ArticlePDF Available

Legislating Components of a Humane City: The Economic Impacts of the Austin, Texas "No Kill" Resolution (City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040)

Authors:
  • Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity (C.A.R.E.)

Abstract and Figures

This report investigates and measures the economic impacts of the City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040, commonly referred to as the “No Kill” resolution, utilizing standard impact assessment methodology. Resolution 20091105-040 resulted in the implementation of a series of recommendations that included achieving and maintaining a 90% Live Release Rate for all companion animals housed at the City of Austin’s municipal animal shelter. In addition to exploring the specific economic impacts of Resolution 20091105- 040, this report also outlines, but does not quantify, the potential broader impacts of the Resolution on human, animal, and environmental health. These areas of impact include: public health, social capital, and community engagement.
Total annual intake through owner surrender of dogs and cats at AAC from 2005 to 2016. Dataset is provided in Appendix C. Overall, there has been a decrease in the trend of owner surrendered animals at AAC. Dog relinquishment from 2005-2009 (M = 3,382, SD = 159) and from 2010-2016 (M=2,447, SD=546) differed significantly using a t-test analysis (P = 0.003). Cat relinquishment from 2005-2009 (M = 3,162, SD = 471) and from 2010-2016 (M = 1,966, SD = 703) also differed significantly using the same analysis (P = 0.005). While it is not possible to assign a specific source for the changing trends in total intake, potential drivers of the decreased rates of surrender include: the periods of managed admission at AAC that limit number of animals admitted through surrender appointments, increased social awareness of responsible pet-keeping practices as a result of the legislation, or improvements across Austin on issues that drive relinquishment such as pet-friendly rental housing, access to veterinary care, or behavioral training support services. While owner surrender is offered at AAC as shelter capacity allows, as a municipal facility, the primary purpose of AAC is to provide ongoing animal protection services, including housing lost or stray animals and housing those animals seized through cruelty or neglect investigations. Operationally, stray animals are brought into the shelter's care either by community members who bring them to the facility or by the animal protection officers who conduct field services for Travis County. Analysis of stray dog intake from 2005 to 2016 identified a trend in number of stray dogs that decreased by an average of 147 animals per year (P = 0.008) to approximately 7,000 dogs (Figure 3). A t-test analysis of stray dog intake from 2005 to 2009 (M = 8,525, SD = 565) compared to stray dog intake from 2010 to 2016 (M = 7,405, SD=321) found a significant decrease (P = 0.008) following the Resolution. Although the management of admission as a result of the Resolution does not include changes to how stray animals are received from community members or animal protection officers, the decreasing
… 
Content may be subject to copyright.
e Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy
Animal Studies Repository
10-16-2017
Legislating Components of a Humane City: 3e
Economic Impacts of the Austin, Texas "No Kill"
Resolution (City of Austin Resolution
20091105-040)
Sloane Hawes
University of Denver, Sloane.Hawes@du.edu
Devrim Ikizler
Magee and Magee Consulting
Katy Loughney
University of Denver
Philip Tedeschi
University of Denver
Kevin Morris
University of Denver, Kevin.Morris@du.edu
Follow this and additional works at: h=p://animalstudiesrepository.org/anilleg
Part of the Animal Law Commons,Animal Studies Commons, and the Other Anthropology
Commons
<is Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy. It has been accepted for inclusion by an
authorized administrator of the Animal Studies Repository. For more information, please contact eyahner@humanesociety.org.
Recommended Citation
Hawes, Sloane; Ikizler, Devrim; Loughney, Katy; Tedeschi, Philip; and Morris, Kevin, "Legislating Components of a Humane City:
<e Economic Impacts of the Austin, Texas "No Kill" Resolution (City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040)" (2017). Animal Law and
Legislation. 1.
h=p://animalstudiesrepository.org/anilleg/1
Legislating Components of a Humane City:
The Economic Impacts of the Austin, Texas "No Kill"
Resolution (City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040)
Prepared by: Sloane Hawes, MSW¹, Devrim Ikizler, PhD², Katy Loughney, MBA¹, Philip
Tedeschi, MSSW¹, and Kevin Morris, PhD¹,3
Institute for Human-Animal Connection, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver¹
Magee and Magee Consulting²
Corresponding author: kevin.morris@du.edu3
Prepared for: WaterShed Animal Fund
Release Date: October 16, 2017
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
ABBREVIATIONS 5
INTRODUCTION: LEGISLATING A HUMANE CITY 6
BACKGROUND 7
AUSTIN AND TRAVIS COUNTY COMMUNITY PROFILE 7
AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER OVERVIEW 9
AUSTIN PETS ALIVE! OVERVIEW 9
HISTORY OF CITY OF AUSTINS RESOLUTION 20091105-040 10
IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 13
IMPACTS ON SHELTER MANAGEMENT AND OUTCOMES 16
INTAKE 16
OUTCOMES 21
TRANSFER PARTNERSHIPS 27
ASSESSMENT OF LIVE OUTCOMES 29
IMPACTS ON CITY OF AUSTIN COMMUNITY 33
AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES BUDGET 33
SHELTER OPERATIONS 36
VETERINARY CARE AND PET SERVICES 37
PET RETAIL 39
CITY OF AUSTIN BRAND EQUITY 40
POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL IMPACTS 43
PUBLIC HEALTH 43
SOCIAL CAPITAL 45
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 46
LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 49
CONCLUSION 49
2
APPENDICIES 51
APPENDIX A: PET OWNERSHIP ESTIMATES BY STATE (AVMA) 51
APPENDIX B: PET OWNERSHIP ESTIMATES BY MSA (AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY) 53
APPENDIX C: AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER INTAKE 54
APPENDIX D: TRAVIS COUNTY DEAD ANIMAL PICK UP 55
APPENDIX E: POSITIVE ALTERNATIVES TO SHELTER SURRENDER (PASS) INTAKE 56
APPENDIX F: AAC AND APA OUTCOME DATA 57
APPENDIX G: 2016 APA LENGTH OF STAY DATA 58
APPENDIX H: AUSTIN ANIMAL CENTER BUDGET 59
APPENDIX I: IMPLAN DATA 60
APPENDIX J: LIFETIME ANIMAL SPEND (BASED ON THE NATIONAL PET PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION STUDY) 62
APPENDIX K: PET-FRIENDLY RENTAL HOUSING COMPARISON 63
APPENDIX L: REASONS FOR MOVING (CURRENT POPULATION SURVEY, ANNUAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SUPPLEMENT) 64
APPENDIX M: SUMMARY OF BRAND EQUITY CALCULATIONS 65
APPENDIX N: AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES BITE DATA 66
APPENDIX O: CITY OF AUSTIN CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASES 67
APPENDIX P: AUSTIN PETS ALIVE! DONATIONS 68
3
Executive Summary
A Humane City is characterized by the presence of leadership, institutions, and
policies working collaboratively across systems to create and implement sustainable
human, animal, and environmental welfare. In addition to improving animal welfare,
cities that align their policies with humane tenets of compassionate engagement may
accrue important economic, public health, and social benefits for their human residents.
This report investigates and measures the economic impacts of the City of Austin
Resolution 20091105-040, commonly referred to as the “No Kill” resolution, utilizing
standard impact assessment methodology. Resolution 20091105-040 resulted in the
implementation of a series of recommendations that included achieving and maintaining
a 90% Live Release Rate for all companion animals housed at the City of Austin’s
municipal animal shelter. In order to effectively determine the impact of Resolution
20091105-040, this study utilized data obtained from a variety of sources, including
Austin Animal Center (the municipal animal shelter), Austin Pets Alive! (a private, non-
profit animal shelter that takes in Austin Animal Center’s “at risk” for euthanasia
animals), public information requests, survey responses from Austin residents, the U.S.
Census Bureau County Business Patterns report, American Housing Survey reports,
and IMPLAN software.
The economic impact of Resolution 20091105-040 has been measured with
consideration for the increased costs and economic outputs resulting from the changes
in shelter operations, the potential growth in utilization of veterinary and pet care
services, and the potential increases in retail sales of pet products in the Austin/Travis
County area. Calculations were also used to estimate the more indirect impacts on the
City of Austin’s brand equity. Over the period of study (2010-2016), the regional
economic impact of the Resolution has been conservatively measured as follows:
Impacts:
Resolution Premium ($30,379,667)
Shelter Operations $40,938,565
Veterinary/Pet Care Services $49,307,682
Pet Retail Services $25,333,237
City of Austin Brand Equity $72,252,686
________________________________________________
TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT $157,452,503
In addition to exploring the specific economic impacts of Resolution 20091105-
040, this report also outlines, but does not quantify, the potential broader impacts of the
Resolution on human, animal, and environmental health. These areas of impact include:
public health, social capital, and community engagement.
4
Overall, this report concludes that a high Live Release Rate is achievable on a
community-wide level. However, Resolution 20091105-040 has resulted in a
considerably higher than average cost per animal served by Austin Animal Center when
compared to previous City of Austin expenditures and several other major U.S. cities
1
.
These costs are balanced by a series of economic and public health benefits that may
be accrued across the community. These findings are largely generalizable due to the
utilization of conservative data assumptions and standard economic analyses. Austin’s
municipal shelter undertook a major operational shift to implement the legislation, which
required coordinated and sustained collaboration between Austin’s animal welfare
organizations, city policies, city leadership, and citizens (both pet-keeping and
otherwise). A city’s decision to implement comparable policies should be made with
consideration for the capacity of the existing animal welfare organizations, the cost and
resources needed from both community members and partner organizations, and the
ethical balance the community seeks to achieve between the animal welfare issues
associated with euthanasia versus extended lengths of stay under sheltering conditions.
1
These five U.S. cities do not have legislation that specifically governs municipal shelter operations in terms of Live
Release Rate.
5
Abbreviations
AAC Austin Animal Center
AAS Austin Animal Services
ABP Analysis by Parts
AHS Austin Humane Society
APA Austin Pets Alive!
AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association
CBP County Business Patterns Survey
IHAC Institute for Human-Animal Connection
IO Input-Output
LRR Live Release Rate
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
RTO Return to Owner
TLAC Town Lake Animal Center
6
Introduction: Legislating a Humane City
One Health, a concept collaboratively proposed by the American Veterinary
Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Medical Association (AMA), literature
documents the ways in which human, non-human animal (henceforth “animal”), and
environmental health outcomes can be interconnected. This concept provides a
foundation upon which to advocate for policies that promote attention to animal
welfare
2
. Making the case for adopting policies that promote the wellbeing of all living
things requires an increase in interdisciplinary engagement that can specifically address
the economic and social pressures that bring harm to human populations, animal
populations, and the environment alike
3
,
4
. A Humane City, as defined by the University
of Denver’s Institute for Human-Animal Connection, is characterized by the presence of
leadership, institutions, and policies working collaboratively across systems to create
and implement sustainable human, animal, and environmental welfare. Animal welfare
organizations, specifically local companion animal shelters and rescues, provide an
opportunity to understand how one aspect of a Humane City progressive animal
welfare policies can impact the health and prosperity of a community.
Utilizing a social-environmental-economic impact analysis methodology
5
, the
following study measured the social, environmental, and economic impacts of the City
of Austin Resolution 20091105-040, commonly referred to as the Austin “No Kill”
resolution (the report will reference the resolution number throughout for specificity
within the context of several animal-related city resolutions implemented during this
time). How these impacts contribute to more global outcomes in areas of public health
and safety will also be discussed. Resolution 20091105-040 represents just one policy
that contributes to Austin’s advancement towards a Humane City designation, as
defined by the aforementioned criteria. A Humane City will have a system of policies
promoting compassion and respect that transverse all aspects of public life. Additional
examples of humane policies in Austin include the conservation measures for the bat
colonies under the Congress Avenue Bridge, ordinances that prohibit the chaining of
dogs, the establishment of pet-friendly office spaces
6
, and the passage of a Children’s
Outdoor Bill of Rights Resolution
7
. These policies are all indicative of a city committed to
promoting a balance among human, animal, and environmental systems. This report will
present Resolution 20091105-040 as a case study of the impacts that may result from
efforts directed towards establishing a Humane City.
2
American Veterinary Medical Association (2008). One health: A new professional imperative. Retrieved from:
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Reports/Documents/onehealth_final.pdf.
3
Edwards, P. & Abivardi, C. (1998). The value of biodiversity: where ecology and economy blend. Biological
Conservation. 83:3. 239-246.
4
Folke, C., Holling, C.S., & Perrings, C. (1996). Biological diversity, ecosystem and the human scale. Ecological
applications 6, 1018-1024,
5
Vanclay, F. (2015). Social impact assessment: guidance for assessing and managing the social impacts of projects.
International Association of Impact Assessment.
6
http://www.builtinaustin.com/2017/04/24/office-perks-dogs
7
http://www.childrenandnature.org/2017/05/25/a-childs-right-to-nature-why-the-city-of-austin-created-a-childrens-
outdoor-bill-of-rights/
7
Background
Austin and Travis County Community Profile
The population of Travis County has increased by 17.1% over the last six years
with the population estimated at 1,199,323 individuals as of July 2016
8
. Of the residents
in the county, 49.4% identify as white only, 33.8% identify as Hispanic or Latino, and
8.9% identify as Black or African American, with the remaining 7.9% identifying as
another race or ethnicity
9
. Approximately 62% of the population is within the age range
of 18 and 65, and 46% of all Austin residents report that they have attained an
education of a Bachelor’s degree or higher. In rankings of the most educated cities in
the U.S., Austin frequently appears in the top 10
10
. As of 2016, there are an estimated
499,062 housing units, with the median gross rent listed as $1,054 and the median
household income reported at $61,451
11
.
The city of Austin’s pet-keeping rate is estimated to be higher than the rates on
both the national level and in the state of Texas. Although no survey has been
conducted in Austin to specifically measure the rate of pet-keeping, two data sources for
pet-keeping rates across the U.S. were used to calculate Austin’s pet-keeping for the
purposes of this report. In a survey conducted by the AVMA in 2012
12
, which collects
data on the state level but not at the county or city level, Texas ranked 21st in pet-
keeping (data in Appendix A). The American Housing Survey presented by the U.S.
Census Bureau
13
indicated that the Austin-Round Rock area was 3rd out of the 25
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) in percentage of housing units that are occupied
with pets in 2013 (Appendix B)
14
. When assessing the two sources for an estimate of
pet-keeping in Austin, AVMA and the American Housing Survey yield different pet-
keeping rates likely due to definitional issues
15
. For the purposes of this report, Austin is
estimated to have a 63.4% pet-keeping rate as of the year 2012 (Table 1)
16
.
8
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/traviscountytexas,austincitytexas/PST045216
9
Ibid.
10
https://wallethub.com/edu/most-and-least-educated-cities/6656/
11
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/traviscountytexas,austincitytexas/PST045216
12
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx
13
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=AHS_2013_S06AO&prodType
14
This data comes from a survey that include a question on the presence of pets in occupied units as part of the
2013 Emergency and Disaster Preparedness supplement conducted for 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA).
This data was not available longitudinally because the American Housing Survey does not regularly track pet-
keeping.
15
The American Housing Survey is designed to determine pet-keeping rates for disaster preparation purposes, which
include considerations such as ease of entry and potential exits to occupied units where pets may reside
16
National and TX ownership rates as reported in AVMA 2012 Report.
8
Region
Estimated % of Households with Pets
USA
56.0%
Texas
58.5%
Austin - Round Rock MSA
63.4%
Table 1. Austin pet-keeping rate was estimated using 2013 American Housing Survey
data, where Austin-Round Rock MSA’s “units occupied with pets rate was reported to
be 113% of national pet-keeping rates. Because American Housing Survey data were
not available at the state-wide level, 113% was then applied to national AVMA reported
pet-keeping rates to estimate Austin’s pet-keeping rate of 63.4%
17
.
Within the city limits of Austin, there are three animal shelters that provide the
majority of services for unhoused companion animals. Austin Animal Center (AAC) is
the publicly funded municipal shelter for the city, whereas Austin Pets Alive! (APA) and
the Austin Humane Society (AHS) are private, nonprofit facilities that provide the largest
percentage of remaining companion animal relinquishment and/or adoption
opportunities within the city. Through transfer partnerships among the three shelters,
and with an extensive network of rescue groups in the area, the city of Austin serves
over 31,000 companion animals each year
18
. For the purposes of the impact analysis as
it pertains to the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040, this study documented
the specific processes of two of these three major sheltering organizations, AAC was
selected because it was the primary shelter impacted by Resolution 20091105-040.
APA was selected due to its role as a formal partner to AAC in increasing lifesaving for
those animals most “at risk” (of euthanasia), both prior to and following the Resolution.
These two organizations represent a significant majority of the sheltering available for
animals in Austin, with AAC and APA handling a combined 68% of all animals sheltered
in the city in 2016 (Figure 1).
17
Due to the limitations of existing data on rates of pet-keeping, comparisons of pet-keeping rate prior to the
implementation of the Resolution and following the Resolution could not be calculated.
18
http://www.austinhumanesociety.org/about-us/about_faqs/
9
Figure 1. The dynamics of intake and outcomes within two of Austin’s primary animal
shelters in 2016
19
. Percentages represent the portion of all animals taken into the care
of AAC and APA that were documented within the intake or outcome category.
Austin Animal Center Overview
AAC is one of the largest publicly-funded, municipal animal shelters in the United
States that aligns itself with the “No Kill” shelter management practices
20
under
municipal mandate. In 2016, AAC took in over 16,000 animals
21
. The shelter operates
largely as an open admission facility, with the exception of times in which sheltered
animal volume is high (this operational model as a result of Resolution 20091105-040 is
described in greater detail in the “Shelter Management and Outcomes” section of this
report). As a component of the implementation plan for Resolution 20091105-040, AAC
established a formal partnership with APA to serve Austin’s most at-risk (of euthanasia)
companion animals.
Austin Pets Alive! Overview
APA is a privately funded, 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that was reorganized
in 2008 as a companion animal rescue focused on serving the populations of dogs and
cats that were most at risk to be euthanized at AAC prior to the passage of Resolution
20091105-040. Those identified as most at-risk included: puppies with parvovirus,
neonatal orphaned kittens, cats with ringworm or feline leukemia, large adult dogs, and
animals requiring significant behavioral and/or medical treatment. As a result of its early
focus on these challenging populations, APA has a collection of innovative programs
designed to support medical and behavioral challenges that were previously considered
grounds for euthanasia. APA’s medical clinic operates on a model of cost-effective care
19
Based on animal intake and outcome data provided by AAC and APA.
20
http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/uploads/4/8/6/2/48624081/no_kill_101.pdf
21
AAC intake data
10
for critically injured and ill dogs and cats. The behavior program is designed for the
enrichment and stress relief of dogs with extended stays and includes daily playgroups
as well as Canine Good Citizen training and certification
22
. To facilitate adoption of its
animals, APA utilizes on-site matchmakers with intimate knowledge of individual
animals, an extensive foster care network that makes animals in off-site care available
to potential adopters, and virtual fosters who support APA staff in communicating with
potential adopters. APA does not offer owner relinquishment services. Therefore, the
animals available for adoption at APA are comprised of transfers from AAC, other local
shelters, and increasingly, other shelters in Texas. APA also accepts animals from the
Positive Alternatives to Shelter Surrender (PASS) program offered through AAC and
APA’s websites (described in more detail in the “Shelter Management and Outcomes
section). In 2016, APA took in over 7,000 animals, many of which (39%) came as
transfers from AAC
23
.
History of City of Austin’s Resolution 20091105-040
Historically, Austin’s municipal shelter (formerly located at Town Lake Animal
Center, and now AAC) had an exceptionally low rate of live outcomes for animals that
entered its care. Prior to 1997, nearly all orphaned kittens and puppies under the age of
eight weeks, dogs with parvovirus, and cats with ringworm were euthanized at the time
of intake. The Live Release Rate (LRR) (defined as the percentage of animals leaving
the shelter alive, no matter what their health or behavior status, through adoption, return
to owner, or transfer) during this time frame is estimated to have been approximately
15%. In 1997, Austin’s animal welfare leaders came together to evaluate these
outcomes and worked with the Austin City Council to pass the No Kill Millennium
resolution (City of Austin Resolution No. 971211-41
24
). This resolution stated that the
city’s Animal Advisory Commission would work with the group of citizens organized
under the name Austin Pets Alive! to take steps towards ending the killing of adoptable
sheltered companion animals by the year 2002. In Austin, the Animal Advisory
Commission is responsible for: advising the city council and the Travis County
Commissioners Court on compliance with Texas Health and Safety Code; advising the
city council on animal welfare policies and on budget priorities identified by the
Commission and the community; promoting collaboration between the City and
interested parties relating to animal welfare in the city; identifying proactive, creative
approaches to engage and facilitate communication within the animal welfare
community; and fostering and assisting the development of animal welfare programs in
the community
25
. In accordance with best practices in reducing companion animal
populations, substantial resources were committed at this time towards accessible
22
http://www.akc.org/dog-owners/training/canine-good-citizen/
23
APA intake data
24
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=131520
25
https://austintexas.gov/aac
11
spay/neuter services
26
,
27
,
28
,
29
. As a result of this initial resolution, the LRR was reported
to have increased to 50% by 2005
30
.
In January of 2009, the efforts to continue to increase Austin’s LRR were
renewed with Resolution No. 20090115-059
31
, which provided a directive to the Animal
Advisory Commission to “evaluate and make recommendations on policies and
programs proven to be effective at reducing the killing of homeless animals, including,
but not limited to, policies and programs related to reducing the intake, and increasing
live outcomes, of sheltered animals.” As a result of this directive, Resolution 20091105-
040
32
, commonly referred to as the “No Kill” resolution, was passed in November of
2009. This resolution directed the City Manager to operationalize the Animal Advisory
Commission’s recommendations, one of which committed the city to achieving a 90%
LRR
33
,
34
,
35
. The implementation plan for achieving this goal (approved March 11, 2010)
included: an immediate moratorium on the euthanasia of animals if there were available
kennels at the municipal facility; redefining the mission of the Austin Animal Services
(AAS) department; transitioning the municipal facility out of the Town Lake Animal
Center (TLAC)
36
to the AAC facility (built in 2011); offering off-site adoptions; increasing
medical capacity; hiring full-time companion animal behaviorists; revising the
relinquishment processes to require counseling appointments; expanding the foster
care program; enhancing spay/neuter outreach; returning stray cats to their source
communities; increasing relationships with rescue groups; and increasing public
awareness through marketing campaigns. An additional Resolution was passed in
March of 2010 (Resolution No. 20100311-021
37
) to include supplemental funding for
programs that were believed to be contributing to the increase in City of Austin’s LRR,
including off-site adoptions, on-site veterinary and behavior staff, stray cat relocation
field services, and spay/neuter outreach.
The process of gaining public support for the resources needed to achieve the
goal of 90% live outcomes for all animals at the municipal facility did not proceed
without resistance
38
,
39
. The “No Kill” movement has emerged as a contentious issue
across local and national animal sheltering communities, generating critical discussion
around topics of data collection, reporting of outcomes, and best practices in animal
26
Frank, J.M., Carlisle-Frank, P.L. (2007). Analysis of programs to reduce overpopulation of companion animals: Do
adoption and low-cost spay/neuter programs merely cause substitution of sources? Ecological Economics, 62.
740-746.
27
Frank, J. (2004). An interactive model of human and companion animal dynamics: the ecology and economics of
dog overpopulation and the human costs of addressing the problem. Journal of Human Ecology 32 (1), 107-130.
28
Hodge, G.H. (1976). The reign of dogs and cats’ or contemporary concepts of animal control. Management
Information Service Report 8 (10), 1-20.
29
Clancy, E.A., Rowan, A.N. (2003). Companion animal demographics in the United States: a historical perspective.
The state of the Animals II: 2003. Humane Society of the United States, Washington DC.
30
https://www.austinpetsalive.org/2016/07/history-of-no-kill-part-1/
31
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=125481
32
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=131732
33
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/priority_recs_0211.pdf
34
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/aac_no_kill_implementation_plan.pdf
35
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/aac_report.pdf
36
Green, A. (2015, December 11). Austin moves forward with plans to expand Animal Center. My Statesman.
Retrieved from: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/austin-moves-forward-with-plans-expand-animal-
center/hxs5K7DhkSQoofm8WIPnsM/#95e1573e.3594764.735717
37
http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=135138
38
http://www.americanpetsalive.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/how_apa_started.pdf
39
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=134839
12
care and welfare
40
. The implementation of Resolution 20091105-040 and the
programmatic changes required to maintain a 90% LRR for animals entering into
Austin’s municipal facility required increases to the city budget, ongoing renovations to
the AAC facility, and an increased demand for community volunteers to perform the
various animal care responsibilities of the shelter. Concerns around restricted intake of
animals, increased lengths of stay, higher costs per sheltered animal, and an increased
burden on surrounding communities remain topics of interest when evaluating the
impacts of the shift in sheltering operations as a result of Resolution 20091105-040.
Despite the success of the city in achieving and exceeding their 90% LRR goal
following the implementation of the Resolution in 2010, an audit of Austin Animal
Services conducted by the City of Austin in April of 2015 identified the existence of
several of the concerns described above. The audit concluded: “(Austin) Animal
Services does not have sufficient facilities and resources allocated to meet the 90% live
outcomes goal and remain in line with State requirements
41
and industry best practices.”
Factors informing the audit’s conclusion included lack of appropriate housing units,
inadequate staffing for the various programs and services, inappropriate cohabitation of
animals, extended length of stays, and extended response times to animal
control/protection calls
42
. An important lesson learned from the experience in Austin is
the importance of capacity-building prior to implementing such a dramatic shift in
procedures. This shift in operations (specifically the increased number of animals
housed and the moratorium on euthanasia for space considerations) likely contributed
to the issues identified in the 2015 audit, which AAC was then able to respond to by
implementing a variety of operational changes. The changes included: increased
staffing in areas of animal care, increased kenneling and foster capacity, and improved
communication with the community around issues of animal protection officer response
time as well as the situations that require limited or managed admission of relinquished
animals. Each of these components represents an area of organizational capacity that
can be optimized to improve the LRR across a variety of sheltering systems.
Now seven years into the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040, the City
of Austin and its animal welfare organizations, partly in response to the city audit,
continue to work to improve the operational effectiveness of its shelters in the interest of
providing high-quality veterinary and behavioral care to unhoused animals. In January
2014, the city designated $5.5 million to build 100 new kennels to address overcrowding
at AAC
43
. These kennels were under construction at the time of this report (October
2017). Furthermore, AAC has more recently revised its intake processes to include a
shift in orientation to a community resource model. Within this new framework, patrons
seeking services at the shelter are first connected to the services that can be offered
through other community partners and then offered surrender services at the municipal
shelter should all other resources be exhausted
44
. By identifying the existing community
assets that support pet-keeping and serving as a conduit to these resources, AAC
40
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2011-02-18/safety-net-or-dead-end/
41
The specific state requirements that Austin Animal Services was allegedly in violation of were not cited in the body
of the Animal Services Program Audit.
42
City of Austin (2015, April). Animal Services Program Audit. Retrieved from: http://austintexas.gov/page/archive-
auditor-reports.
43
http://www.fox7austin.com/news/664050-story
44
https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2016-12-23/five-years-of-no-kill-in-austin/
13
expects to continue improving the number of live outcomes at the municipal facility by
decreasing the number of animals that are taken into the shelter each year.
While the concerns of the city audit are being addressed and integrated into
AAC’s operations, the extended animal welfare community continues to engage in
critical dialogue around the costs versus the benefits of shelter operations that are
aligned with the “No Kill” philosophy, including the ethical issue of potentially stressful
increases in length of stay for animals that may have previously been euthanized
45
,
46
.
While the issue of adopting the practices that are prescribed under Resolution
20091105-040 is subject to each individual community’s availability of resources and to
their own preferences or policies that guide animal welfare initiatives, the following
report will present a unique data-based assessment of the economic, public health, and
social impacts of the shift in shelter operations in Austin and the surrounding area of
Travis County, Texas that resulted from the implementation of the legislation.
Impact Assessment Methodology
Operations Analyses
This impact assessment has been conducted within an ecological economics
paradigm that recognizes that looking at strictly economic inputs and outputs of an issue
cannot capture the more complex social or intrinsic value of humane policies. A social-
environmental-economic impact assessment is an interdisciplinary evaluation of the
potential impacts of a given policy, event, or organization on a community’s well-being.
For the purposes of this impact assessment, “well-being” is conceptualized in a holistic
manner to include socio-economic, physical, mental/emotional, and environmental
health, with consideration for the distribution of effects as well as the overall impacts.
The current research in impact assessment explores how solving environmental
problems like pet homelessness or human health disparities cannot be entirely
accounted for using strictly economic analyses, but are more effectively addressed
through a discussion of the importance of specific impacts when compared with
others
47
,
48
,
49
,
50
. In this study, the question of whether the increased economic costs of
extending the time and resources an animal is allocated in a shelter is a reasonable
model for other cities to incorporate is a question that cannot be addressed uniformly.
There are a variety of factors that determine the effectiveness of a sheltering
organization, including leadership, funding, relationships with surrounding shelters and
rescues, the presence of ordinances that promote animal welfare in the community, and
the engagement of local community members in animal welfare issues. An ecological
systems approach to understanding these complex sheltering systems can contribute to
45
http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/quotes/
46
http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2011/01/25/petas-better-off-dead-philosophy/
47
Soderbaum, P. (1999). Values, ideology, and politics in ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 28. 161-170.
48
Franks, D., Vanclay, F. (2013). Social Impact Management Plans: Innovation in corporate and public policy.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 43, 40-48.
49
Jay et al. (2007). Environmental impact assessment retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 27, 287-300.
50
Vanclay, F. (2004). The Triple Bottom Line and Impact Assessment: How do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to
each other? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Management 6(3), 265-288.
14
a more robust assessment of the attributing factors by evaluating their impacts on an
individual (micro), organizational (mezzo), and community-wide (macro) level
51
,
52
,
53
.
Points of analysis for this assessment include existing data from public health
and other government agencies, qualitative responses from surveys administered in the
city of Austin, and data provided by two of the primary agencies involved in
operationalizing Resolution 20091105-040 (AAC and APA). This process of integrating
research evidence, local data, and the knowledge of stakeholders, particularly members
of the affected communities, is congruent with impact assessment industry standards
54
.
Data were analyzed using multiple methodologies, including time series event
methods such as using before/after analyses (where data from after the implementation
of Resolution 20091105-040 through present (2010-2016) were compared to data from
prior to the legislation (2005-2009)); and cross-sectional comparisons. These methods
were used to identify the potential impacts of the Resolution on the various systems that
influence the well-being of both the human and companion animals in the city of Austin
and greater Travis County. In general, linear regression analysis was used to identify
simple monotonic increases or decreases in trends in the data over time. Slopes with P
values less than 0.05 were considered to have slopes significantly different than zero,
and the slope is reported as the average change per year. Slopes with P values greater
than 0.05 were considered to represent trends that had not changed significantly over
the study period. T-tests were used to identify statistically significant differences
between blocks of data (for example, pre- versus post-Resolution).
Economic Analyses
Economic impact analyses are used to estimate the impact of a new activity on a
region. The economic impact model used for this report begins with a static delineation
of payments between a regional economy’s primary institutions (firms, households, and
governments). The system of economic impacts can be understood by linking the dollar
outputs from a given industry (in this case, animal shelters) to the dollar inputs required
from supporting industries (e.g., wholesale purchases of supplies, veterinary equipment
purchases, etc.) and the dollar inputs required from households (e.g., labor services in
the form of veterinarians, administrative, and support staff). In this way, every dollar of a
new output from an industry can be connected to the level of new support required from
related industries and regional households.
Economic impacts are estimated as responses to an external stimulus such as
new economic activity. The change in final demand for regional production triggered by
the stimulus is referred to as the direct effect. In order to accommodate the newly
demanded output (e.g., animal adoption, welfare, and educational services), the
producers in turn require additional support from their suppliers, and in order for these
suppliers to accommodate the new demand, they in turn increase purchases according
51
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7),
513.
52
Prenzel, P., Vanclay, F. (2014). How social impact assessment can contribute to conflict management.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 45, 30-37.
53
Saarikoski, H. (2000). Environmental impact assessment as collaborative learning process. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review 20, 681-700.
54
Mindell, J.S., Bolton, A., Forde, I. (2008). A review of health impact assessment frameworks. Public Health, 122.
1177-1187.
15
to the relationships in the economic model from their supporting industries, and so on.
The iterative process of economic increase in output is referred to as the indirect effects
of the original stimulus. In addition to indirect effects, an additional layer of economic
impact is realized as workers from all levels of the process spend a portion of their
additional labor income (and non-labor income). This household spending creates new
demand (a second stimulus) from households supporting industries (e.g., health
services, retail purchases, food services, etc.) that sets in motion successive economic
activity as described previously. The aggregate process of economic activity from
household spending is referred to as the induced effects of the initial stimulus.
To analyze the economic impact of AAC and APA’s shelter operations, this study
utilized an IMPLAN methodology known as Analysis-by-Parts (ABP)
55
, which provides
more control over the analysis than the standard industry change methodology and
allows for more tailored and accurate outputs. ABP facilitates the analysis of the direct,
indirect, and induced effects separately to reflect the lack of proprietor income in the
nonprofit and government sectors. For the purposes of calculating the economic
impacts of the shelters’ operations, IMPLAN’s pre-set industry code data
56
were refined
using the additional ABP methodology to increase the sensitivity of the calculations to
sheltering-specific effects. Pet care and retail spending were not calculated using
IMPLAN because the pre-set categories within the software (industry codes) do not
align to the specificity of pet-related services and could not be adjusted sufficiently using
the additional ABP methodology. When calculating the total economic impact across the
two shelters of interest, 100% of the impact created by the financial activities of APA,
and only 3.9% of the impact created by AAC were attributed to the Resolution. While
APA was a leader in establishing the standards outlined in the implementation plan, the
organization would not have its current impact on the city (financially and otherwise) but
for the Resolution. Only 3.9% of the total 2010-2016 impact of AAC was attributed to the
Resolution because, as a municipal facility, AAC would still have continued its
operations regardless of whether the Resolution had been implemented or not (the
calculation of this factor is presented in the Impacts on Veterinary and Pet Services
section). Overall, the conclusions presented in this report are consistent with the most
conservative possible measure of the data.
Understanding the total impacts of Resolution 20091105-040 is particularly
relevant insofar as the legislation continues to be a matter of contention within the
animal welfare field. The University of Denver’s Institute for Human-Animal Connection
(IHAC) is a leading academic center with a robust research agenda aimed at advancing
the understanding of the role of the human-animal bond across the lifespan at the
individual, organizational, and community level. IHAC’s mission is to intentionally
elevate the value of the living world and the interrelationship and health of people, other
animals and the environment. This is accomplished through natural and social science-
55
Economic impact models that estimate the impact of new economic activity based on current linkages between the
inputs required from supporting industries and the outputs they support, are known as Input-Output (IO) models. IO
models assume a fixed production relationship between inputs and outputs and sufficient slack in the affected
markets as to leave prices fixed. The most common IO model application is IMPLAN (IMPLAN, Inc., Huntersville,
NC), a data and modeling service commonly used in universities, governments, and economic development
agencies to assess the economic impacts of new and existing industry activity. The IMPLAN model application
provides a baseline model of state and regional economies.
56
The IMPLAN Annual Subscription to Travis County, TX specific-data was used for the economic modeling.
16
informed research, education, applied knowledge, and advocacy, with an ethical regard
for all species. The Institute’s location within the University of Denver’s Graduate School
of Social Work gives it access to a breadth of theoretical and practical knowledge
across the social sciences, while also providing the appropriate level of academic
objectivity needed to evaluate a policy with many invested parties. This academic
perspective informs IHAC’s advocacy for evidence-based best practices and policies
aligned within its framework of Social Science-Informed Animal Welfare a framework
that emphasizes the importance of addressing the role of human behavior in animal
welfare issues. IHAC conducts impact assessments on a variety of animal welfare-
related issues in order to inform policy makers at the municipal, county, state, and
national level on the positive contributions companion animals make to communities,
thereby supporting the establishment of more data-informed animal welfare policies in
communities with traditionally high barriers to enacting such legislation. The following
report represents a comprehensive assessment of such a policy using a toolset that can
be applied to other animal related legislation impact studies in other communities.
Community Impact Assessment Results
Impacts on Shelter Management and Outcomes
Intake
The greatest changes to AAC’s shelter operations as a result of Resolution
20091105-040 were the moratorium placed on euthanasia and the resulting need for
shifts in procedures for intake. In order to address the increase in the number of animals
that would be housed rather than euthanized, the implementation plan for the
Resolution included a shift to scheduled intake appointments for any owner
surrenders
57
. The management of admission at AAC through these appointments
occurs along a continuum that is dependent upon the availability of on-site kennels or
community-based foster families, the potential for obtaining a transfer placement, and
the intake of animals from the previous day. AAC currently utilizes a coding system to
help determine how many owner surrender appointments can be accommodated on a
given day and how many animals are to be transferred to shelter or rescue partners
such as APA.
The intake coding system (formalized in 2016) communicates the admission
status of the shelter both internally to staff members and partner organizations and
externally to community members who may wish to surrender their animal. The “green”
level of intake is equivalent to what many animal welfare organizations would refer to as
“open admission” in which all owner surrendered animals are admitted to the shelter
following a relinquishment counseling appointment. The “yellow” level serves as an
indicator that kenneling capacity is reaching its limit and results in an increase in
communication to community members, either through social media or various news
outlets, that there is a need for temporary foster placements or increased rate of
adoption. In “yellow” there are also some restrictions on owner surrender appointment
57
https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/priority_recs_0211.pdf
17
availability. The “red” level of intake restricts intake to, on average, 50% of what can be
admitted on a “green” admission day, in which only stray animals whose homes cannot
be located or community member’s animals with circumstances for surrender that are
elevated to the emergency status are prioritized and all other surrender appointments
may be deferred until a yellow or green intake level is restored. In its first official year of
implementation (2016), AAC intake was under the “yellow” status for a total of 30 days
and the “red” status for 15 days. These varied levels of intake ensure any animals
admitted to the municipal facility will either receive appropriate care while being housed
at the shelter (as defined by Resolution 20091105-040), or will remain in more
temporary placements until the shelter is able to offer them a space in the facility.
The total intake at a shelter is influenced by owner surrender, strays turned in
either by the public or by animal protection services, and animals that are transferred in
from other facilities. The trends in the various components of AAC’s intake and
outcomes have been evaluated using data provided by AAC and APA from 2005 to
2016 (Figure 2). During that period, the trend in total dog intake has decreased by an
average of 362 animals per year (P < 0.001) to approximately 10,000 dogs in 2016.
Similar results are seen when comparing total dog intake before and after 2010 using a
t-test analysis, with total intake from 2010-2016 (M = 10,881, SD = 744) significantly
less (P < 0.001) than total intake from 2005-2009 (M = 13,079, SD = 666). Similar to
dogs, the trend in total cat intake from 2005 to 2016 has decreased by an average of
207 animals per year (P = 0.036) to approximately 7,000 in 2016. However, this trend
was not detected in a t-test analysis, with total cat intake prior to the implementation of
the Resolution (2005-2009) (M = 8,697, SD = 1,189) not varying significantly (P = 0.088)
from total cat intake following the implementation of the Resolution (2010-2016) (M =
7,451, SD = 888).
The trend most directly impacted by the implementation of the Resolution is that
of owner surrender at AAC (Figure 2). The reasons for relinquishment of dogs and cats
to animal shelters offered by patrons at intake include behavior or medical concerns for
the animal, an individual caretaker’s own financial or social limitations, or a limited
goodness-of-fit between the animal and the caretaker’s lifestyle
58
. These individual
human and/or companion animal challenges may also be compounded by larger
structural issues such as accessibility of pet-supportive services, availability of pet-
friendly housing, and/or the presence of city-wide restrictions on particular breeds.
58
Coe, J., Young, I., Lambert, K., Dysart, L., Nogueira Borden, L., Rajić, A. (2014) A Scoping Review of Published
Research on the Relinquishment of Companion Animals, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17:3, 253-
273.
18
Figure 2. Total annual intake through owner surrender of dogs and cats at AAC from
2005 to 2016. Dataset is provided in Appendix C.
Overall, there has been a decrease in the trend of owner surrendered animals at
AAC. Dog relinquishment from 2005-2009 (M = 3,382, SD = 159) and from 2010-2016
(M=2,447, SD=546) differed significantly using a t-test analysis (P = 0.003). Cat
relinquishment from 2005-2009 (M = 3,162, SD = 471) and from 2010-2016 (M = 1,966,
SD = 703) also differed significantly using the same analysis (P = 0.005). While it is not
possible to assign a specific source for the changing trends in total intake, potential
drivers of the decreased rates of surrender include: the periods of managed admission
at AAC that limit number of animals admitted through surrender appointments,
increased social awareness of responsible pet-keeping practices as a result of the
legislation, or improvements across Austin on issues that drive relinquishment such as
pet-friendly rental housing, access to veterinary care, or behavioral training support
services.
While owner surrender is offered at AAC as shelter capacity allows, as a
municipal facility, the primary purpose of AAC is to provide ongoing animal protection
services, including housing lost or stray animals and housing those animals seized
through cruelty or neglect investigations. Operationally, stray animals are brought into
the shelter’s care either by community members who bring them to the facility or by the
animal protection officers who conduct field services for Travis County. Analysis of stray
dog intake from 2005 to 2016 identified a trend in number of stray dogs that decreased
by an average of 147 animals per year (P = 0.008) to approximately 7,000 dogs (Figure
3). A t-test analysis of stray dog intake from 2005 to 2009 (M = 8,525, SD = 565)
compared to stray dog intake from 2010 to 2016 (M = 7,405, SD=321) found a
significant decrease (P = 0.008) following the Resolution. Although the management of
admission as a result of the Resolution does not include changes to how stray animals
are received from community members or animal protection officers, the decreasing
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
AAC Owner Surrender Intake
Cats Dogs
19
trends in number of stray dogs brought into the shelter since the implementation of the
Resolution may reflect any of the following practices that have been reported:
decreased pick-up of stray dogs by animal protection officers, increased effectiveness
of return to owner processes such as microchipping or field returns offered by animal
protection officers, or an overall decrease in the number of animals that the community
has lost. However, the trend in stray dog intakes as a percentage of total intake has
increased by 0.8% per year since 2005 (P = 0.007), with 72% of all AAC’s dog intake in
2016 being classified as strays (data provided in Appendix C). This increase in
percentage is, at least in part, affected by the decrease in owner surrender.
In contrast to dogs, stray cat intake had no statistically significant change in the
trend between 2005 and 2016 at an average of 4,497 cats per year (P = 0.194). A t-test
analysis of stray cat intake from 2005 to 2009 (M = 5,024, SD = 885) compared to stray
cat intake from 2010 to 2016 (M = 5,221, SD = 719) confirms that there has been no
significant change in stray cat intake as a result of the Resolution (P = 0.693). However,
similar to that seen in dogs, the trend in stray cat intake as a percentage of total intake
increased by 2.9% per year since 2005 (P < 0.001) to approximately 76% in 2016.
Figure 3. Total annual intake of stray dogs and cats at AAC from 2005 to 2016. Dataset
is provided in Appendix C.
Overall, the trends seen in intake from 2005 to 2016 reflect an overall decrease
in number of animals in the care of AAC, with the animals who are at AAC being more
likely to have come into the shelter as a stray rather than as a transfer from another
organization or as an owner surrender. These data indicate that while the management
of intake has impacted the total number of dogs taken into AAC, including the number of
dogs surrendered by the owner, the total number of cats taken in has not changed
significantly (as assessed by the t-test) since the Resolution was implemented. It is
important to note that other dynamics in a community around keeping cats as pets,
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
AAC Stray Animal Intake
Cats Dogs
20
including the effectiveness of spay and neuter services or community cat programs, can
impact a municipal shelter’s cat intake numbers.
The implications of AAC’s shift in management practices as a result of Resolution
20091105-040 include a new emphasis on creating a continuum of pet-supportive
services provided to Austin residents that include but are not exclusively provided by the
city’s municipal facility. When admission levels are “green” community members
seeking to surrender their pet are able to do so following an appointment with a
relinquishment counselor, whereas when admission levels are “red” there is a much
greater emphasis on supporting community members in identifying alternatives to
surrendering to the shelter. Instead, community members who identify a need to
surrender their pet are asked to attempt to rehome the animal on their own or to keep
their pet in their home, a family member’s home, or a friend’s home until capacity is
freed in the shelter. This practice could be considered a mechanism through which
community members are asked to remain accountable for practicing “responsible” pet-
keeping, but it is also possible that animals not admitted when owners request to
surrender them are then either taken to shelters in surrounding areas or abandoned in
the community.
While the management of admission has significantly decreased the total number
of animals taken in at AAC, public information request data obtained from the areas
surrounding Travis County (San Marcos County, Bastrop County, and Williamson
County) indicate that just 37 of the animals that came into their shelters between 2010
and 2016 reported an originating Travis County zip code (including RTO animals).
These data indicate that the management of admission is not resulting in Travis County
community members relinquishing to shelters outside of Austin, and therefore
negatively impacting the sheltering operations of surrounding communities. Additional
data obtained through public information request indicated that there is no statistically
significant difference in the number of dead companion animals picked up by City of
Austin Solid Waste Services before (M = 874, SD = 321) and after (M = 862, SD = 174)
the passage of Resolution 20091105-040 (P = 0.936) (Figure 4)
59
. Therefore, although
the periods of managed admission likely affect the overall companion animal outcomes
to some extent in Austin and Travis County, the impacts are not substantial enough to
be identified within existing data sources. These trends are presumably influenced by
factors including community response to the admission coding system and the low
percentage of time AAC is under a yellow or red admission code (12% of days in 2016).
59
Public Information Request - City of Austin Solid Waste Services
21
Figure 4. Annual number of dead animals picked up in Travis County from 2004 to
2016. Dataset is provided in Appendix D.
Another program that is likely affecting animal intake at AAC is Positive
Alternatives to Shelter Surrender (PASS)
60
. This program, managed by AAC and APA,
serves as an informal resource for community members who are looking to either
rehome their companion animal or are seeking services like veterinary care or
behavioral support in order to prevent a need to surrender their animal. The program
offers “individual consultation, education, troubleshooting, and financial support” for
those who call the PASS help line that is listed on both AAC and APA’s website. While
many of the community members who utilize PASS’ services are able to forgo
surrender, the program also has the option of surrendering the animal, in which case
these animals may then enter into the care of APA or indeed be surrendered to a
shelter. In 2016, APA took in 734 dogs and 740 cats through PASS (Appendix E).
These numbers have increased significantly since 2012, with the number of dogs taken
in through PASS increasing by approximately 98 dogs per year (P < 0.001) and number
of cats taken in through PASS increasing by approximately 80 cats per year (P = 0.010).
This may be an indication of the willingness of community members to utilize services
other than the traditional owner surrender process offered at the city’s municipal shelter.
This program may also be driving the decrease in number of animals surrendered to
AAC.
Outcomes
Resolution 20091105-040 includes a specific attention to live outcomes for
animals that enter into the care of AAC rather than the historical practice of euthanasia
60
https://www.austinpetsalive.org/get-pet-help/pass/
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
Travis County Dead Animal Pick Up
Cats Dogs
22
in times when either the shelter was at high capacity or when the animal could not be
more immediately adopted out due to medical or behavioral challenges. Shelters can
influence outcomes through a variety of programs that include online and social media
platforms to market the animals available for adoption, utilization of transfer networks to
increase total capacity to serve animals that may come into the shelters care, and
animal protection field services such as microchip identification or improved in field
return to owner services. Due to the integral nature of the partnership between AAC and
APA, devised during the design and implementation of the Resolution as a means to
streamline the process of achieving live outcomes for Austin’s sheltered animals, the
two organizations’ outcome data were aggregated for analysis (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Annual outcomes for dogs and cats that entered into the care of AAC and APA
from 2005 to 2016. Those represented as “transfers” were animals transferred to a
shelter or rescue organization other than APA. The “other” category includes missing
animals, those who died in care, or otherwise unaccounted-for animal outcomes.
Dataset provided in Appendix F.
The primary outcome for animals in the care of AAC and APA is adoption. The
overall rate of adoptions of both dogs and cats out of these organizations has increased
over the study period of 2005 to 2016, even when adjusting for the growth in human
population in Austin (Figure 6). There was a significant increase (P < 0.001) in the trend
in dog adoptions from 2005 to 2016, with an average increase by 277 dogs per year. A
t-test analysis comparing the number of dog adoptions from 2005 to 2009 (M = 2,507,
SD = 176) to the number of dog adoptions from 2010 to 2016 (M = 4,361, SD = 458)
identified a statistically significant increase (P < 0.001) following implementation of the
Resolution. However, from 2010 to 2016 there was no significant change (P = 0.482) in
the trend in dog adoptions, remaining constant at an average of 4,412 dogs adopted.
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
Trends in AAC and APA Outcomes
Adoption RTO Transfer Shelter Euthanasia Other Outcome
23
The pattern in adoption trends for cats is similar to that for dogs. There was an
overall significant increase (P = 0.002) from 2005 to 2016 with an average increase of
196 cats per year, but most of this increase occurred prior to implementation of the
Resolution. Like dogs, a t-test analysis comparing cat adoption numbers from 2005 to
2009 (M = 1,913, SD = 184) to those between 2010 and 2016 (M = 3,169, SD = 627)
indicates that the number of cats adopted increased significantly (P = 0.001) following
implementation of the Resolution. However, from 2010 to 2016 there was no significant
change (P = 0.443) in cat adoptions, remaining at an average of 2,736 cats adopted per
year. These findings are notable insofar as adoption is an important mediator of the
capacity of a sheltering facility. An increased rate of adoption places dogs and cats in
homes as pets and is a factor that determines the shelter’s space to serve additional
animals from the community. This increase in capacity has been correlated with a
decreased rate of euthanasia
61
.
Figure 6. Rates of adoption with adjustment for the growth of the human population in
Austin (shown here as number of adoptions per every 1,000 human residents of Austin).
The amount of adoption, given the increase in human population, has increased since
the passage of Resolution 20091105-040. Data set provided in Appendix F.
The overall increase in adoptions of dogs and cats over the study period may be
a result of increased interest within the community in adopting pets, improved social
awareness of the animal welfare initiatives of Austin, or improved marketing processes
of the individual organizations. Some of the programs that contribute to increased
adoptions were in place prior to 2010, but the coordination of these programs across
AAC and APA was formally implemented following the Resolution. Therefore, the
stabilization of adoption rates since the Resolution may reflect that the processes
61
Hawes, S., Camacho, B., Tedeschi, P., Morris, K. (in press). Trends in intake and outcome data for animal shelters
in Colorado, 2000 to 2015 another eight years out. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association.
24
formalized by the legislation have been effective in sustaining the overall adoption rate
despite the variety of resulting operational changes made to the organizations. It’s
important to note that outcome rates at AAC are heavily impacted by the transfer of
animals to APA, and therefore it cannot be concluded that AAC trends in adoption alone
have been sufficient to meet the requirements of the Resolution. Rather, the combined
rates of adoption at both AAC and APA have supported AAC’s ability to maintain a 90%
LRR.
A factor that may inform the increased rates of adoption of both dogs and cats is
the incidence of adoption by individuals or families who report that they reside outside of
Travis County (Figures 7 and 8). By reaching potential adopters outside of the Austin or
Travis County community, both AAC and APA increase the potential of finding a home
for the animals in their care. Increased rates of adoption to non-Travis County zip codes
may be an indicator of the success of Austin’s shelters’ social media and marketing
campaigns, but may also be negatively impacting adoption rates from shelters in
surrounding counties. While data obtained through public information requests on
surrounding communities demonstrate that the increased rates of adoptions to
individuals and families who reside outside of Travis County have not resulted in an
impact on the intake rates of shelters in surrounding communities
62
, data could not be
obtained from these surrounding counties on how the increased rate of adopters from
outside of Travis County has impacted these other shelters’ adoption rates.
Figure 7. Annual percentages of all animals adopted out of AAC that are adopted to
people who reported that they reside in a non-Travis County zip code on their adoption
application.
62
Data obtained from the areas surrounding Travis County (San Marcos County, Bastrop County, and Williamson
County) indicate that just 37 of the animals that came into their shelters between 2010 and 2016 reported an
originating Travis County zip code (this is including RTO animals).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
% of Total AAC Adoptions
Year
AAC Adoptions Outside of Travis County as a
Percentage of Total AAC Adoptions
25
Figure 8. Annual percentages of animals adopted out of APA that are adopted to people
who reported that they reside in a non-Travis County zip code on their adoption
application.
Adoption rates are optimized through community engagement with the shelters
and also by the effectiveness of the shelters’ programs in treating any medical or
behavioral challenges that may make placement in a suitable home difficult. As APA
receives a majority of AAC’s highest risk (of euthanasia) animals, return rates of
animals adopted from APA is a potential indicator of the effectiveness of the
programming provided while the animals are in the shelter’s care. In 2016, APA adopted
out 6,981 animals, with 819 of these animals returned (12%). Of these animals returned
after adoption, there were 34 dogs (0.5%) and 55 cats (0.8%) returned for behavioral
challenges that APA was aware of, and had informed the adopter of, prior to adoption.
The remaining animals who had been adopted and were then returned were brought
back for a variety of reasons related to a lack of goodness of fit between the animal and
the adopter. This return rate, particularly the low rate of returns for an animal’s existing
challenges, indicates that APA does not appear to be adopting out “unsafe” animals into
the community. These trends are also consistent with the literature on returned animals
insofar as the animals most often returned are males, over the age of six months, and
most likely to be returned due to behavioral challenges
63
.
While Resolution 20091105-040 is often described as the “No Kill” resolution,
there continue to be instances where euthanasia is practiced at both AAC and APA.
While it is no longer practiced for space considerations (referred to as “killing” within the
63
Mondelli, F., Prato Previde, E., Verga, M., Levi, D., Magistrelli, S., & Valsecchi, P. (2004). The bond that never
developed: adoption and relinquishment of dogs in a rescue shelter. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,
7(4), 253-266.
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
24%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
% of Total APA Adoptions
Year
APA Adoptions Outside of Travis County as a
Percentage of Total APA Adoptions
26
“No Kill” movement), certain cases of extreme medical or behavioral challenges may
result in a euthanasia decision. However, as a result of high-risk (of euthanasia) animals
being transferred to APA, improvements in veterinary care and behavioral support, and
an increase in available resources to address challenges that previously resulted in high
rates of euthanasia, the rate has decreased dramatically at AAC since the
implementation of the Resolution in 2010 (Figure 9). Overall, from 2005 to 2016, the
trend in dog euthanasia at AAC has significantly decreased (P < 0.001) by an average
of 657 dogs per year, and by an average of 144 dogs per year (P = 0.003) since 2010.
From 2005 to 2016, the trend in cat euthanasia at AAC has also significantly decreased
(P < 0.001) by an average of 655 cats per year, with the number of cats euthanized at
AAC from 2010 to 2016 significantly decreasing by an average of 114 cats per year (P =
0.013). A t-test analysis of dog euthanasia at AAC from 2005 to 2009 (M = 5,409, SD =
1,397) and from 2010 to 2016 (M = 972, SD = 872) indicates that dog euthanasia has
decreased significantly (P = 0.001) since the implementation of the Resolution. A similar
analysis comparing cat euthanasia numbers from 2005 to 2009 (M = 5,446, SD = 1,657)
to those from 2010 to 2016 (M = 922, SD = 991) also found a statistically significant
decrease (P = 0.002). These findings validate the effectiveness of the changes that
resulted from the Resolution in continuing to decrease the number of dogs and cats
euthanized each year at AAC.
Figure 9. Annual number of animals euthanized at AAC from 2005 to 2016. Resolution
20091105-040 that included the requirement to reach a 90% LRR was implemented in
2010.
The rate of euthanasia at APA, although remaining within the 90% LRR threshold
that is required of the municipal shelter, has significantly increased for dogs (P= 0.003)
and cats (P= 0.003) since the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040 (Figure 10).
From 2008 to 2016 the average number of dogs euthanized increased by 9 dogs per
year and the average number of cats euthanized increased by 6 cats per year. This is
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
AAC Euthanasia Outcomes
Cats Dogs
27
likely due to the specialized “at risk” population of animals that APA transfers from AAC
(AAC transfers consist of 39% of APA’s intake). This illustrates an important
consideration for the implementation of “No Kill” policies: LRR is a dynamic metric that
is highly dependent on the health and behavior status of animals being brought in by the
community and/or through transfer networks.
Figure 10. Annual number of animals euthanized at APA from 2005 to 2016. Note that
APA was reorganized as a rescue organization in 2008.
Transfer Partnerships
Sheltering networks are emerging as an increasingly important factor informing
the effectiveness of animal welfare organizations, insofar as a robust network can
provide opportunities to create or expand an individual organization’s capacity to deliver
services, increase access to information, and provide a foundation upon which to
address issues that affect entire communities
64
,
65
. One component of shelter operations
utilized by AAC that has greatly increased its capacity to serve their community’s
animals is the utilization of organizational partnerships and community members to
house animals and/or provide specialized programming. These partnerships optimize
AAC’s capacity by permitting the transfer of animals to another facility or home either
during low kenneling capacity periods or when there is an animal with especially high
need that another organization (such as APA or a foster family) may be more successful
in addressing. Furthermore, transfer partnerships allow shelters and rescues that
experience intake levels that exceed capacity to find open space for excess dogs and
cats at partner facilities instead of euthanizing animals to stay at or below maximum
64
Reese, L.A., Ye, M. (2017). Minding the gap: networks of animal welfare service provision. American Review of
Public Administration. 47 (5). 503-519.
65
AHeinz57. Retrieved from: https://www.aheinz57.com/no-kill-vs-traditional-shelters/
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
APA Euthanasia Outcomes
Cats - - - Dogs - - -
28
capacity
66
. This practice may result in improved resource allocation within each shelter
as well as improved effectiveness of programming as shelters are able to “specialize” in
a population.
Following the implementation of the Resolution 20091105-040, AAC and APA
entered into a formal license agreement that specifically governs the selection of the
animals at AAC that will be transferred to APA. Under this agreement, animals coded as
“at risk” (for euthanasia) are the animals that must be transferred to APA first in the
event AAC reaches its capacity, whereas a secondary code of "attention" is used for
those animals that will eventually be transferred due to the animals’ increased need for
behavior or medical attention. Operationally, the “at risk” and “attention” lists are
emailed to APA daily - animals on the “at risk” list are pulled steadily and those on the
“attention” list are pulled as fast as possible. Beyond this coding system that supports
AAC’s kennel capacity decision-making, APA regularly conducts "space" pulls when
they have additional capacity at their facility.
Figure 11. Annual number of animals at AAC that were transferred to another shelter or
rescue organization (including APA, AHS, and all other shelter or rescue partners of
AAC) between 2005 and 2016.
Over the entire study period (2005-2016), the trend in the number of dogs
transferred by AAC to any of its transfer partners has significantly decreased (P =
0.013), with an average decrease of 129 dogs transferred per year (Figure 11). Within
these data, the transfer of dogs to APA has remained relatively consistent since the
formal agreement with APA was established at an average of 1,341 dogs transferred
per year since 2008 (P = 0.903). However, transfer of dogs to organizations other than
APA has significantly decreased (P= 0.006) by an average of 125 dogs transferred each
66
Hawes, S., Camacho, B., Tedeschi, P., Morris, K. (in press). Trends in intake and outcome data for animal shelters
in Colorado, 2000 to 2015 another eight years out. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Animals
Year
AAC Transfer Outcomes
Cats Dogs
29
year. A t-test analysis of dogs transferred to organizations other than APA also indicates
that dogs transferred from 2005 to 2009 (M = 1,832, SD = 179) and dogs transferred
from 2010 to 2016 (M = 1,197, SD = 274) decreased significantly (P=0.001). In contrast
to dogs, the number of cats transferred from AAC to any of its transfer partners during
the entire study period (2005-2016) has significantly increased (P= 0.033) at an average
increase of 236 cats transferred per year. Similar to dogs, the number of cats
transferred out of AAC to APA has remained relatively consistent at 1,239 cats
transferred to APA each year (P = 0.201). However, cats transferred from AAC to
organizations other than APA increased significantly from 2005 to 2010 at 69 cats per
year (P = 0.026) but did not change from 2008 to 2016 at 633 cats per year (P = 0.052).
Overall, these trends for both dogs and cats indicate that the transfer partnerships
needed to remain in compliance with the Resolution were in place prior to 2010, and
that implementing the Resolution required AAC to continue the number of transfers to
both APA and other shelters or rescue partners.
Foster networks formed within the communities are another partnership that can
result in improved outcomes for shelters. In addition to rates of adoption and transfer
partners, an expanded network for foster care was needed to increase AAC and APA’s
capacity to serve the additional animals resulting from the Resolution, especially those
who require extended lengths of stay. The number of fosters a shelter utilizes may also
be an indicator of community investment in the work of the shelter. At any time, 35-60%
of AAC’s animals may be in a foster placement, whereas about 50% of the animals in
APA’s care are likely to be in foster care. This is accomplished by a network of almost
3,000 foster homes registered under the two organizations. Community-based
sheltering is a growing area of animal welfare insofar as home placements may result in
improved health and behavior outcomes for sheltered animals rather than extended
stays in shelter facilities that are correlated with high rates of stress
67
. More research is
needed in this area to understand the impacts of community-based sheltering and foster
networks on the effectiveness of animal welfare outcomes.
Assessment of Live Outcomes
There are a variety of metrics that can be used to evaluate shelter operations on
their ability to provide live outcomes for animals in their care. LRR is the primary metric
utilized by shelters to assess and compare their operations. While Resolution
20091105-040 identified a 90% LRR as a measure of success for improving companion
animal welfare in the city of Austin, the formula used to calculate LRR still varies across
the animal welfare industry. To date, there are two primary definitions for LRR that can
demonstrate the effectiveness of a shelter’s operations over a given year from slightly
different perspectives.
The first LRR definition, referred to as the ASPCA LRR Calculation,
68
is a useful
measure for understanding the ways in which the trends in intake over the reporting
year impacted the resources available for life-saving programs. The ASPCA LRR
Calculation is the number of adoptions plus the number of returns to owner (RTO) plus
the number of animals transferred out to other organizations divided by the total intake
67
Coppola, C., Grandin, T., Enns, R.M. (2006) Human interaction and cortisol: can human contact reduce stress for
shelter dogs? Journal of Physiology and Behavior. 87. 537-541.
68
http://www.aspcapro.org/sites/pro/files/What%20is%20your%20Rate%2010_2013.pdf
30
for that year. In 2016, AAC reported having adopted 7,789 animals, transferred out
5,017 animals, and returned 3,388 animals to their owner. With an intake of 16,820
animals, their LRR for 2016 under the ASPCA definition was 96%. In 2016, APA
reported having adopted 6,981 animals, transferred 0 animals out, and returned 10
animals to their owner. With an intake of 7,344 animals, their LRR for 2016 under the
ASPCA definition was 95%. The ASPCA LRR calculation is an important metric in that it
provides an indication of how the management of AAC’s intake has supported the
organization in meeting the 90% LRR goal described under the Resolution. The
decreasing trends in overall intake seen at AAC has supported AAC’s attainment of the
90% LRR under the ASPCA definition.
The second LRR definition, referred to as the Asilomar LRR Calculation
69
, is a
useful measure for understanding the rate of live outcomes irrespective of the intake of
the shelter that year. The Asilomar LRR Calculation is the number of adoptions plus the
number of RTOs plus the number of animals transferred out divided by the total
outcomes for that year. In 2016, AAC reported 16,194 live outcomes (adoption, transfer,
RTO) and 16,812 total outcomes, meaning their LRR for 2016 under the Asilomar
definition was 96%. In 2016, APA reported 7,802 live outcomes (adoption, transfer,
RTO) out of a total of 7,955 outcomes, yielding a 98% LRR for 2016 under the Asilomar
definition. The Resolution’s emphasis on live outcomes has driven increases in LRR
specifically under this Asilomar definition. By placing a moratorium on euthanasia and
establishing the formal partnership between AAC and APA, Resolution 20091105-040
created the pathway through which outcomes for animals sheltered in Austin would
greatly improve under this definition.
There are a number of limitations to utilizing LRR as the sole metric for success
in animal welfare. For example, the length of stay of an animal is an important
consideration that is not captured within these definitions of LRR. Extended lengths of
stay for animals in shelters is a matter of contention in the animal welfare industry for
several reasons. Shelters are high-stress environments for companion animals, and
therefore, an increased length of stay may be correlated with a decreased quality of
life
70
,
71
,
72
,
73
,
74
. With the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040 and its moratorium
placed on euthanasia, many animals that would have previously been euthanized are
now remaining under shelter care until they are adopted.
APA’s data on length of stay indicate that most animals are in the organization’s
care within the range of 0-180 days (64% of the random sample of 145 animals at APA
in 2016) (Figure 12). While most of these animals spend time in the kennel environment
of APA at some point during their stay, most animals are housed through a combination
of on-site kennel time and off-site foster time in the broad network of 2,900 volunteer
69
http://www.aspcapro.org/sites/pro/files/What%20is%20your%20Rate%2010_2013.pdf
70
Hennessy, M.B., Larons, M.E., Williams, M.T., Mellott, C., Douglas, C.W. (1997). Plasma cortisol levels of dogs at
a county animal shelter. Physiology and Behavior. 62. 485-490.
71
Protopopova, A. (2016). Effects of sheltering on physiology, immune function, behavior, and the welfare of dogs.
Physiology and Behavior (159). 95-103.
72
Bannasch, M.J., Foley, J.E. (2005). Epidemiologic evaluation of multiple respiratory pathogens in cats in animal
shelters. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (7), 109-119.
73
Dinnage, J.D., Scarlett, J.M., Richards, J.R. (2009). Descriptive epidemiology of feline upper respiratory tract
disease in an animal shelter. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (11). 816-825.
74
Pedersen, N.C., Sato, R., Foley, J.E., Poland, A.M. (2004). Common virus infections in cats, before and after being
placed in shelters, with emphasis on feline enteric coronavirus. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery (6). 83-8.
31
foster homes that are shared between AAC and APA. The purpose of this foster model
is to alleviate the stress caused by housing under shelter conditions and to provide
more focused opportunities to address any medical or behavioral challenges the animal
may present. When these animals are not housed in a foster network, they may be
kenneled on-site at APA where they receive regular walks, participation in supervised
playgroups, and behavioral training.
Figure 12. Length of stay for a random sample of 145 dogs in APA’s care in 2016,
categorized within 60-day ranges. 64% (93 out of 145) of dogs in APA’s care in 2016
were there for less than 180 days. Dogs may have completed their stays through a
combination of being both on-site at APA and off-site in foster care. Data on the random
sample of 145 dogs were obtained from APA’s ShelterLuv database.
The second issue associated with length of stay is the per diem cost for
sheltering an animal. While it is important to acknowledge that not all shelters that
house animals for an extended length of stay are providing an increased amount of
resources to these animals, at APA, animals with longer lengths of stay are often being
treated for costly medical and/or behavioral issues that add substantial cost beyond the
per diem costs (increased spending on animals is discussed in more detail in the City
Governance section). This treatment and the period of times these animals are
unavailable for adoption while they are rehabilitated, are a significant “hidden cost” that
should be accounted for within the decision to place a moratorium on euthanasia of
these high-resource animals (Figure 13). Due to the potential cost and/or the ethical
concern around the potential for sufficient additional resources not being directed
towards maintaining these animals in a manner that ensures a high quality of life, the
housing of animals who may require extended periods of care before being adopted is a
matter of contention among animal welfare leadership.
30
39
24
8
8
14
22
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0-60 days
60-120 days
120-180 days
180-240 days
240-300 days
300-360 days
More than 360 days
Number of dogs
# of Days in APA's Care
LENGTH OF STAY @ APA
32
Figure 13. Average number of days a dog (within the random sample of 145 dogs in
APA’s care in 2016) spent available for adoption versus not available for adoption
during their entire length of stay. There were 8 dogs (in the random sample of 145 dogs)
who were never available for adoption in 2016. Their average length of stay was 315
days. Data on the random sample of 145 dogs were obtained from APA’s ShelterLuv
database. Data provided in Appendix G.
At APA, animals who are housed for any period of time are provided additional
enrichment, as outlined in the implementation plan
75
. As of July 2017, APA had 51 “long
stay” dogs (dogs who had been at APA longer than 300 days), with the average number
of days these dogs had been in APA’s care being 502 days in 2017 (compared to 557
days and 531 days in 2015 and 2016, respectively). APA reports that 19 of the long-stay
dogs are in long-term foster care (the others rotate in and out of foster care and time
spent in the shelter). To date in 2017, APA has adopted out an average of 9 long-stay
dogs per month compared to 6 per month in 2015 and 2016
76
. These data indicate that
at least some of these dogs who may have previously been euthanized had they been
placed in the care of AAC prior to the Resolution can find new homes, given the
appropriate level of resources from the shelter and the capacity of the community to
adopt additional animals. Ultimately, quality of life is one of those impacts that could be
considered of higher value than any incremental increase in rate of adoption or overall
LRR. Therefore, additional data are needed on the health and behavior of these
extended “long-stay” animals to appropriately assess the in-shelter animal health and
welfare-related impacts of the Resolution.
75
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/document.cfm?id=131732
76
www.facebook.com/apalongstaydogs/
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0-60 60-120 120-180 180-240 240-300 300-360 >360
# of Days
Total Length of Stay
PROPORTION OF TIME DOGS SPEND AVAILABLE
FOR ADOPTION WHILE IN APA'S CARE
Average Days Available for Adoption Average Days in Non-Available Care
33
Across the variety of mechanisms that inform shelter operations, data-driven
decision-making and inter-organizational collaboration are important drivers of the
substantial improvements in shelter outcomes across animal sheltering systems.
Decreases in total intake and increases in rate of transfer from AAC to APA have been
important factors that have supported AAC’s compliance with the 90% LRR goal of the
Resolution. However, while LRR is an important metric to use in evaluating a shelter’s
operations, the balance between a community’s animal welfare goals and its tolerance
for issues such as increased resource allocation (i.e. per diem cost per animal) and
length of stay is both an ethical and a practical discussion that must be held on a
community-wide basis.
Impacts on City of Austin Community
Austin Animal Services Budget
The implementation of Resolution 20091105-040 involved increases in tax-
related expenditures to cover AAC’s increased operational needs (Figures 14-15). While
still representing less than 0.5% of the total City of Austin budget, the annual budget for
the municipal shelter more than doubled between 2009 and 2016 to $12 million. This
increase is largely attributable to the increased number of full-time employees at AAC
and across Austin Animal Services (Figure 16).
Figure 14. Annual AAC budget from 2009-2016.
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
$14,000,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Amount
Year
AAC Budget
34
Figure 15. AAC budget as a percentage of the City of Austin budget from 2009 to 2016.
Figure 16. Full-time employment increases following Resolution 20091105-040.
The additional costs per animal taken in by AAC required to implement
Resolution 20091105-040 referred to here as the “No Kill Premium” – was estimated
using two approaches. First, the average cost per animal that was taken into the
municipal shelter was calculated for each year between 2005 and 2016 (the
“before/after” method) (Appendix H). The 2005-2009 average cost per intake was then
subtracted from the 2010-2016 average to calculate the increase in average cost per
intake since the implementation of the Resolution (the “premium”). This resulted in the
first estimation of the “No Kill Premium” at $265 per animal, which ultimately translates
0.000%
0.050%
0.100%
0.150%
0.200%
0.250%
0.300%
0.350%
0.400%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Percentage of City of Austin Budget
Year
AAC Budget as % of City of Austin Budget
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of FTEs
Year
AAC & APA Full Time Employees
AAC APA
35
into a total additional cost of $34 million when multiplied by the total intake of 128,325
animals cared for by AAC following the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040.
In the second approach to estimate the cost of the Resolution within the
municipal budget, AAC’s cost per intake in 2016 was calculated by dividing AAC’s
budget by the total intake during that year (the “cross-sectional” method). In 2016, AAC
spent an average of $715 per animal that came into the shelter. Note that this contrasts
with the calculated average spending of $278 per animal on average in 2009, prior to
the implementation of the Resolution. The 2016 average was then compared to the
average cost per animal in five other major U.S. cities (Chicago, IL; Los Angeles, CA;
Miami, FL; Dallas, TX; and Denver, CO
77
). The average cost per animal in 2016 for
those housed in the municipal facility of these five major cities was $507 (Table 2). The
$208 difference in AAC’s 2016 cost per intake compared to these other cities represents
a second calculation of the “No Kill Premium”, and translates into a total additional cost
of $26.7 million when multiplied by the total intake of 128,325 animals cared for by AAC
since the Resolution.
The average of the two “No Kill Premium” calculations is $237 per intake, which
translates into a total additional cost of $30.4 million within the city budget for
implementing the Resolution between 2010 and 2016
78
. This represents an average of
$4.3 million per year in the municipal budget. Note that even if the entire $187.8 million
in positive economic impact calculated below resulted in revenue through the city sales
tax, less than 10% of the “No Kill Premium” expenditure would directly return to the City
of Austin
79
.This level of increased cost per animal is in contrast to previous arguments
that articulate “No Kill” shelter management as a “low-cost” or “cost-effective”
approach
80
. Furthermore, more data is needed to understand the relationship between
increasing the cost per animal and objective measures of sheltered animals’ quality of
life.
77
These cities were selected based on the criteria of 1) access to the city’s Animal Services budget, and 2) publicly
available intake and outcome numbers for the municipal shelter run under that Animal Services budget. These
cities do not have legislation that specifically governs their municipal shelter operations in terms of LRR.
78
While the range from $265 to $208/intake is presented here, the $237/intake premium is suggested as the best
possible conservative estimation of the additional cost per animal accrued when operating under the parameters
set by the “No Kill” Resolution insofar as it accounts for the increasing average cost over the entire study period
from 2005-2016 in Austin and includes consideration of the average cost allocated for sheltering in five major U.S.
cities in 2016.
79
https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/sales/city.php
80
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/no-kill-quick-facts/
36
City
Year
Annual Budget
Animal Intake
Cost/Intake
Austin81
2016
$12,061,551
16,858
$715
Chicago82,83
2016
$5,590,000
13,653
$409
LA84,85
2016-17
$23,982,367
45,607
$526
Miami (Miami Dade)86
2016-17
$21,067,000
31,000
$680
Dallas87
2016
$10,200,000
30,000
$340
Denver88
2016
$3,936,655
7,500
$525
Estimated Average Spend Per Intake: Rest of the Cities
$507
Estimated Austin Resolution 20091105-040 Related Spend Per Intake
$208
Table 2. Comparison of annual animal shelter budgets and cost per animal for Austin,
Texas and five other U.S. cities.
Shelter Operations
As discussed in the Methodology section, the economic impacts from AAC and
APA’s Resolution-related operations (3.9% and 100% of total, respectively) occur in
three distinct areas. Each of these economic impacts was calculated using standard
microeconomic and macroeconomic models. Together the three areas result in a total
economic impact per additional animal “saved” since the Resolution. First, the additional
staffing, payroll, and operations of AAC following the Resolution represent new
economic activity in the region (the direct effect of the Resolution). From 2010-2016, the
impact of the direct effect of shelter operations attributable to Resolution 20091105-040
was $22 million. Second, the increase in shelter operations also required purchases of
materials and services from regional suppliers (the indirect effect of the Resolution).
From 2010-2016, the impact of the indirect effect of shelter operations attributable to
Resolution 20091105-040 was $6.7 million. Third, shelter operations require labor
services providing household income, a portion of which will be spent in the local
economy, offering additional economic impacts (the induced effect of the Resolution).
From 2010-2016, the impact of the induced effect of shelter operations attributable to
Resolution 20091105-040 was $12.2 million. Therefore, the total calculated economic
impact of AAC and APA operations from 2010-2016 attributable to Resolution
20091105-040 was $41 million (Table 3).
81
AAC Budget
82
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-no-kill-city-animal-shelters-met-20160401-story.html
83
https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cacc/PDFiles/OldPDFs/2016_Annual_Stats.pdf
84
http://cao.lacity.org/budget16-17/2016-17Budget_Summary.pdf
85
http://www.laanimalservices.com/pdf/reports/CatNDogIntakeNOutcomes.pdf
86
https://www.miamidade.gov/budget/FY2016-17/proposed/library/animal-services.pdf
87
Boston Consulting Group DAS Report and https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/03/24/dallas-animal-
services-saved-more-pets-than-it-euthanized-last-year
88
https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/344/documents/Budget/2016/Mayors_2016_Budget.pdf
37
Labor Income89
Value Added90
Output91
Direct Effect
$16,214,641
$16,214,641
$22,045,868
Indirect Effect
$2,129,594
$3,790,903
$6,683,198
Induced Effect
$4,215,656
$7,300,235
$12,209,499
TOTAL
$22,559,891
$27,305,779
$40,938,565
Table 3. Economic outputs from IMPLAN modeling for direct, indirect, and induced
effects of AAC & APA operations from 2010 to 2016. An annual breakdown of these
calculations is available in Appendix I.
Veterinary Care and Pet Services
While Texas ranks 21st among other states in terms of pet-keeping rates
92
,
Austin’s pet-keeping ranks 3rd among the 25 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the nation
(as of 2013)
93
. This higher ownership rate is reflected in economic variables such as
pet-related expenditures. For example, with increased pet-keeping, there is an increase
in pet-care related expenditures such as dog-walking, grooming, or boarding. According
to an American Pet Products Association study, overall, each animal in the community
represents a $12,357 contribution to the local economy over its lifetime in the form of
retail, veterinary, and other pet-care related services
94
. To capture the amount of
economic impact that can be associated with Resolution 20091105-040, pet-related
expenditures in Travis County were compared to the rest of Texas. The Resolution was
an important driver of the rate of pet-keeping in Austin, however it is acknowledged that
some of the animals in Austin would have been acquired before the Resolution and/or
through means other than adoptions from AAC or APA. While animals acquired through
other methods would also accrue similar economic benefits, the following calculations
represent an attempt to capture the peripheral economic benefits of each additional
animal that has been adopted since the Resolution.
Using County Business Patterns Surveys (CBP) conducted from 2005 through
2015, data were collected for three pet related industries: (a) pet and pet supplies stores
(NAICS-453910)
95
, (b) veterinary services (NAICS-541940), and (c) pet care (except
veterinary) services ((NAICS 812910), in both Travis County and Texas. While annual
payroll by industry was available annually, sales data were only available for 2007 and
2012 for these industries in Travis County and Texas. Using 2007 and 2012 sales to
annual payroll ratios, annual sales by veterinary services and other pet care services
89
Within IMPLAN analysis, labor income is defined as all forms of employment income, including employee
compensation (wages and benefits) and proprietor income. For the purposes of the analysis in the following table,
there was no proprietor income calculated because it is not applicable for government and non-profit entities.
90
Value added was defined as the difference between the industry’s total output and the cost of its intermediate
inputs.
91
Net output represents the value of the industry’s production, which are calculated within the IMPLAN software from
annual production estimates.
92
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx
93
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=AHS_2013_S06AO&prodType
94
American Pet Products Association Study - retrieved from Dallas Animal Shelter presentation. July 17, 2015
95
This item excluded from the calculations since this is an industry allowing for online orders (increasingly) which
could have biased the results (portion of sales by shipping area unknown)
38
were first estimated from 2005 to 2016
96
. Next, the estimated sales were normalized by
population to capture per capita sales (as a proxy for per capita expenditures) in these
two industries, so that population growth differences could be accounted for (Figure 17).
Figure 17. Per capita veterinary and pet care services spending in Texas versus Travis
County
Year
Veterinary and Pet Care Services -
Per Capita Sales
Veterinary and Pet Care Services -
Year to Year Annual Growth97
Texas
Travis County
Texas
Travis County
2005
$72.3
$107.6
n/a
n/a
2006
$76.6
$117.5
6%
9%
2007
$83.7
$116.7
9%
-1%
2008
$88.2
$122.9
5%
5%
2009
$92.6
$140.1
5%
14%
2010
$93.7
$135.1
1%
-4%
2011
$97.2
$138.3
4%
2%
2012
$103.9
$156.7
7%
13%
2013
$108.3
$162.7
4%
4%
2014
$111.5
$179.0
3%
10%
2015
$121.8
$196.5
9%
10%
Table 4. Estimated sales normalized by population to capture per capita sales (as a
proxy for per capita expenditures) in the veterinary services and pet care services
industries.
96
Sales and annual payroll for 2016 were extrapolated, as CBP has only been measured through 2015 at the time of
this study.
97
Despite limited sample size, a t-test for the post-2010 growth rates in Texas vs Travis County resulted in a p-value
of 0.33, i.e. the probability that the post 2010 growth rates are not statistically different from each other.
$-
$50.00
$100.00
$150.00
$200.00
$250.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Per Capita Sales
Year
Per Capita Sales, Veterinary and Pet Care Services, TX
v. Travis County, 2005-2015
Texas Travis County
39
As the next step in estimating the increased use of veterinary and pet care
services, pre-2010 average per capita spending levels were calculated and compared to
post-2010 average per capita spending levels both in Travis County and state-wide in
Texas, in order to capture the overall trends in per capita spending in each average per
capita spending increased by 33.4% in Travis County while it only increased by 28.2%
statewide (Table 4). In order to control for any potential national and state specific
factors that could have caused the observed increase in per capita spending levels in
Travis County, the percentage increase of post-Resolution versus pre-Resolution
spending levels (i.e. 28.2%) was used to re-calculate how much the pre-capita spending
(the “but-for” level) would have increased in Texas if it only increased at a rate parallel
to the rest of the state (Table 5). The but-for per-capita spending level ($155.10) was
then subtracted from the observed post-2010 average ($161.39) to calculate the annual
surplus per capita spending that occurred in Travis County that could be attributed to
Resolution 20091105-040 ($6.29). The total surplus spending on veterinary and other
pet care services from 2010 through 2016 was then calculated to be $49.3 million by
multiplying the per capita surplus spending ($6.29) by the annual Travis County
population levels. Lastly, the total surplus per capita annual spending ($6.29) is
calculated to be 3.9% of the overall $161.39 per capita annual spending in Travis
County, during 2010-2016. In other words, the estimated relative impact of Resolution
20091105-040 on Travis County’s per capita spending on veterinary and pet care
services is 3.9%.
Veterinary and Pet Care Services
Texas
Travis County
Avg. pre-2010 per capita spending
$82.69
$120.95
Avg. post-2010 per capita spending
$106.03
$161.39
Growth % of avg. post-2010 to pre-2010 spending
28.2%
33.4%
Avg. but-for post-2010 per capita spending
n/a
$155.10
Avg. annual surplus per capita spending
n/a
$6.29
2010-2016 Total Surplus Spending
n/a
$49,300,160
% of Surplus Spending in Travis County, 2010-2016
n/a
3.9%
Table 5. Estimation of the percentage of veterinary and pet care services spending
attributable to Resolution 20091105-040.
Pet Retail
The type of pet related expenses that are not captured by veterinary and other
pet care services were also estimated (Table 6). Those expenses are categorized into
food, treats, and toys. Since expenditures for consumables (food, treats, and toys) were
not reported by CBP data, the surplus Travis County expenditures for these items were
estimated using the annual breakdown of pet related expenditures obtained from the
American Pet Products Association Study (Appendix J). On average, annual
expenditures for food, treats, and toys are 34% of total pet related expenditures,
whereas the remaining 66% are within the previously estimated veterinary and other pet
care expenses (Table 6). Note that the initial point for this estimation is the $49.3 million
as discussed in Table 5 above, which was already scaled down to only represent
40
Resolution-related expenditures in Travis County. Using the ratio of each expense
group to each other, $25.3 million in food, toy, and treat related surplus spending was
estimated in Travis County when compared to the rest of Texas. It was estimated that
per capita pet related expenditures have been growing faster than the rest of the Texas
since 2010.
Average Annual Spent Per Animal
Veterinary and Other Pet Care
Expenses
Food and Toys Related
Expenses
Veterinary
and Pet
Care - % of
Pet-Related
Total Spend
Pet-Related
Retail - % of
Total Pet-
Related
Spend
Pets
Vet
Care
Grooming
Boarding/
Pet-sitting
Food
Treats
Toys
Cats
$193
$20
$337
$203
$36
$23
68%
32%
Dogs
$239
$61
$327
$231
$65
$41
65%
35%
Total
$432
$81
$664
$434
$101
$64
66%
34%
Estimated Resolution 20091105-040 Related Expenditures, Travis
County 2010-2016
$49,300,160
$25,333,237
Table 6. The veterinary services, pet care services, and pet-related retail spending in
Travis County attributable to Resolution 20091105-040 from 2010-2016.
City of Austin Brand Equity
Beyond the direct economic impacts of the shelter operations and the more
indirect impacts on the city budget, the Resolution may have also indirectly impacted
the city of Austin’s brand equity. City branding is emerging as an internationally
recognized research domain that is characterized by a high degree of interdisciplinary
collaboration and an evolving theoretical foundation.”
98
The importance of city branding
in the context of City of Austin’s Resolution 20091105-040 is emphasized by the fact
that “almost 64% of college-educated 25- to 34-year-olds said they looked for a job only
after they’d chosen the city where they wanted to live.
99
The Humane City signals
social awareness to a key labor demographic (the young, mobile, highly-educated, and
innovative professional) and could serve as a catalyst for economic and public health
improvements. Google Tower, located at 500 West 2nd Street in downtown Austin, is an
example of how a Humane City may contribute to the overall brand equity of a city and
therefore its ability to attract the millennial workforce
100
. When interviewed on the
decision to build in Austin, a Google representative was quoted as saying, the city was
attractive to company executives because it is attractive to a young, vibrant, pet-loving
workforce." In other words, creating a pet friendly environment can affect a city’s ability
to attract new residents.
98
Lucarelli, Andrea, and Per Olof Berg. "City branding: a state-of-the-art review of the research domain." Journal of
place management and development 4.1 (2011): 9-27.
99
https://hbr.org/2010/05/back-to-the-city
100
http://www.512tech.com/technology/google-new-downtown-tower-home-reaches-full-
height/Bn3D2bznoskEVKh2hpAuaL/
41
This observation is further supported by the data obtained by Google trends
service
101
. The following three search terms on Google were analyzed over the last five
years in the U.S.: “moving companies”, “pet friendly” and “apartments for rent(Figure
18)
102
. The seasonal characteristics of the search frequencies for all three series highly
correlate (Table 7), which indicate the importance of pet friendly environment for moving
decisions of residents, and therefore, its relevance to a city’s long-term ability to be
economically successful.
Figure 18. Google trends for ‘Moving Companies’, ‘Pet Friendly’, and ‘Apartments for
Rent’ from 2012-2017
Search Term
Correlation Matrix
Moving
companies:
Pet friendly:
Apartments for
rent:
Moving companies:
100%
Pet friendly:
77%
100%
Apartments for rent:
72%
77%
100%
Table 7. Google Search Term Trends Correlation matrix
Since 2010, Travis County’s population has increased by 17.1%
103
. This may be
indicative, at least in some form, of the brand equity afforded the city as a result of
Resolution 20091105-040 and other policies in Austin that contribute to it as a Humane
City. These Google trends analyses on new resident priorities are supported through
Austin’s higher than average rate of available pet-friendly rental housing. On average,
101
https://trends.google.com/trends/
102
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-
y&geo=US&q=apartments%20for%20rent,pet%20friendly,moving%20companies
103
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/traviscountytexas,austincitytexas/PST045216
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
8/5/2012 8/5/2013 8/5/2014 8/5/2015 8/5/2016
# of Times
Date
Google Trends Analytics For Search Terms: (i) Moving
Companies, (ii) Pet Friendly, (iii) Apartments for Rent
Moving companies: (United States) Pet friendly: (United States)
Apartments for rent: (United States)
42
46% of available Austin rentals report being pet-friendly. This is higher than two of four
other major U.S. cities (Nashville, TN; Raleigh, NC) that were analyzed for trends in pet-
friendly rental properties (Figure 19). This is relevant insofar as it underscores the point
that a Humane City will adopt an integrated system of policies all working towards
similar humane outcomes. While the Resolution can be attributed for a percentage of
the new residents in Austin, the support of pet-friendly initiatives through other
institutions such as housing, enables the residents to enact humane attitudes in a
variety of contexts, thereby fortifying the social impacts of Austin’s city branding.
Figure 19. Percentage of available rental properties that are pet-friendly
104
. Data
provided in Appendix K.
The economic impact of Resolution 20091105-040 on Austin’s city branding was
estimated by first comparing the population in Travis County to the total MSA level
population in the state of Texas for 2005-2016. The Travis County population growth
during 2010-2016 was then detrended using the Texas MSA population as a control
variable
105
, resulting in an estimate that the Travis County population outgrew the rest of
the Texas MSAs by 195,386 people (“surplus” population). Using the Census-reported
median income of $61,451
106
, and multiplying with the estimated surplus population
since 2010, the total income generated by the surplus population was estimated to be
approximately $12 billion, $4.9 billion of which was spent in the local economy
107
. As
noted in the Census conducted Current Population Survey
108
, people move due to
family-related, housing-related, job-related and other reasons. There is no reason to
believe that the surplus population in Travis County can be attributed to family reasons
104
Zillow and Trulia, April 2017-May 2017
105
By comparing growth of population in pre-2010 to post-2010 segments.
106
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045125/48453
107
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/03/household-expenditures-and-income
108
U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
46%
51% 52%
41% 39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% of Pet-Friendly Rentals
City
Pet Friendly Rental Properties
Austin, TX
Portland, OR
Denver, CO
Nashville, TN
Raleigh, NC
43
(when compared to the rest of Texas), since those movers would be equally reflected in
the control variable, the Texas MSA population
109
. Additionally, housing price indices
indicate that Travis County has consistently been more expensive than the rest of
Texas
110
. In other words, the surplus population cannot be attributed to housing reasons
as well. Controlling for those two factors, uncategorized other reasons, which is inferred
to include the implementation of the Resolution, accounted for 9.8% of all mover related
reasons.
Finally, a survey of Austin residents conducted as part of this study found that
15% of the 750 respondents
111
reported that a city’s pet friendliness would affect their
decision about moving to that city or not. In other words, it is estimated that 15% of the
9.8% (“other uncategorized reason” movers) of Travis county population surplus can be
attributable to the Resolution, yielding $72.3 million local economic impact attributable
to the implementation of Resolution 20091105-040. (Appendix L, Appendix M).
Potential Additional Impacts
While not included as part of the total economic impact calculated in this report,
several potential public health and social impacts are considered here. These effects
are additional benefits potentially accrued by Austin as result of Resolution 20091105-
040 and by other Humane Cities.
Public Health
The Resolution legislated significant operational changes at the municipal shelter
with the intent of improving animal welfare outcomes for Austin’s unhoused companion
animals. However, by supporting improvements to animal welfare, Humane Cities may
also experience improvements in human welfare and public health. Increasing the LRR
of a city shelter requires both increased rates of adoption and/or transfer partnerships.
In particular, increases in the rate of adoption can be connected to increased rates of
pet-keeping in the community and increases in transfers can result in increased
numbers of animal available for adoption in other communities that are seeking to
increase pet-keeping rates.
Across communities, companion animals have been correlated with changes to
individuals and families’ holistic wellness, including their physical, mental, and social
health
112
,
113
,
114
. Several studies have identified pet-keeping as a protective mechanism
109
Otherwise, we would impose that Travis County have higher parenthood / family ties than the rest of Texas
110
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS48453A and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXSTHPI
111
Originally 17.2% responded, adjusted down to 15% in order to control for the selection bias, by comparing the pet
ownership rates in the survey to average pet ownership rate in Austin area.
112
Hodgson, K., Barton, L., Darling, M., Antao, V., Kim, F. A., & Monavvari, A. (2015). Pets’ impact on your patients’
health: Leveraging benefits and mitigating risk. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 28(4), 526-
534
113
Wzu, Y., Luben, R., Jones, A. (2017). Dog ownership supports the maintenance of physical activity during poor
weather in older English adults: cross-sectional results from the EPIC Norfolk cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and
Community Health. DOI: 10.1136/jech-2017-208987
114
Connolly, J.J.; Svendsen, E.S.; Fisher, D.R.; Campbell, L.K. (2014). Networked governance and the management
of ecosystem services: The case of urban environmental stewardship in New York City. Ecosystem Services. 10:
187-194.
44
for cardiovascular health
115
,
116
. Pets may also serve as important sources of attachment
that can result in improved psychosocial outcomes for humans
117
,
118
. In this way,
emphasizing the value of companion animal lives may also result in benefits to the
human population.
Pets in homes may result in a variety of different cost-related benefits, including
health-related expenditure savings. A study in Australia indicates that pet-related health
benefits could translate to significant public health savings, with one estimate for
decreased annual health expenditures at $3.86 billion (7.2%), if pet-keepers visited a
doctor as often as non-pet-keepers
119
. At the time of this report these expenditures
could not be estimated for Austin using existing data. According to the Texas Veterinary
Medical Association, Austin has 365 veterinarians - the highest number of veterinarians
per capita in the state and not far behind the city’s estimated 400 to 450 pediatricians
120
.
This ratio of veterinarians to pediatricians may be an indicator of the increasing
relevance of pet-keeping in Austin. Further study is needed in this area to understand
how pet-keeping may influence human pet-keepers health decisions for themselves
and for their families.
Previous research indicated that there may be some negative implications for
expanded opportunities for pet-keeping which include those incidences primarily
managed through animal protection or animal control services. In 1986, dog bites were
identified as among the top 12 causes of non-fatal injury in the U.S.
121
, while another
study identified animal control issues as the most common complaint city officials
receive from their constituents
122
. A more recent study in 2002 estimated that there are
roughly 1.5 to 4.5 animal control complaints per 1,000 people in major U.S. cities
123
.
In this way, as a municipal facility, AAC has a duty to “protect” the public from
any risk that may occur as a result of increased pet-keeping in communities. Dog bite
data from Austin Animal Services indicate that although there has been an increase in
dog bites since the implementation of the Resolution in 2010, the upward trend in dog
bites began in Austin as early as 2003 (Appendix N)
124
. A t-test analysis of severe dog
bites shows that severe dog bites from 2005 to 2009 (M=39, SD=16) did not vary
significantly from severe dog bites from 2010 to 2015 (M=70, SD=72) (P=0.349). The
same analysis on moderate dog bites found that moderate dog bites from 2005 to 2009
(M=218, SD=52) did not vary significantly from moderate dog bites from 2010 to 2015
(M=464, SD=340) (P=0.138). It is important to note that the 2012 year of reporting may
115
Arhant-Sudhir, K., Arhant-Sudhir, R. Sudhir, K. (2011). Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk reduction: supporting
evidence, conflicting data and underlying mechanisms. Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, 38.
734-738.
116
Levine, G., Allen, K., Braun, L., Christian, H., Friedmann, E., Taubert, K., Thomas, S., Wells, D., & Lange, R.
(2013). Pet ownership and cardiovascular risk: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. 127,
23532363.
117
Kurdek, L.A. (2009). Pet dogs as attachment figures for adult owners. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 439446.
118
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Layton, J. B. (2010). Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review.
PLoS Medicine 7(7): e1000316.
119
Heady, B., Grabka, M., Kelley, J., Reddy, P., & Tseng, Y. (2002). Pet ownership is good for your health and saves
public expenditure too: Australian and German longitudinal evidence. Australian Social Monitor, 5(4), 93-99.
120
http://www.statesman.com/lifestyles/pets/welcome-dogtown-aka-austin-texas/GXzyLzZSKTCvnBV40lICwL/
121
Sosin, D.M., Sacks, J.J., Sattin, R.W. (1986). Causes of nonfatal injuries in the United States. Accident Analysis
and Prevention 24, 658-957.
122
Bancroft, R.L. (1974). America’s mayors and councilmen: their problems and frustrations. Nation’s Cities 12. 14-22.
123
Clifton, M. (2002). Animal control is people control. Animal People 11 (5).
124
http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Animal_Services/Response_8_14.pdf
45
be considered an outlier for all categories of dog bites (moderate bites = 1,147, severe
bites = 211) and may have skewed the mean and standard deviations. When excluding
the data reported in 2012 for the t-test analysis, severe dog bites from 2005 to 2009
(M=39, SD=16) still did not vary significantly from severe dog bites from 2010 to 2015
(excluding 2012) (M=42, SD=22) (P=0.833). However, moderate dog bites from 2005 to
2009 (M=218, SD=52) did vary significantly from moderate dog bites from 2010 to 2015
(excluding 2012) (M=327, SD=64) (P=0.019). These data indicate that the Resolution
may have coincided with an increased reporting and/or incidence of dog bites, however
the upward trend also coincides with an increase in human population within Travis
County as well as with an increase in total number of animals in Austin and therefore
the increased trend in dog bites cannot be attributed exclusively to the Resolution.
The City of Austin manages the reporting of animal welfare concerns like cruelty
and neglect citations utilizing a web-based platform in which real-time updates can be
recorded and viewed by community members. One such example of this is the
“Dangerous Dog” map where community members can view the locations of any dogs
who have received citations but are able to remain in their homes under a set of
restrictions, including a special identification tag that must remain visible
125
. The
presence of publicly available data on animal welfare concerns is one example of how a
city can enhance community education and safety by remaining transparent on both the
positive and negative state of the city’s animal welfare.
Social Capital
Resolution 20091105-040 represents a significant social effort to prioritize animal
welfare within Austin’s city governance. According to social science research, the driver
behind this effort is most likely rooted in the perception that the change could then result
in improvements in human individual’s personal welfare or utility
126
. This is important to
note insofar as, at present, economic arguments and political agendas do not appear to
serve as sufficient incentive for valuing the lives of companion animals
127
. In this way,
there are factors beyond the economic and operational components of the Resolution
that have motivated the citizens of Austin to move towards a Humane City and that
inform the more indirect impacts of the legislation in Austin.
The overall increase in pet-keeping that may have resulted from the Resolution
may serve as a mechanism for shifting Austin to a more humane and compassionate
city. Studies indicate that pet-keeping is positively associated with some forms of social
contact and interaction (civic engagement) and with perceptions of neighborhood
friendliness. For example, pets can inform the exchange of favors that can be symbolic
of trust
128
. Therefore, pet-keeping may be emerging in Austin as an important driver of
pro-social behavior and other mechanisms of social capital.
125
https://data.austintexas.gov/Public-Safety/Statesman-Dangerous-Dog-Map/w2sb-hd72
126
Paavola, J., Adger, W.N. (2005). Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics. 53. 353-368.
127
Farber, S. (1991). Local and global incentives for sustainability: failures in economic systems. In Ecological
Economics: the science and management of sustainability, ed. R. Costanza, 344-354. Columbia University Press,
New York.
128
Wood, L. (2000). Social capital, physical environments, and health: study funded by Healthway starter grant.
Perth: The University of Western Australia.
46
Furthermore, social capital is associated with increases in reciprocity-based
networks
129
that can be an increasing driver of an individual or family’s ability to care for
their pets. In this way, policies that build upon and result in an increase in social capital
and these reciprocity-based networks can assist in building measures of coping and
resilience that may be important to decreasing negative human and animal welfare
outcomes
130
.
An important factor for whether or not communities can utilize social capital as a
mechanism for caring for their animals is the degree to which the formal institutions of
the city support means of connection
131
. By connecting community members together,
either by necessity to achieve operational effectiveness at the shelter or informally
through the increased social connectivity that results from an increased number of
companion animals in a community, “humane” oriented policies like Resolution
20091105-040 can contribute to the social and civil health of the city as a whole.
Community Engagement
The degree to which animal welfare is protected in a city goes beyond shelter
management and is increasingly informed by larger community measures of
compassionate engagement and responsible pet-keeping. The effectiveness of humane
policies such as “No Kill” animal sheltering may be evaluated based on its impacts on
animal welfare outcomes outside those specifically addressed through shelter
operations. Animal cruelty citations are one such indicator of whether Resolution
20091105-040’s emphasis on shelter operations had any peripheral impacts on Austin’s
or Travis County’s greater animal welfare. Data obtained by public information
requests
132
indicate that reporting of animal cruelty went up immediately following the
implementation of the Resolution in 2010, but have since decreased since 2012 (Figure
20). This increase is mostly likely due to an overall increase in reporting that may have
resulted from increased awareness of animal welfare-related concerns and/or increased
effectiveness of animal protection officers’ field services, including the efficiency of
Animal Services’ reporting processes. The decrease following 2012 could indicate that
the community engagement was high with the topics of animal welfare brought to
attention by the Resolution and then may have resulted in changes to negative
behaviors that previously resulted in animal cruelty offenses. It is important to note that
one finding of the 2015 City of Austin audit discussed previously was that animal
protection officer response time had decreased. No conclusions can be drawn based on
the available data regarding how this initial increase followed by decrease in cruelty
citations may have been informed by animal protection officer response time. More data
are needed in this area to draw firm conclusions on how the Resolution has impacted
the more negative animal welfare outcomes like incidence of cruelty citations.
129
Paavola, J., Adger, W.N. (2005). Institutional ecological economics. Ecological Economics. 53. 353-368.
130
Ibid.
131
Woolcock, M. & Narayan, D. (2000) Social capital: implications for developmental theory, research and policy.
World Bank Reserve Obs. 15, p. 234.
132
Public Information Request - Austin Police Department
47
Figure 20. Annual numbers of City of Austin Cruelty to Animal Cases from 2010 to
2016. Data provided in Appendix O.
While animal cruelty offenses may serve as an indicator of community
awareness of the issue of the humane treatment of animals, community engagement is
another measure of the impact of the Resolution on the greater city of Austin and Travis
County. Donations to animal welfare organizations are one strong indicator of
community support for humane policies. A study as early as 1992 indicated that 10-15
million Americans had a membership of some form with an animal welfare group, with
20% of Americans reporting that they contributed money to an animal welfare
organization
133
. APA, as a private, non-profit organization, runs most of its operations
from community donations. In this way, many of the positive outcomes that have
resulted from the partnership between AAC and APA are optimized through community
engagement by way of donations. APA reported having collected a total of $16.5 million
in donations since 2010 (Figure 21) with about 50% of all monetary donations coming
from individual contributions
134
(Appendix P).
133
Jasper, J.M., & Nelkin, D. (1992. The Animal Rights Crusade: the growth of moral protest. The Free Press, New
York.
134
Ibid.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Offenses
Year
Cruelty to Animal Offenses in Austin
48
Figure 21. APA year to year donation growth
135
. Individual donation data provided in
Appendix P.
Social engagement is another indicator of the Austin community’s support of
humane initiatives. For example, Ride Austin, the local ride-hailing service similar to
Uber and Lyft, offers riders the option to donate to a chosen local charity campaign. As
of July 2017, APA has raised $38,930.58 - the most of any non-profit participating in
Ride Austin fundraising
136
. Amplify Austin Day is the city's annual community-wide day
of online giving to local nonprofits. In 2017, Amplify Austin Day raised $9.8 million for
nearly 700 Central Texas nonprofits
137
, with APA receiving a $1,000 match for having
the most donors in one hour and the $5,000 grand prize for most individual fundraisers.
In total, APA received 1,893 donations on Amplify Austin Day, the most across all
categories of participants, and was 12th in total dollars raised at $135,851.26
138
.
Foster and volunteer data also indicate that the Austin community supports APA
and AAC year-round, not just on special days and in emergencies. As previously
discussed in this report, there are over 2,900 approved foster homes between the two
organizations, representing one of the most extensive foster networks in the country. In
addition to foster homes, the most recent volunteer data indicates that APA had 2,629
volunteers who contributed 114,955 hours in 2016
139
while AAC volunteers donated
49,000 hours
140
.
135
APA Abila donor database
136
Diamante, R. (2017, Jun 07). Ride-hailing companies react to Uber and Lyft’s return. Spectrum News. Retrieved
from: http://www.twcnews.com/tx/austin/news/2017/06/7/ride-hailing-companies-react-to-uber--lyft-s-return.html
137
https://amplifyatx.ilivehereigivehere.org/content/whatsAmplify
138
APA Amplify Austin donation data
139
APA Volunteer Tracking
140
https://www.givepulse.com/event/3495-Volunteer-opportunities-at-Austin-Animal-Center
$-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Total Donations
Year
APA Donations
49
Limitations and Implications
This report represents the first attempt to comprehensively document the impacts
of Resolution 20091105-040 on the social, economic, and health-related areas of the
city of Austin, greater Travis County, and surrounding communities. Assessing data
across such a variety of industries and sources required a high-level of attention to
detail and nuance. Central to the conclusions presented in this report is the assumption
that the data provided by the various agencies was done so in a complete and truthful
manner.
Overall, limitations in the data were addressed by using the most conservative
sources and findings available, and by using standard economic analyses and models
to account for microeconomic and macroeconomic trends. In instances where data was
not available to support or refute a conclusion, that information as indicated. The
absence of publicly-available or otherwise accessible data was the primary limitation
encountered throughout this study.
Data obtained from APA and AAC may be limited insofar as there have been
changes to both databases and individuals collecting the data throughout the study
period from 2005 to 2016 that impacted the categories of data the research team was
able to collect. For example, length of stay is a metric that is not available within AAC’s
database and therefore it was not feasible for the organization to report on this
consideration for the shelter’s outcome data. In particular, the “other” outcome category
varies between the two organizations (transfer is included in “other” for APA while it is
its own category for AAC). Efforts were made to standardize the inclusion definition for
each field included in this report.
Speak Up Austin and the Young Chamber of Commerce supported the research
team by distributing the survey on Austin pet-keeping to their constituents. Data
collected within the survey of Austin residents are subject to response bias. However,
participants who took the survey did so of their own volition, and were not incentivized in
any manner by the research team.
Conclusion
This study represents the most comprehensive analysis conducted to date of the
impacts of the City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040. The study utilized standard
microeconomic and macroeconomic analyses, along with emerging impact assessment
methodologies, to produce conservative estimations of both the costs and economic
benefits of implementing the Resolution. Ultimately, the feasibility of implementing the
Resolution is a community’s financial and ethical decision on how much cost per animal
can be supported as well as how welfare will be defined within sheltering. However,
many of the findings are generalizable to other municipalities in the U.S. For example,
the increased shelter staffing required to implement the legislation and the veterinary
and pet-related retail services required to support any increased number of adopted
dogs and cats in the community would have similar direct and indirect economic
impacts across any local economy.
The study found that a high LRR is achievable at a municipal level. However, in
Austin it has required extensive additions to animal sheltering resources (as measured
50
by both the increase in the city budget for the municipal shelter and the average cost
per animal served by the shelter compared to that in several other U.S. cities) paired
with broad and active community support (as measured by the number of supportive
donors, volunteers, foster homes, and non-profit transfer partner organizations). In
addition, the ethics of the extended lengths of stay experienced by some of the animals,
whether in shelters or foster care, remains an issue that requires further study and
discussion by the animal welfare profession.
The costs associated with implementing the Resolution appear to have been
more than offset by a series of economic benefits to the community. The majority of the
positive economic impacts result from increased employment within animal services as
well as the increased use of pet care and pet retail services. An additional benefit
appears to be the positive contribution of Austin’s progressive animal welfare policies to
its brand equity. This impact is important as municipalities compete with each other to
attract employee demographics that in turn draw new business and new economic
growth to their area. Although not included in the final economic impact calculation, the
potential impacts of progressive animal welfare policies on larger social and
environmental outcomes, including public health, social capital, and community
engagement, have important implications for Austin’s ability to promote and sustain the
health and well-being of both its human and animal residents.
The implementation of Resolution 20091105-040 demonstrates that components
of creating a Humane City can be legislated. Like other public policy making, legislating
animal welfare policies should include extensive community input and planning to be
successful over the long term. In the case of implementing humane policies within
shelter operations, a balance point between the financial costs and benefits identified in
this study must be integrated into the ethical considerations associated with how
companion animal quality of life is defined. Appropriate infrastructure should be
developed alongside existing community resources to ensure an effective and
sustainable model is established to implement the policy change. Above all, a
community’s companion animal lifesaving goals, and its commitment to deploying the
resources required to achieve them, must come from an open, honest, and ongoing
conversation around benefits and tradeoffs. As more communities commit to
substantially improving their animal shelter outcomes, best practices can be established
across systems to avoid implementation pitfalls, optimize resources, and maximize
impacts on both the animals and the community at large. We hope that this study
contributes to the honest dialog and open debate necessary to identify the best
practices for improving animal welfare within the context of creating Humane Cities.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Austin Animal Center and Austin Pets Alive! for providing access to
their data, and to Speak Up Austin and Young Chamber of Commerce for distributing
the survey for additional data collection on Austin residents. This study was funded in
full by WaterShed Animal Fund.
51
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: Pet Ownership Estimates by State (AVMA
141
)
Percentage of households that owned pets and number of pet-owning households
Rank
Region
Number of
Households (in
1,000)
Percentage of
Owners
Number of
Pet
Households
United States
118,682
56%
66,449
1
Vermont
265
71%
188
2
New Mexico
773
68%
523
3
South Dakota
333
66%
219
4
Oregon
1,505
64%
957
5
Maine
548
63%
345
6
Washington
2,632
63%
1,649
7
Arkansas
1,148
62%
716
8
West Virginia
765
62%
475
9
Wyoming
221
62%
137
10
Idaho
568
62%
352
11
Kentucky
1,777
62%
1,094
12
Missouri
2,498
61%
1,534
13
Colorado
1,986
61%
1,217
14
Montana
410
61%
251
15
Kansas
1,133
61%
691
16
Indiana
2,478
60%
1,484
17
Tennessee
2,583
60%
1,540
18
Arizona
2,515
60%
1,497
19
Alabama
1,828
60%
1,088
20
Oklahoma
1,479
59%
872
21
Texas
9,002
58%
5,265
141
https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-pet-ownership.aspx
52
22
Wisconsin
2,350
58%
1,352
23
Ohio
4,661
57%
2,677
24
New Hampshire
508
57%
289
25
Pennsylvania
5,172
57%
2,942
26
Delaware
334
57%
189
27
North Carolina
3,701
56%
2,089
28
Mississippi
1,115
56%
629
29
Nevada
986
56%
548
30
Michigan
3,804
55%
2,108
31
Georgia
3,798
55%
2,093
32
Louisiana
1,702
55%
937
33
Connecticut
1,337
54%
728
34
Florida
7,609
54%
4,138
35
South Carolina
1,759
54%
951
36
North Dakota
272
54%
147
37
Iowa
1,219
54%
654
38
Virginia
3,017
53%
1,611
39
Rhode Island
434
53%
230
40
Minnesota
2,163
53%
1,146
41
California
12,974
53%
6,865
42
Maryland
2,169
52%
1,134
43
Illinois
5,026
52%
2,602
44
Nebraska
710
51%
364
45
Utah
930
51%
476
46
New Jersey
3,177
51%
1,611
47
New York
7,512
51%
3,802
48
Massachusetts
2,618
50%
1,318
49
D.C.
287
22%
63
53
Appendix B: Pet Ownership Estimates by MSA (American
Housing Survey)
2013 American Housing Survey, Selected MSA Level (Units in thousands)
Rank
Geography
Total
Occupied
Units
Total Occupied
Units- Pets
present
% Occupied
Units with
Pets
1
Tucson, AZ AHS Area
372.8
218.3
59%
2
Oklahoma City, OK AHS Area
488
275.3
56%
3
Austin-Round Rock, TX AHS Area
669.6
367.4
55%
4
San Antonio, TX AHS Area
777.6
420.7
54%
5
Louisville, KY-IN AHS Area
517.2
279
54%
6
Nashville-Davidson-Murfreesboro, TN
AHS Area
622.1
334.9
54%
7
Rochester, NY AHS Area
414.4
210.8
51%
8
Seattle-Tacoma-Everett, WA AHS
Area
1375.9
690.1
50%
9
Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL AHS Area
1085.5
532.7
49%
10
Orlando, FL AHS Area
813.2
391.8
48%
11
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI AHS
Area
1301.7
617.1
47%
12
Richmond, VA AHS Area
487.5
230.6
47%
13
Houston, TX AHS Area
2152.4
994.4
46%
14
Hartford, CT AHS Area
426.5
193
45%
15
Philadelphia, PA-NJ AHS Area
1965.7
880.4
45%
16
Baltimore, MD AHS Area
1018.1
453
44%
17
Jacksonville, FL AHS Area
510.4
223.9
44%
18
Detroit, MI AHS Area
1722.4
755.3
44%
19
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV AHS Area
692.9
302.4
44%
20
Miami-Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood, FL
AHS Area
1978.8
772.5
39%
21
Washington-Arlington, DC-VA-MD-WV
AHS Area
2114
790.8
37%
22
Chicago, IL AHS Area
2901
1074.2
37%
23
Northern New Jersey, NJ AHS Area
2284.7
845
37%
24
Boston, MA AHS Area
1139.3
402.5
35%
25
New York, NY AHS Area
4304.8
1062.8
25%
MSA total
32,136.5
13,318.9
41%
USA (including non-MSA areas)142
115,852
56,097
48%
142
Calculated using the non-MSA version of the American Housing Survey 2013 survey
54
Appendix C: Austin Animal Center Intake
Year
Owner
Surrender:
Cats
Owner
Surrender:
Dogs
Stray:
Cats
Stray:
Dogs
Total
Intake:
Cats
Total
Intake:
Dogs
2005
2967
3355
6299
8979
9678
13423
2006
3194
3385
4488
8799
8125
13367
2007
3830
3646
5369
9013
9902
13842
2008
3279
3229
4987
8020
8790
12461
2009
2540
3295
3975
7815
6992
12300
2010
3122
3418
5494
7816
9187
12382
2011
2504
2698
3723
6779
6590
10661
2012
2210
2733
5228
7466
7614
11166
2013
1965
2369
5667
7430
7806
10852
2014
1305
2016
5297
7601
6835
10613
2015
1208
2000
5980
7447
7331
10430
2016
1448
1892
5155
7299
6793
10065
55
Appendix D: Travis County Dead Animal Pick Up
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Cats
178
569
531
705
672
711
678
757
405
625
659
589
489
Dogs
93
326
309
349
311
487
361
307
205
270
277
230
182
Total
271
895
840
1054
983
1198
1039
1064
610
895
936
819
671
56
Appendix E: PASS Intake @ Austin Pets Alive!
Year
Dogs
Cats
2008
66
3
2009
30
64
2010
113
28
2011
169
282
2012
95
67
2013
453
195
2014
563
391
2015
467
333
2016
734
740
57
Appendix F: AAC and APA Outcome Data
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Cat Outcomes
AAC
Adopted
1807
1679
1883
2100
2096
2833
3067
2827
3146
2658
4532
3120
Return To Owner
212
172
253
299
335
496
384
307
337
315
337
304
Non APA Transfer
536
818
957
931
791
771
950
667
1733
1447
1407
1309
Euthanized
7009
5385
6692
5341
2805
3117
956
593
620
419
495
256
Other
115
64
98
91
97
205
104
101
81
80
104
127
AAC Total
9679
8118
9883
8762
6124
7422
5461
4495
5917
4919
6875
5116
APA
Adopted
0
0
0
23
701
1471
2097
2989
2539
3090
3539
3450
Return to Owner
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
0
0
6
0
0
Euthanized
0
0
0
0
6
22
22
21
23
28
40
64
Other
0
0
0
0
69
133
207
799
168
190
204
215
APA Total
0
0
0
23
777
1629
2326
3809
2898
3314
3783
3729
Dog Outcomes
AAC
Adopted
2535
2444
2442
2322
2792
3381
4398
4718
4275
4532
4554
4669
Return To Owner
2658
2765
2928
2895
2929
2968
2797
2691
2999
2923
3018
3084
Non APA Transfer
1542
1821
2026
1873
1899
1761
1129
1175
1257
1086
1093
881
Euthanized
6585
6186
6343
4587
3342
2862
1034
777
767
632
541
194
Other
137
147
107
106
137
104
70
31
41
34
43
41
AAC Total
13457
13363
13846
11783
11099
11076
9428
9392
9339
9207
9249
8869
APA
Adopted
0
0
0
697
1304
1610
2868
3483
3188
3591
3450
3531
Return to Owner
0
0
0
0
0
5
7
4
22
18
9
10
Euthanized
0
0
0
2
14
12
28
20
36
40
48
89
Other
0
0
0
0
59
61
123
156
117
140
153
139
APA Total
0
0
0
699
1377
1688
3026
3663
3363
3789
3660
3769
58
Appendix G: APA Length of Stay Data for a random sample
of 145 dogs in APA’s care in 2016
Total LOS
Ave. Days Available for Adoption
Ave. Days Not Available for Adoption
0-60 days
20
36
60-120 days
91
1
120-180 days
150
31
180-240 days
208
7
240-300 days
264
9
300-360 days
306
58
>360 days
534
75
59
Appendix H: AAC Budget
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
A
AAC
Budget
$5,368,265
$5,959,503
$6,975,362
$7,813,733
$8,522,794
$9,021,282
$10,729,203
$12,061,551
City of
Austin
Budget
143
$2.63B
$2.75B
$2.8B
$2.8B
$3.1B
$3.3B
$3.5B
$3.5B
A
AC
budget
as % of
City
Budget
0.204%
0.217%
0.249%
0.279%
0.275%
0.273%
0.307%
0.345%
143
https://austintexas.gov/financeonline/finance/financial_docs.cfm?ws=1&pg=1
60
Appendix I: IMPLAN Data
2010
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$835,629.75
$835,629.75
$1,391,411.62
Indirect Effect
$32,912.61
$59,250.78
$112,911.90
Induced Effect
$200,971.89
$365,547.32
$611,825.89
TOTAL
$1,069,514.68
$1,260,428.00
$2,116,149.19
2011
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$1,180,098.60
$1,180,098.60
$1,904,480.12
Indirect Effect
$270,417.46
$481,162.96
$866,168.40
Induced Effect
$292,839.62
$516,312.22
$871,498.42
TOTAL
$1,743,355.69
$2,177,573.14
$3,642,147.04
2012
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$1,984,692.95
$1,984,692.95
$2,572,250.59
Indirect Effect
$218,320.18
$386,598.77
$708,475.24
Induced Effect
$424,597.17
$744,743.74
$1,261,020.62
TOTAL
$2,627,610.29
$3,116,035.46
$4,541,746.46
2013
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$2,330,031.36
$2,330,031.36
$3,099,788.97
Indirect Effect
$299,128.03
$567,300.85
$1,003,782.62
Induced Effect
$621,117.82
$1,064,692.37
$1,781,838.70
TOTAL
$3,250,277.21
$3,962,024.58
$5,885,410.29
2014
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$2,647,035.30
$2,647,035.30
$3,582,467.00
Indirect Effect
$382,765.97
$695,237.59
$1,224,643.88
Induced Effect
$697,722.49
$1,219,847.78
$2,034,480.57
TOTAL
$3,727,523.75
$4,562,120.67
$6,841,591.44
61
2015
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$3,326,707.05
$3,326,707.05
$4,394,010.92
Indirect Effect
$439,444.88
$759,870.85
$1,313,038.73
Induced Effect
$915,474.86
$1,568,252.86
$2,613,909.53
TOTAL
$4,681,626.80
$5,654,830.76
$8,320,959.18
2016
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$3,910,445.82
$3,910,445.82
$5,101,458.49
Indirect Effect
$486,605.78
$841,481.00
$1,454,177.79
Induced Effect
$1,062,931.29
$1,820,838.62
$3,034,924.65
Total
Labor Income
Value Added
Output
Direct Effect
$16,214,640.83
$16,214,640.83
$22,045,867.69
Indirect Effect
$2,129,594.90
$3,790,902.81
$6,683,198.55
Induced Effect
$4,215,655.14
$7,300,234.90
$12,209,498.38
TOTAL
$22,559,890.87
$27,305,778.54
$40,938,564.63
62
Appendix J: Lifetime Animal Spend (based on the National
Pet Products Association Study)
Average Lifespan in Years
Cats
15
Dogs
12.8
Annual Spend
Medical Care
Cats
$193
Dogs
$239
Licensing
Cats
$7
Dogs
$7
Food
Cats
$203
Dogs
$231
Treats
Cats
$36
Dogs
$65
Toys
Cats
$23
Dogs
$41
Grooming
Cats
$20
Dogs
$61
Boarding/Pet-sitting
Cats
$337
Dogs
$327
TOTAL
Cats
$819
Dogs
$971
Average lifetime spend per animal = (($819*15)+($971*12.8))/2 = $12,357
63
Appendix K: Pet-friendly Rental Housing Comparison
Austin
Portland
Denver
Nashville
Raleigh
Trulia
Zillow
Trulia
Zillow
Trulia
Zillow
Trulia
Zillow
Trulia
Zillow
4/7/17
Total # of Rentals
2682
2096
1483
1109
2740
1686
865
956
892
756
Pet friendly
1201
1021
749
594
1347
893
349
399
351
310
% pet friendly
45%
49%
51%
54%
49%
53%
40%
42%
39%
41%
4/14/17
Total # of Rentals
2722
2134
1462
1096
2711
1683
863
950
899
768
Pet friendly
1204
1031
735
571
1327
891
337
387
340
300
% pet friendly
44%
48%
50%
52%
49%
53%
39%
41%
38%
39%
4/24/17
Total # of Rentals
2750
2138
1461
1089
2703
1683
859
917
873
740
Pet friendly
1185
1009
734
569
1353
898
342
381
343
302
% pet friendly
43%
47%
50%
52%
50%
53%
40%
42%
39%
41%
5/3/17
Total # of Rentals
2823
2198
1457
1069
2703
1655
854
933
868
744
Pet friendly
1217
1040
713
534
1371
905
350
406
329
296
% pet friendly
43%
47%
49%
50%
51%
55%
41%
44%
38%
40%
5/10/17
Total # of Rentals
3062
2350
1484
1082
2721
1678
911
1000
852
736
Pet friendly
1175
1006
731
549
1383
929
381
446
326
294
% pet friendly
38%
43%
49%
51%
51%
55%
42%
45%
38%
40%
64
Appendix L: Reasons for Moving (Current Population Survey,
Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2010-2016)
Mobility Period
2010-2016 Total
2010-2016 %
Total Movers
249,662
100.0%
Family Related
Change in marital status
13,548
5.4%
To establish own household
26,556
10.6%
Other family reason
32,441
13.0%
Job Related
New job or job transfer
23,468
9.4%
To look for work or lost job
5,101
2.0%
Easier commute
14,181
5.7%
Retired
1,531
0.6%
Other job related reason
4,587
1.8%
Housing Related
Wanted own home, not rent
12,875
5.2%
Wanted new or better home/
apartment
39,819
15.9%
Wanted better neighborhood
/less crime
8,309
3.3%
Wanted cheaper housing
22,565
9.0%
Foreclosure/eviction
3,324
1.3%
Other housing reason
28,564
11.4%
Other Reasons
To attend or leave college
3,621
1.5%
Change of climate
700
0.3%
Health reasons
2,228
0.9%
Natural disaster
156
0.1%
Other uncategorized reasons
6,089
2.4%
Total non-family, non-housing related reason movers
61,662
24.7%
"Other uncategorized reasons" movers % of non-family
non-housing related movers
6,089
9.87%
65
Appendix M: Summary of Brand Equity Calculations
City Branding Related No-Kill Impact Estimation
Category
Statistic
Source
Total Surplus (compared
to all MSA, TX) In-
migrating Population in
Travis County, 2010-2016
195,386
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/chs/popdat/default.shtm
Median Income (2011-
2015) - Travis County
$61,451.00
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045125
/48453
Total Income by Surplus
In-migrating population
2010-2016
$12,006,643,463
Calculation
Local spending %
(housing + entertainment
+ food)
40.7%
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/issue-briefs/2016/03/household-
expenditures-and-income
Local Expenditure by
Surplus In-migrating
population 2010-2016
$4,883,823,723
Calculation
% of Movers due to
"Other" Reasons
(Excluding non-family
and non-housing)*
9.87%
https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-574.pdf
Adjusted No-Kill Related
Moving % (From our
survey results)
15.0%
Survey Results
Local Expenditure by
Surplus In-migrating
population due to No-Kill
Related Movers, 2010-
2016
$72,252,686
Calculation
*Family factor cannot explain why Travis county has more in-migration compared to rest of Texas MSA. Housing
prices went up faster in Travis County compared to rest of Texas.
(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS48453A and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TXSTHPI)
66
Appendix N: Austin Animal Services Bite Data
Year
Minor
Moderate
Severe
Unknown
Total
2000
610
218
47
34
909
2001
689
188
39
31
947
2002
607
167
49
35
858
2003
599
113
15
37
764
2004
583
138
22
33
776
2005
603
133
15
27
778
2006
687
207
52
49
995
2007
708
228
32
47
1015
2008
682
260
52
71
1065
2009
711
260
44
59
1074
2010
732
350
45
95
1222
2011
873
402
62
112
1449
2012
4602
1147
211
389
6349
2013
1010
363
46
141
1560
2014
1232
260
50
52
1594
2015
1273
259
5
111
1648
67
Appendix O: City of Austin Cruelty to Animals Cases
68
Appendix P: APA Donations
Year
Individual
Total
2009
$151,247
$322,053
2010
$212,787
$268,868
2011
$731,808
$981,706
2012
$1,220,313
$1,949,377
2013
$1,146,922
$3,062,190
2014
$1,344,337
$2,231,750
2015
$1,747,776
$3,802,294
2016