The Value of Data Gary Patronek & Stephen Zawistowski Published online: 04 Jun 2010.

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] On: 08 June 2015, At: 09:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: The Value of Data Gary Patronek & Stephen Zawistowski Published online: 04 Jun To cite this article: Gary Patronek & Stephen Zawistowski (2002) The Value of Data, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5:3, , DOI: / S JAWS0503_01 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

2 Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 09:24 08 June 2015 This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

3 JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE, 5(3), Copyright 2002, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. EDITORS INTRODUCTION TO NEIDHART AND BOYD Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 09:24 08 June 2015 The Value of Data Gary Patronek and Stephen Zawistowski Until the 1970s, the discussion of pet population dynamics and subsequent policy development and implementation took place in the absence of data related to acquisition, retention, and relinquishment of companion animals. Peer-reviewed journals have since published a number of studies on the relinquishment of dogs and cats to animal shelters (DiGiacomo, Arluke, & Patronek, 1998; Miller, Staats, Partlo, & Rada, 1996; New et al., 2000, 1999; Patronek Glickman, Beck, McCabe, & Ecker, 1996a, 1996b; Salman et al., 2000, 1998; Scarlett, Salman, New, & Kass, 1999). Other studies have addressed the use of statistics in shelter management (Wenstrup & Dowidchuk, 1999) and various other issues associated with animals entering animal shelters. These studies typically have focused on the characteristics of both animals who come into animal shelters and the people who bring them. Much of the research in this area has been driven by interest in reducing the number of animals who are received by animal shelters and subsequently euthanized. It was felt that understanding why animals are relinquished would provide insight for the development of interventions that could reduce the likelihood of relinquishment. A focus on animal intake also facilitated data collection. Standing at the shelter door, the data came to you: the animals and people. Few studies have addressed the fate of animals who are adopted from animal shelters or through various animal placement methods. This is likely a function of both philosophy and resources. It also is surprising because the goal of shelters and rescue groups is to place animals in permanent, lifelong homes. Outcome data would appear to be essential to guiding adoption protocols. Yet, it is something of a truism Requests for reprints should be sent to Gary Patronek, Tufts University, 200 Westboro Road, North Grafton, MA gary.patronek@tufts.edu

4 172 VALUE OF DATA Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 09:24 08 June 2015 among animal shelter staff that doing follow-up contacts with people after animals leave the shelter is notoriously difficult and frustrating. Some of the difficulty may be due to lack of staff resources. There may be lack of interest on the part of the shelter or lack of appreciation of the value of follow-up. In still other cases, follow-up may be impeded because shelters do not verify the identity, address, and telephone numbers of adopters. Much of the research on companion animals who are in homes is conducted for marketing purposes by professional associations (American Veterinary Medical Association; American Animal Hospital Association), pet product manufacturers, or retailers. Although the professional associations make their data available, their methods and the data collected may or may not be relevant to efforts associated with reducing the numbers of adoptable animals euthanized in animal shelters due to the design of the studies or populations sampled. Studies conducted by corporations often are proprietary in nature and are not made available for general distribution, evaluation, or critique. The following article by Neidhart and Boyd (2002/this issue) is an exciting development in the field. Funded by PETsMART Charities, they sought to answer a question that has vexed the shelter community for a number of years. Do special adoption promotions and alternate adoption locations result in placements that are less successful than traditional, in-shelter placement programs? On this central question, their results speak for themselves. Retention is comparable among adopters who acquired their companion animals at a shelter, a PETsMART in-store Luv-A-Pet Adoption Center, or at a special Adopt-a-thon promotion event. Their results raise several other significant issues. Even when a professional marketing firm attempts follow-up contact, inability to contact adopters 2 weeks after adoption (1,178/2,042; 58%), refusal to provide follow-up information (6%), and the rapid attrition in the cohort of adopters who initially participate (317/698; 45%) are alarming. The modest initial response rate of 37% makes generalizing beyond the sample difficult because there was no information to indicate whether nonresponders were different from those who chose to participate. Loss or inability to keep the adopted animal was 20% among those who agreed to participate and for whom the status of the pet could be determined. This proportion is consistent with results of a survey of 343 persons who adopted a dog from a shelter in California (Kidd, Kidd, & George, 1992) and a shelter in Pennsylvania (Patronek, Glickman, & Moyer, 1995). Although the results of this study seem to suggest that various off-site adoption methods are comparable, the overall failure rate should indicate the importance of developing better data on adoption outcomes. Such information could be of enormous benefit in designing optimal placement and counseling programs. The exercise in getting this work into print has been an education for both the authors and editors. The language, organization, and other intangible differences between market research and academic research required us all to do a bit of stretching and accommodation. We believe that it was worth the effort.

5 PATRONEK AND ZAWISTOWSKI 173 Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 09:24 08 June 2015 The results reported by Neidhart and Boyd (2002/this issue) raise some very interesting questions that will require additional research. For example, we are aware that several other studies in progress also have met with some of the same problems associated with sample attrition. Once this work makes its way through the publication process, it will be interesting to evaluate some potential reasons for this problem. Another issue that must be addressed is the continued focus on animal shelters as the nexus for research on pet acquisition and relinquishment. Shelters are neither the most common source of companion animals nor the only option for relinquishment in a community. As this study and others have shown, there is substantial movement and exchange of animals outside the purview of animal shelters. Understanding the nature of these movements will likely be critical to the development of programs that enhance and protect the welfare of companion animals. We also hope that this publication sets a precedent on the publication of market research supported by either industry or nonprofit organizations. Once organizations have had the opportunity to utilize the results of research, they should consider publication in the public domain where the value of these data can be realized fully to enhance the welfare of animals and their human caregivers. Finally, we, as the editors of Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, express our thanks to PetsMart Charities for their cooperation in making this work available. REFERENCES DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (1998). Surrendering pets to shelters: The relinquisher s perspective. Anthrozoös, 11, Kidd, A. H., Kidd, R. M., & George, C. C. (1992). Successful and unsuccessful pet adoptions. Psychological Reports, 70, Miller, D. D., Staats, S. R., Partlo, C., & Rada, K. (1996). Factors associated with the decision to surrender a pet to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 209, Niedhart, L., & Boyd, R. (2002). Companion animal adoption study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5, New, J. C., Jr., Salman, M. D., King, M., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., & Hutchinson, J. M. (2000). Characteristics of shelter-relinquished animals and their owners compared with animals and their owners in U.S. pet-owning households. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3, New, J. C., Jr., Salman, M. D., Scarlett, J. M., Kass, P. H., Vaughn, J. A., Scherr, S., et al. (1999). Moving: Characteristics of dogs and cats and those relinquishing them to 12 U. S. animal shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C. (1996a). Risk factors for relinquishment of cats to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Association, 209, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., Beck, A. M., McCabe, G. P., & Ecker, C. (1996b). Risk factors for relinquishment of dogs to an animal shelter. Journal of the American Veterinary Association, 209, Patronek, G. J., Glickman, L. T., & Moyer, M. R. (1995). Population dynamics and risk of euthanasia for dogs in an animal shelter. Anthrozoös, 8,

6 Downloaded by [Dr Kenneth Shapiro] at 09:24 08 June VALUE OF DATA Salman, M. D., Hutchinson, J., Ruch-Gallie, R., Kogan, L., New, J. C., Jr., Kass, P. H., et al. (2000). Behavioral reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats to 12 shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 3, Salman, M. D., New, J. C., Jr., Scarlett, J., Kass, P., Ruch-Gallie, R., & Hetts, S. (1998). Human and animal factors related to the relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 selected animal shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 1, Scarlett, J. M., Salman, M. D., New, J. C., Jr., & Kass, P. H. (1999). Reasons for relinquishment of companion animals in U. S. animal shelters: Selected health and personal issues. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2, Wenstrup, J., & Dowidchuk, A. (1999). Pet overpopulation: Data and measurement issues in shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 2,