Animal Welfare Professionals

I volunteer at our county animal shelter.  The surrender intake has had to become quite a process as they were finding that when the owners heard that there was a waiting list to get the dog in, they would abandoned the dog.  Or, they would call animal control and say that they had found the dog. ( Then the shelter has to take it.)  Therefore, now, when someone calls, they have to send information about the dog and pictures before the owner is told the process.   Then, once that has been done, the owner is told the process of bringing the dog in for an evaluation and then that there is a waiting list.    If the dog is then 'found' by someone else, they can trace it back to the owner.    It is sad, but a reality in a small rural area where the animal shelter can take only a certain amount.    It is so sad when owners call and want to surrender a dog that they have had for years, because they got another dog and the two aren't getting along.  I also see the torment of the employees because they want to help all of these animals but can only do so much in our small shelter.

So many! 

We removed the requirements for adoption applicants to

• provide ID, information on prior pets, information on ability to pay for vet care
• not have previously surrendered pets to us
• have existing pets in the home sterilized and up-to-date on vaccines (we offered services to help, if appropriate)
• not have other cats or have only FIV-positive cats in order to adopt an FIV-positive cat

We replaced those requirements with conversations about what they were looking for in a pet and questions about what support they needed from us. 

We removed requirements for spay/neuter program participants to prove their financial need, and when we built our programs that provided other financial support to keep pets with their families, we never made this requirement.

We waived surrender fees when they were an obstacle for people bringing pets to us. 

We worked to remove barriers wherever we could, from eliminating education requirements for jobs (other than where legally required) to making our website font easier to read. 

The negatives of making these changes were resistance from some staff and volunteers. We did very intentional change management which helped prevent this, but there are always people who will fear removing barriers. 

It's people who need help with animals and people who give help to animals. Animal organizations are most effective when we engage the greatest portion of our communities. I believe we should consistently look for and implement ways to expand that engagement. 

Karen,

This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping the thread would surface. Every one of those removed requirements maps to a gate the field has treated as untouchable for decades.

Two of yours land hardest for me.

The proof-of-financial-need removal for spay/neuter is the same call we made when we designed our SNIP program at AAF. No income test on the service. Recovery support payment goes to enrollees of qualifying assistance programs, which is documented enrollment, not proof-of-need theater. The framing we used internally was the gun buyback model: no questions, no shame, just remove the barrier. Anyone who walks in the door gets the surgery.

The conversation replacing the application is the bigger structural shift in your list. Most of what we have built operationally at AAF runs on the same logic. Our Pet Help Desk is a triage conversation, not a vetting interview. The Bridge program responds to what the family needs that week, not to their financial history. Our adoption process for crisis-rehomed animals (Bessemer 20 was the most recent) replaces the application with the same kind of "what are you looking for, what support do you need" frame you described. The conversations close cases the applications would have lost.

The resistance you flagged is where I see most of the field stuck right now. Sole-operator orgs do not have it. Bigger orgs do. The change management piece is the part the prevention argument keeps running into when it scales. If you ever publish the change management work you used, that piece is something I would absolutely send to every partner org in the Welfare Resource Network (AWRN).

So many! 

We removed the requirements for adoption applicants to

• provide ID, information on prior pets, information on ability to pay for vet care
• not have previously surrendered pets to us
• have existing pets in the home sterilized and up-to-date on vaccines (we offered services to help, if appropriate)
• not have other cats or have only FIV-positive cats in order to adopt an FIV-positive cat

We replaced those requirements with conversations about what they were looking for in a pet and questions about what support they needed from us. 

We removed requirements for spay/neuter program participants to prove their financial need, and when we built our programs that provided other financial support to keep pets with their families, we never made this requirement.

We waived surrender fees when they were an obstacle for people bringing pets to us. 

We worked to remove barriers wherever we could, from eliminating education requirements for jobs (other than where legally required) to making our website font easier to read. 

The negatives of making these changes were resistance from some staff and volunteers. We did very intentional change management which helped prevent this, but there are always people who will fear removing barriers. 

It's people who need help with animals and people who give help to animals. Animal organizations are most effective when we engage the greatest portion of our communities. I believe we should consistently look for and implement ways to expand that engagement. 

Hi BJ,

I talk a lot about my change management approach in a webinar I did for the Million Cat Challenge (available through Maddie's Fund here). It was about moving to a Capacity for Care model, the biggest change I led at Cat Adoption Team, where I was the executive director for 12 years. 

Change management is also something I love working with organizations on through my consulting work.

If I ever write a guide, I'll pass it along!

Karen

Karen,

This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping the thread would surface. Every one of those removed requirements maps to a gate the field has treated as untouchable for decades.

Two of yours land hardest for me.

The proof-of-financial-need removal for spay/neuter is the same call we made when we designed our SNIP program at AAF. No income test on the service. Recovery support payment goes to enrollees of qualifying assistance programs, which is documented enrollment, not proof-of-need theater. The framing we used internally was the gun buyback model: no questions, no shame, just remove the barrier. Anyone who walks in the door gets the surgery.

The conversation replacing the application is the bigger structural shift in your list. Most of what we have built operationally at AAF runs on the same logic. Our Pet Help Desk is a triage conversation, not a vetting interview. The Bridge program responds to what the family needs that week, not to their financial history. Our adoption process for crisis-rehomed animals (Bessemer 20 was the most recent) replaces the application with the same kind of "what are you looking for, what support do you need" frame you described. The conversations close cases the applications would have lost.

The resistance you flagged is where I see most of the field stuck right now. Sole-operator orgs do not have it. Bigger orgs do. The change management piece is the part the prevention argument keeps running into when it scales. If you ever publish the change management work you used, that piece is something I would absolutely send to every partner org in the Welfare Resource Network (AWRN).

So many! 

We removed the requirements for adoption applicants to

• provide ID, information on prior pets, information on ability to pay for vet care
• not have previously surrendered pets to us
• have existing pets in the home sterilized and up-to-date on vaccines (we offered services to help, if appropriate)
• not have other cats or have only FIV-positive cats in order to adopt an FIV-positive cat

We replaced those requirements with conversations about what they were looking for in a pet and questions about what support they needed from us. 

We removed requirements for spay/neuter program participants to prove their financial need, and when we built our programs that provided other financial support to keep pets with their families, we never made this requirement.

We waived surrender fees when they were an obstacle for people bringing pets to us. 

We worked to remove barriers wherever we could, from eliminating education requirements for jobs (other than where legally required) to making our website font easier to read. 

The negatives of making these changes were resistance from some staff and volunteers. We did very intentional change management which helped prevent this, but there are always people who will fear removing barriers. 

It's people who need help with animals and people who give help to animals. Animal organizations are most effective when we engage the greatest portion of our communities. I believe we should consistently look for and implement ways to expand that engagement.