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 relatively small.
5.3.1.2 Pet‐Friendly Housing Support
In addition to help with the basic need of nutrition, pet owners may need support in addressing the fundamental need of shelter, both for themselves and for their companion animals. This need is often particularly acute for clients living in rental housing. In one study, only 53% of rental accommodations were pet friendly, and of those only 11% allowed large‐breed dogs. According to the same study, most landlords of pet‐friendly housing required an additional pet deposit, and average rents for pet‐friendly units were 20–30% higher per month than the overall average (Carlisle‐Frank et al. 2005). In another study, 44% of renting pet owners reported having been declined as renters based on pet ownership, and 82% rated the process of finding their current residence as “difficult” (Power 2017).
Shelters can reduce relinquishments by providing pet‐friendly housing support. This support can include accessible information on local renting laws to inform clients of their rights as tenants, both in private and public housing units (Huegel and MacMillan 2014). Support can also include a database of pet‐friendly rental units and/or landlords. However, because not all pet‐friendly units are advertised as such (Power 2017), developing a robust database requires the use of multiple research methods to identify landlords who allow companion animals and to clarify any restrictions on species and/or size. Such a database needs to be regularly updated.
Effective housing support programs reduce shelter relinquishment caused by housing restrictions while benefiting the pet and owner by maintaining the human‐animal bond. They can also provide much‐needed housing security for pet owners who choose not to relinquish their companion animal(s), despite restrictions. As with food bank programs, pet‐friendly housing support presents another opportunity for collaboration with key stakeholders in the community, including attorneys, housing‐assistance programs, and other social service programs. Such connections can serve as another avenue for shelters to build a framework of community collaboration and provide a comprehensive support network in the community.
The resources needed to implement housing support programs vary based on their scope. Simple programs may only provide access to information linked on the organization’s website. Housing support that includes the development and maintenance of a pet‐friendly housing database or advocacy for pet‐friendly housing in the community requires a modest additional resource investment by the organization.
5.3.1.3 Rehoming Advice and Resources
If rehoming a pet is unavoidable, direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming services can prevent relinquishment and the need for sheltering. In one study exploring the rehoming of cats and dogs, 37% of respondents who had rehomed a pet within the last five years had given their pet to a friend or family member as compared to 36% who rehomed by taking their pet to a shelter (Weiss et al. 2015). Eleven percent of respondents rehomed their pet directly to a person not previously known. These findings suggest that owners may be willing, and even prefer, to directly rehome their pets, thus avoiding relinquishment to a shelter altogether.
The shelter’s role in facilitating direct rehoming can include posting photos and information about available pets on an organization’s website, offering tips for successful rehoming, or referring clients to credible organizations that focus on direct owner‐to‐owner rehoming. Shelters typically do not process directly rehomed animals as admissions or placements; thus, appropriate disclosure is necessary to ensure that adopters are aware that the shelter’s normal evaluation processes have not taken place. However, direct rehoming allows the new adopter to receive information about the pet right from the previous owner. This information is potentially even more valuable than information learned about an animal’s behavior in the unfamiliar and stressful environment of the shelter.
A simplified process, with direct communication between a previous and future owner, is just one benefit of rehoming services. Additionally, the animal’s welfare is enhanced by avoiding relinquishment to the shelter and, ideally, entering a well‐counseled and well‐prepared home. The organization avoids a shelter admission through a system that requires minimal resources to establish.
Of course, direct home‐to‐home transfer of ownership is not
