Investigating Inconsistencies In Animal Shelter Data Input
In the U.S. and Canada, animal shelters receive millions of companion animals per year, including animals surrendered by their guardians. It’s vital to understand the reasons behind animal surrenders, as this enables staff to ensure the animal finds the best fit for their next home. However, previous research suggests that shelter data can be inconsistent and unreliable.
This study aimed to assess the reliability and consistency of animal surrender data as well as the decision-making processes shelter staff use when entering data, especially in situations that involve multiple reasons for animal surrender. For example, the authors consider that staff may differ in how they identify an animal’s breed. Furthermore, some software only allows staff to input one reason for surrender, which becomes tricky if the situation is complex. Finally, they wonder whether staff might skew how they input data to make surrendered dogs look more appealing to future adopters.
Staff from U.S. and Canadian animal shelters were invited to participate in an online experiment, where they were presented with fictional conversations between a shelter staff member and an animal guardian surrendering their dog. The reasons provided by each guardian had multiple animal- and human-related components. At the bottom of each conversation was a photo of a medium-sized, short-haired dog of an unknown breed. Respondents were asked to input data about each surrender as they would in real life, including a primary reason, the animal’s color, and breed.
The results showed that there’s a lack of consensus among animal shelter staff when recording the reasons guardians give for surrendering their animals. For example, the primary reason provided for the scenarios varied, with the most commonly-chosen primary reason selected by only 22-58% of respondents for each conversation. For three scenarios, participants attributed the primary surrender reason to guardian-related factors, while only one of the scenarios was viewed by 64% of respondents as primarily related to the animal.
When asked how they go about selecting a primary reason for surrender, participants provided seven common themes, ranked below in order of how often participants mentioned each:
- Most influential (44%): Staff member chooses whichever method “best” explains the surrender. The authors argue that this reasoning is vague, as the “best” explanation can be interpreted differently.
- Ask the guardian (26%): Staff member goes by what a guardian writes on a surrender form or what the guardian says first when asked why they’re surrendering their animal.
- Underlying problem (19%): Staff member chooses what they believe is the true reason for surrendering an animal, regardless of what a guardian says first.
- No solution (16%): Staff member chooses a reason that cannot be fixed with resources, training, or other alternatives to surrender.
- Choose guardian or animal (11%): Staff member chooses either an animal-related or a guardian-related reason for surrender, without considering both.
- Help future adoptions (7.5%): Staff member is concerned about an animal’s future adoption prospects when choosing a primary surrender reason.
- Choosing multiple (6%): Some staff members are able to provide multiple surrender reasons in their shelter’s system, or the system allows them to add notes to describe the full picture.
Beyond identifying reasons for surrender, participants also showed inconsistencies in identifying the animals’ breed and color. This is concerning because research suggests that certain dog breeds can be stereotyped or face stigma. For example, participants identified between 22-36 unique breeds across the scenarios. All four dogs were identified by at least one participant as a Pit Bull Terrier or a Labrador Retriever, although the number of respondents selecting these breeds differed for each picture.
It’s important to bear in mind some limitations to the study, including the fact that it relied on a small sample size and that it was a hypothetical online experiment as opposed to a real-life surrender scenario. In fact, the authors asked participants to discuss some of the ways that the online experiment differed from their daily work — some people said their shelter software doesn’t record an animal’s breed, while others mentioned that guardians are often dishonest with their reasoning, show more emotional distress, or surrender animals without a reason. Still others said their shelter tends to push for alternatives to surrender or ask follow-up questions.
The authors suggest several ways of improving the shelter data collection process, including creating clear, well-defined definitions for each surrender reason and methods for choosing a reason that can be standardized across animal shelters and rescues. To avoid mislabeling a dog breed, they also recommend consolidating breed categories or only listing a breed if a guardian specifies their animal is purebred. Finally, it’s important for shelter staff to build trust with animal guardians to ensure people tell the truth about why they’re surrendering their animal.