Shelter & Rescue Regulations Survey Results Sponsored by Massachusetts Animal Coalition Presented at the MAC Annual Meeting September 2007 Generously Supported by Boston Research Group
Agenda Survey Objectives Methodology Respondent Profile DAR Emergency Order, Proposed Regulations Key Findings Importation Activities Attitudes & Opinions on Importation and Regulation Impact of DAR Emergency Order Conclusions
Survey Objectives To determine extent and nature of animal importation into Massachusetts To examine experience with and attitudes toward regulation and importation To determine effects of DAR emergency order on importation and adoption
Methodology Web survey List compiled from MAC member database, orgs listed on Petfinder, ACO listings, etc Invitations were sent via email and mail 610 contacts in total, 579 with valid email and/or mail addresses (43% with email, w/ or w/o mail) 58% of total contacts were ACOs
Response Rate 420 invitations sent via snail mail postcards and email Limited the number sent to ACOs so they would not dominate sample (80 to ACOs with email addresses; 30% to ACOs via snail mail ) 22% response rate = 92 completes 66% response rate for Rescues 19% response rate for ACOs
Stats Refresher Confidence Intervals Confidence Intervals let us know reliability of data Current Study Total Sample Size = 92 For a Sample size of 100 confidence interval is +/- 9.8% at the 95% confidence level If 20% of the sample indicate option A, we are 95% confident that the real % is between 10.2% and 29.8% Detecting differences between groups ability depends on sample size Although our response rate is respectable, sample sizes in segments too small to detect differences in most cases
Key Findings Part 1: Organizations/Respondents Profile
Organization Profile Majority of respondents were from shelter/rescue organizations (68%) or Animal Control (19%) Most organizations worked with both dogs and cats Only 26% worked only with dogs while 17% worked only with cats 65% of orgs used foster homes in MA while 50% had a shelter in MA 15% had multiple facilities Other stats: 46% of orgs had been in existence 11+ years 65% volunteer-based, 35% had paid staff 68% were incorporated n=92 (varies slightly depending on question)
Number of Animals Helped per Year Dogs Cats 18% 24% 31% 12% 11% 12% 45% 7% 4% 7% 0 #1-10 #11-25 26-50 51-100 100+ 17% 13% n=84
Respondent Title Nearly 40% had worked/volunteered with org 10+ years 14% of respondents were members of MAC Volunteer 4% Individual Rescuer 6% Other 17% President 32% Animal Control Officer 15% Placement/ Adoption Coordinator 1% Executive Director Shelter 12% Director/Manager 13% n=84
Key Findings Part 2: Importation Activities
Animal Importation More organizations importing dogs than cats 40% 37% Percent of Organizations 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 8% % Importing Animals Dogs Cats n=84, n=31
Number of Animals Organizations Import Dogs Imported Cats Imported 5 3 7 1 n=2 1 1 n=2 5 11 53 77 n=84 0 1 to 10 11 to 25 26-50 51-100 100+
Average Number of Animals Imported Four organizations reported importing more than 500 dogs in 2005 Importing Organizations are importing an average of 24 dogs (n=24), 36 (n=5) cats a year
Source of Imported Animals New England states primary source of both dogs & cats South second most common source for dogs Percent of Organizations 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 21 8 15 4 5 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6 3 1 1 New England East coast South Midwest Southwest Other n=31 Where Dogs were Imported From Where Cats were Imported From n=8
Opinion of Animal Importation Q1. Do you believe that groups in Massachusetts should be able to bring animals in from out of state? 22% Yes No Shelter/Rescue ACO 78% % Yes n= 82% 61 65% 17 n=92
Opinion by Importation Activity Percent of Organizations 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 90% 74% 100% 78% % Believe Importation Should Be Allowed Importing Dogs (n=31) No Dog Importation (n=53) Importing Cats (n=7) No Cat Importation (n=77) Importation Should be Allowed Import Dogs 90% Don t Import Dogs 74% n= 31 53
Key Findings Part 3: Regulations and their Impact
Necessity of Regulating Animal Importation Q5A. How necessary do you feel is some level of regulation for shelters and rescue organizations? 40% 35% 72% believe some level of regulation is necessary n=92 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 1-Not Necessary 2 3-No Opinion 4 5-Very Necessary 5% 0% % Rating Import Don t Import Shelter/Rescue ACO % Some Reg 82% 65% % Some Reg 67% 82% n= 34 58 n= 61 17
Activities to Regulate Rated Necessity of Regulating and Difficulty of Complying with 5 Key Activities Providing information (health history, source, where housed & transported) to the state on animals brought in from other states/countries Providing yearly information on numbers of animals adopted, euthanized, RTO, etc., to the state Isolating animals upon entering the Commonwealth from a noncontiguous state/country for 48 hours Isolating animals upon entering the Commonwealth from a contiguous state for 48 hours Providing a room to be used for the purposes of quarantining sick or diseased animals or isolating newly acquired dogs and cats Scale from 1-5 on both necessity and difficulty
Regulating Aspects of Animal Importation 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Providing info Providing a room for quarantining Isolating animals from non-contig Isolating animals from a contig Providing yearly info n=92 (total), 31 (import dogs) In general, those rating ind areas more necessary rated them less difficult to comply with. % Agree with Necessity of Regulating (4+5) % Agree who import dogs % Indicating Difficulty with Complying (4+5)
Isolation Room Requirements 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Exclusively used for isolating animals Physically separated Completely enclosed Exhaust fan Sink used exclusively for room Other n=71, n=29 Most Burdensome Least Burdensome Most Burdensome Req for Dog Importing Orgs Percent of Orgnizations
Isolation Room Requirements for Dog Importing Organizations 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Exclusively used for isolating animals Physically separated Completely enclosed Exhaust fan Sink used exclusively for room Other Most Burdensome Least Burdensome Percent of Organizations
DAR Regulations Emergency Order activities regulated Proposed Permanent Regulations
DAR Emergency Order Q9. Are you familiar with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (DAR) Emergency Order from May 2005? 13% Yes No % Yes n= Shelter/Rescue 92% 61 ACO 71% 17 87% n=84
Effect of DAR Order Percent of Organizations 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Over half the orgs indicated neutral effect 1 1-Very Negative Effect 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5-Very Positive Effect 0% Effect of DAR Order 35% indicated a negative effect n=84
Impact of DAR Order Compliance Registered with DAR 59%, 79% Received DAR approval as quarantine facility 18%, 45% Use quarantine facilities approved by DAR 15%, 31% Positive Impacts Improved record keeping 18%, 21% Applied for/became a 501(c)(3) 8%, 10% ** The first percentage is everyone who responded to the question (n=71), the second percentage represents the responses of those organizations actively involved in importation (n=29)
Impact of DAR Order Impacts on Importation Changed process for importation 23%, 41% Stopped importation 23%, 17% Decreased importation but haven't stopped 15%, 31% Changed standards for importation 14%, 24% Changed source of animals 6%, 7% Other Impacts Experienced financial hardships 15%, 24% Built or Adapted Facilities 14%, 24% Changed our mission 4%, 3% Terminated our operations 3%, 7% ** The first percentage is everyone who responded to the question (n=71), the second percentage represents the responses of those organizations actively involved in importation (n=29)
DAR-Approved Shelters Percent of Organizations 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Facility Housing Animals DAR- Approved Facility Denied Approval % Yes n=71 n=42 n=24
Impact of DAR Order on Adoptions Q12. Have the DAR regulations impacted your ability to conduct adoptions in any way? 38% Yes No 62% Shelter/Rescue ACO Importing % Indicating 1+ animal not adopted due to DAR restrictions % Yes n= 44% 61 12% 17 52% 31 n=84
Impact of DAR Order on Numbers Adopted 38% of organizations say the regulations have affected their ability to adopt Percent of Organizations 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5 3 6 Dogs Cats 1-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 100+ Number of Animals Effected n=29
Number Dogs not adopted b/c of DAR order DOGS 1 0 7% 2 1-10 13% 3 11-25 27% 4 26-50 13% 5 51-100 27% 6 100+ 13% n= 15
Pet Supply Store Adoption Activities 60% Percent of Organizations 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% % Past % Current 0% Adopted directly Meet and greets Advertised No n=70
Impact of DAR Pet Store Orders on Adoptions Q29. Has the DAR's limitation on the ability to adopt animals directly from a pet supply store that doesn't have a pet shop license impacted your ability to conduct adoptions? 19% Yes No 81% % Indicating 1+ animal not adopted due to DAR restrictipons: 36% 1+ dog 55% 1+ cats n=57
Impact of Hearing Q24. Would you be more likely to comply with regulatory standards that are set by the state if there was a right for you to have a hearing against any alleged violations? 34% Yes No 66% n=70
Summary Importation is happening in Massachusetts Majority (78%) believe shelters and rescues should have ability to import animals Current regulations are having a negative impact on organizations ability to adopt (38% of all surveyed, 52% of organizations who are importing) Isolation and Quarantine Rooms are the most difficult regulations to comply with Despite difficulty, majority of organizations (72%) believe some level of regulation is necessary Key moving forward may be to look for ways to minimize negative impacts experienced by 35% of responding organizations