Katheryn, you are not guessing, you are right, and there is research that backs you to the letter, which matters for you as a grant writer.
On dropping the vet and landlord checks, that is not just a good instinct, it is the position of the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. Their Standards of Care guidelines say plainly that imposing strict adopter requirements like employment status, landlord checks, home visits, and veterinary references is discriminatory, prolongs length of stay, and prevents future adoptions. That is your own field's standards body, in writing, saying the barriers cost lives. And a 2014 ASPCA study, Weiss et al., compared policy-based adopters to policy-free ones and found no difference in quality of care or in the bond with the pet, with 96 percent still in the home at follow-up. So the fear that drives those checks, that looser screening means worse homes, does not hold up in the data. For an internal case or a grant narrative, those two sources are your ammunition.
On the diversion program, that is the whole game, and it is exactly the model we run: food, medical help, and behavior support to keep pets out of both your shelter and the county shelter. Two things worth hearing. First, it does not take unlimited money to start. One funded lane, say emergency pet food plus a small medical-assistance fund, is a real diversion program on day one, and you grow from there. Second, the part you said almost in passing, preventing intake into your shelter ...
View Discussion