New et al., 2000; Patronek et al. 1996a; Patronek et al. 1996b). Knowing more about species‐specific behavior may normalize the pet’s behavior, which can reduce an owner’s frustration.

      Safety net programs also yield beneficial effects for the sheltering organization and the community at large. One obvious effect of reducing pet relinquishments is the potential to reduce shelter intakes. A reduction in shelter animal population better enables an organization to function within its capacity for care, improving the well‐being of animals and personnel within the shelter, and potentially allowing care for animals that require more resources. In addition, reduced intakes may allow an organization to scale up or down or to shift focus, including expanding their community programs to support pet ownership. Such expansion may include strategic community partnerships that allow the organization to provide more comprehensive support through coordinated and targeted services. Greater engagement with the community improves knowledge of its pet ownership needs and challenges, facilitating more tailored programs and increasing their impact. Additionally, increased engagement with the community provides the organization multiple touchpoints, engendering positive perceptions and cementing the idea that an animal sheltering organization is a supportive resource for all pet owners.

5.3 Program Types

      Programs vary in scope and achieve impact through a variety of strategies. All programs should be based on a foundation of cultural awareness and lack of judgment, where organizations believe that pet owners want to do the best thing possible for their pet(s). However, safety net programs do not replace legal or otherwise necessary action in situations of animal cruelty or neglect when the caregiver is unwilling or unable to accept assistance.

Safety net programs can be administered at the time of a potential relinquishment or proactively to address risk factors that may lead to relinquishment. They typically focus on three main areas: basic needs, accessible veterinary care, and accessible behavioral care. However, individual programs often blur the lines between these categorizations. For example, programs that focus on the provision of accessible veterinary care may present opportunities to provide support for concurrent behavioral needs (Weiss 2015). In addition, human health and social services may present an opportunity to identify at‐risk pets and connect owners with beneficial safety net programs, using a One Health model that recognizes the interconnection of human, animal, and environmental health and well‐being (https://www.avma.org/resources‐tools/avma‐policies/one‐health). The following section provides an overview of many common safety net program types. These program types are summarized in Appendix 5.A.

      5.3.1 Basic Needs

      While nearly all safety net programs take basic pet and owner needs and well‐being into consideration, the program types detailed in this section focus on those that provide resources such as food, shelter, and husbandry.

      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